FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What Religion are You?






What religion are you?
Christian
27%
 27%  [ 13 ]
Muslim
12%
 12%  [ 6 ]
Jewish
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Hindu
12%
 12%  [ 6 ]
Buddhist
8%
 8%  [ 4 ]
Sikh
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Jain
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Confucionist
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Taoist
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Shintoist
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Rastafarian
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Pagan
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
Agnostic or atheist not belonging to any religion
31%
 31%  [ 15 ]
Theist or Deist not belonging to any religion
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 48

megastar
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]
RaMo
MUSLIM!!
death_dealer
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!
Vrythramax
Roman Catholic...but not in very good standing
swapnalokam
Iam HINDU and a pure dravidian as same as you mega star.. but not from andra... Iam from kerala...
r_y_e_20
Am a Christian!
Jumba
Protestant 4 life Very Happy
thpn
My Labels:

    CHRISTIAN---->CATHOLIC---->AMERICAN---->TIGER---->CRUSADER---->DAIGLE
totax
Im CHRISTIAN!
Soulfire
Christian, I belong to the Catholic Church.
Rhysige
Well if we go by what I put on the last Australian census..
I Am Jedi Smile
Revvion
dont have one
poet
lol jedi like that one. to me religion is spirituality, or in my view beleaving in ones self, does it have a name I am sure it does in many circles. Do i feel there is a higher spirit, of course I havent come across many in my life that dont. No i am not a preacher lol just a guy who thinks that putting a lable on religion is only away we as humans have to sperate each other. When in reality all is a basic beleave of a greater good.
philipbool
I'm an instituted Acolyte of the Catholic Church, and a worship leader with the Charismatic Baptist, Evangelical and Conservative Protestant Churches. If anyone needs a short answer I'm a Charismatic Christian.
tingkagol
i'm a baptized roman catholic. but honestly, i do not know what i am now. i'm not really that concerned into fitting myself into a clique or label- religious or not. All I care about is that i believe there is a supernatural entity. that is all there is to it. simple.
nerdmaster128
I'm Catholic by baptism and birth, however I disagree with a lot of tenets of the Catholic church, so I prefer to see myself as a Christian, in the more general sense.
songsalways
I am Hindu.

But the main concept behind religion is what u feel from inside and what you feel towards others.

Our main motto is "Live and Let Live".
varun_dodla
I'm a HINDU but I really don have any hard feelings for religion and caste. I respect ppl as individuals and except others to reciprocate in a similar way.
win66
I am Buddhism.
Tex_Arcana
It's a bit complex but here goes: I'm an eclectic, Irish-Celtic based Neopagan/Shaman Pantheist. Yeah, that's about as exact as it gets. For those that have english as a second language or even first) and not familiar with the word Pantheism which is where Pantheist comes from Merriam-Webster defines it thus:
Quote:
Main Entry: pan·the·ism
Pronunciation: 'pan(t)-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
Both of those definitions apply, though I don't be confused by the reference to the Roman Empire.

Geez, I think I have the longest reply concerning what my religion is even without the definition.
Subsonic Sound
I'm amazed that I'm the first person saying 'Atheist'.

Although as ever, absolute labels don't quite fit. I'd normally describe myself as an intensely cynical agnostic, or possibly a reasonable atheist.

I don't believe in god, as I have never been given the slightest reason to. But who knows what can happen in the future? Perhaps one day I'll come across a reason. I'll be intensely cynical of it, question every angle of it, and try to find other explanations. But just maybe I won't find any.

Until then, atheist.
todabeat
I was raised Catholic by my father, but my mother took me to Christian church a couple of times as a kid, but we are all YORUBA (Santeria). And i do love my religion.

We dont have a bible per se, and we are not told too much about heaven and hell, we believe more in something like re-encarnation.
UlrikeSE
I worship the divinity of me.

I'm enough of a universe of profound and trivial to fufill my faith. For when I sense or learn anything, it ultimately starts and ends within.

I spend every day seeking food, water, input, shelter, and security for me. How could any God do anything more then be a intermediate between me and myself?

He couldn't! If I did worship him, it would just so he could give me something I couldn't get...for ME. I can get everything I want or need, so his purpose is sadly moot.

I laugh and mock the God(s)(ess), for they will know me as me!
nam_siddharth
I am Buddhist. I belongs to Buddha's ethnic ie. Aryan. I am atheist like most buddhists.
maths
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU


I am a Christian and I am proud to be one.
evertone
it writes muslim but l can say l m a bad muslim....
haris3
100% Muslim.

You?
Juparis
Christian -> Protestant -> Lutheran ->WELS (soon to be LC-MS)

I don't much like the conservative Christians, but that's what I was born into. :sigh:
roxawannable
Christian...but was raised catholic...didn't agree with lots of things there...so now consider myself Christian
Arnor
Christian, protestant.
mantasx
I'm catholic CHRISTIAN. I know that people forced me into it though... I'm from Lithuania. (EUROPE)
mike1reynolds
dwcnps wrote:
I LOVE GOD!!!

I like this one. This is my religion too. I'm a Zen/Taoist/Druidic/Nagualist/Lamaist/Hindu/Christian/Jew.
Jaime
I don't have a religion, I believe in God... Cool Cool
Soulfire
Lots of people seem to be confused. Remember, Catholicism is part of Christianity. All Christianity is somehow derrived or traced back to the Catholic Church.

Christianity
^^^
Roman Catholic
^^^
Catholic (aka Orthodox) Same beliefs as Catholic Church, without Pope.
^^^
Protestant (some 300 different Churches)
Mamsaac
Roman Catholic
MrMoffo
Zen Buddhism
Pikokola
Moslem.. I'll keep it never changed, Moslem for enitre of my life. Moslem Very Happy I'm proud of it. The Real Pure Moslem
Mannix
Borderline christian(Jesus is my savior, but I disagree with almost all of the old testiment(and a fair amount of the new))
Edmonds
My religion is simple:

The Golden rule:

Do Onto others as you would have them do onto you

As for others, as long as you dont hurt anyone or impose your belifes on anyone...whatever you want to believe is fine by me.

Lets stop worrying about the specifics of our religions and just agree to disagree.
Shike
Personally I guess you could call me a Zen Druid (though I have only started on my spiritual path) My patroness is the Goddess Brighid, Goddess of Bardcraft, Smithcraft and Healing.
01000101
Athiest, but not anti-spirituality.

i dont belive in a thing called God, but i dont rule out a higher power.
i dont belive in fate, or faith, or prayer. I belive in science, and mathematics. I belive in the big-bang theory. They bible on the other hand, is a great peice of literature, and i do not deny its authenticity from its ancient day, but i do deny certain aspects of it. I belive in spirits, and i belive in the subconcious that guides us at times, even if we do not wish to be guided. Sometimes something feels right, but i do not think its because of a higher power calling you upon it, i think its a subconcious decision towards something with potential. I belive in the earth, and a chance for life outside of this earth, because if theres one, thers gotta be another with the same/similar habitual features. I believe soaly in inner peace, meditation, intraspection + retrospection to calm the mind and consume + learn from past and unthought about events. Great ideas are sprung from the people who take the time to look into themselves and find the logic in whatever they are looking for. Most people don't really find themselves, so they have someone (God) else do it for them, but really its just them focusing on something else, but with just as much passion. I belive what i can see, and i cannot see your God, but i presume you cannot see my spirits, but my spirits dont run everything around me.. science does.
Nikkori
I'm proud to be a CHRISTIAN! I'm from Roman Catholic Church, the first and original church founded by Jesus-Christ and Saint Peter as the first pope! I'm proud of it! Da Vinci Code?! No way!
Shiva
I consider myself as "None religiors"

I don't bind myself to a religion, I'm free to belive anything i ever want.
I'm smart enogth to make my own belives and views on my life and the world.. I don't need a religion to define what to belive and trust. Wink
larkin_z
I am a Roman Catholic. I believe in what the church says and actually, although having some doubts, I have faith on this religion.
Teishi
(I figure this is a good a place as any to start posting.)

People generally call me "atheist", which I don't think is really true. Do I believe we were created by some entity ("God")? No. I believe it's the other way 'round, which is probably why I'm labelled "atheist": we are the ones who've invented "God", by creating a non-corporeal entity (a concept if you will) and attributing to it different capabilities.

Now, do I think "God" is real? Yes. Anything that has the ability to affect anything else is, in some way, real. But I don't think "God" is all-powerful (obviously). "God" has power to the extent that we grant "it" power, and can affect us to the extent that we allow "it". However, "God" cannot act on it's own, but only through us.

I think there's a lot of good in religion though. Religion is a way of creating a framework for life, a way of arranging the information we recieve from the world around us. These frameworks are how we interact with, an essentially create, our world.

Everyone lives in the same world, but they view it differently. Asking how the world was "created" is to apply a human concept in a non-human world. We can ask how our world was created, and describe it in terms of sociology, psychology, physics, systems theory, economy. But these disciplines can only explain how their respective worlds was created.

The World (i.e. the all-encompassing, not just "our", world) is, and has always been, and lacks value and reason. But to say this is not to diminish the importance of value, reasons, meanings, it is just to point out that what is valid in one framework (or "reality tunnel" to use Timothy Leary's words) is not necessarily valid in another.

Long way of saying that I believe we all create our own reality, but that every individual reality is firmly, and by necessity, rooted in the World - a reality which we are incapable of observing "as-is".
systemofaxav
I'm atheist

I respect people who believe in god, but I hate all monotheist religions.
druidbloke
cant really pin it down to one but I am a pantheist as someone else said earlier, so I celebrate the forces of nature and read about various gods and godesses, it just fits best with the way I see the world, and I am open minded and respectful of anyone elses beliefs as long as they do likewise.
CMA
I'm an atheist. I only believe in myself.

Still, I respect people who have their own beliefs and usually avoid getting on the subject, because someone might take offense for some of my thoughts.

But if I'm allowed to state them, I think men invented superior being(s) (A.K.A. Gods) to try to find explanations to things they couldn't understand completely and to try to set some rules to what was acceptable or not in their society, claiming that the almighty creator(s) would punish those who ventured out of the "right path" and rewards those who stay in it and abide by his/her/their words.
idrather_not
I'm Catholic, not very good at it though, I love god and I couldn't live without him, but I think some people of my religion are misunderstanding him.
a_dubDesign
Nikkori wrote:
I'm proud to be a CHRISTIAN! I'm from Roman Catholic Church, the first and original church founded by Jesus-Christ and Saint Peter as the first pope! I'm proud of it! Da Vinci Code?! No way!

doesn't the Bible say something about being proud?
Soulfire
a_dubDesign wrote:
Nikkori wrote:
I'm proud to be a CHRISTIAN! I'm from Roman Catholic Church, the first and original church founded by Jesus-Christ and Saint Peter as the first pope! I'm proud of it! Da Vinci Code?! No way!

doesn't the Bible say something about being proud?

It's "excessive pride." Surely you must be proud of yourselves in things you do and things you accomplish. You must be proud of your faith in God. It's when you become too proud and put yourself before God, that's when the deadly sins start.
olusanya
i am what u call a "spiritual minimalist", rely on the principal of "less is more"; less distraction, less cynicism, less entertainment, less pleasure seeking for its own sake, less indiscriminate consumption of information and fantasy [with the exception of a good orson scott card or octavia butler book], and more inner silence, more concentration upon our own nature and being, more unmediated sharing of one another's simple human presence, more development of our innate human qualities of friendship, nurturing, awareness, sensitivity, humbleness, and awe of Absolute Being.
caesar2164
I am not really anything,

I am in a limbo between atheism and agnosticism (sp?)

speaking of religion though, I saw a really funny movie with Stephen Colbert "roasting" president bush...I thought it was funny!!
(here is the link to the movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879)

anyway, in that video colbert says:
"he is a supporter of all religions there are infinite ways of accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior" Very Happy

though that isnt true of all christians...it is for some...

Giulio
schumway
nature.

just amazing to feel the "force" from streams, trees, etc and I am not even a hippy LOL

I am not much into statues and chuches that beg/expect money esp those saying you are suppose to present 10% of your net

church, especially RC has TOO much money (for something that is not suppose to believe in phyical wealth?) and too many assets and too many child molestations... something wrong there....
Ratman2050
MUSLIM FTW.
haak_heu
I m Muslim , for me humanity is more than any thing else

I m Human first than Sindhi than Muslim
ajgisme
WOW, it seems I'm the first one too say that I'm a very religous Jew!!!
(I'm Jewish)!
rfarrand
I am a Christian and believe that Christ died for my sins and that He will return to bring us all home someday.
crimson_aria
I'm a Roman Catholic.
Nuetral
I don't beleive in any relgions.
But i did go to a catholic school and i always wanted to be baptized when i was a kid because everyone else was but now that im older i realized that thats what i didn't want. But all my friends are christians mostly anyways and they are just normal people.
IvyA
i don't really claim anything, but the one that fits the best is mahayana (vajrayana) Buddhism. Though I think there is something to learn from every belief system. NB Catholicism has always fascinated me
BabsUlvaWho?
I'm a practising Muslim... will always be
kingvarun
I am a HINDU and I am very proud and I love my religion
<h1>
I don't classifiy myself as part of a religion.
I used to be Catholic, i still techinically am.
The religion I can relate to most, is buddhism, for the simple fact that instead of restricting life, buddhism allows you to better yourself, thus allowing you to life all of life.
But then again, I don't know much of Buddhism.
James007
Topic "stickyfied".
Sorcier
I dont know if I can name it religion. It's a personnal meltpot of differents culture. I mixed a part of Sorcerer's philosopy and believes (that the Christian part;-), a part of Bouddhidm, a part of Shaman's practices and believes with vegetals life. And around all of that that's my personnal crazyness;-)
vihang
And I dont see a point of this post !!!!


Being a athiest Laughing
woundedhealer
I'm a Druid
Vanilla
nerdmaster128 wrote:
I'm Catholic by baptism and birth, however I disagree with a lot of tenets of the Catholic church, so I prefer to see myself as a Christian, in the more general sense.


The difference is that later I became Agnostic. I'm not sure about a lot of things, and prefer to let this question without an answer.
pagan.preist
Sanguinus Spiritus..... well a semi practicing member of this religion of sorts...... Twisted Evil
Shewolf
I am pagan... Or more correctly a eclectic, neopagan pantheist.
itarlo
I'm a proud JEW
bgillingham
I am my own damn god. Ha ha ha ha ha .... (I am not deranged - just happens to match some Modest Mouse lyrics) IT feels good to be the god of your own world - it is a bit of a sanity check - when bad things happen, you can no longer say things like "god's will".

I was forced to be raised Roman Catholic, but when I got older, I asked my Priest to help me understand some things. We both sat in his office talking about the old testament and God and geesus. We shared cigarettes while sipping iced tean and spoke for a couple hours. Ridiculous answers to questions like "If women are more sensitive as mothers, wouldn't they make better Priests? Why can't women become priests?" (answer: because they have a period every month... not because it would mess up the cassic alb - white robe, but becuase they were DIRTY FILTHY creatures that were not worthy to SERVE GOD.) The one question that nailed it for me (ignore the pun) was why there needed to be a sacrifice in order to open the gates of heaven... he couldn't answer that, I stressed that God was supposedly almighty. He kept stating that I needed Faith - like some thomas guy... Faith is blind and counter-observative in nature... ignore what you see and feel, and just believe THIS!

The Priest tried his best to answer my questions and keep me in the circle of faith, but it was over for me -- free will prevailed. I haven't felt that free since graduating high school! I was no longer told what to believe. He admitted that he didn't have to think that hard since seminary school (which was some 40 years prior). I was amazed that nobody asked questions like that.... it really says something about the blind faith and power that they have over their sheep.

BTW, I was an altar boy for about 15 years - the priest never tried to touch me in inappropriate places. I enjoyed my service at the time.
bdoneck
I am a roman catholic, but I do not believe in all of the ways of the Roman Catholic church and I feel that my beliefs are better suited as a protestant.
afgdomain
Quote: I Am Jedi

---

Laughing And I'm Darth Vader (Mwahahahaha) No actually I'm a stormtrooper. Ok. Back to earth.

My Labels: didnt-follow-my-moms-religion, bad-girl, science-freak, or in other words, Religionless (Don't know if that's a word)
ranciel
I'm Roman Catholic, and proud to be so. Smile
Ratman2050
afgdomain wrote:
Quote: I Am Jedi

---

Laughing And I'm Darth Vader (Mwahahahaha) No actually I'm a stormtrooper. Ok. Back to earth.

My Labels: didnt-follow-my-moms-religion, bad-girl, science-freak, or in other words, Religionless (Don't know if that's a word)


So are you saying you have no religion or are just being pointless
ncwdavid
Revvion wrote:
dont have one


Your like me. Were both Athiest.
borneoking
im anglican, christian .. but dont really understand much about the religion.. as long as it teaches us good things, `most main religions are doing the same ,,, good teachings .,.. result in good poeple... thats wat i think .
matti
i believe in christian values, but i am not catholic.
werther
I believe in YOU guys; because we are all different parts of ONE being. The word Religion must have its roots in "relying on" each other. Anyways, we shall all meet there when time is due.

Till then, goodbye, good night and good luck...
nopaniers
I am a Christian. I follow Christ.
Caroli
Christian - Protestant (Lutherian)

I believe only to four dogmata:
Sola scriptura!
Sola fide
Sola gratia
Solo Christo
schnitzi
jaime wrote:
I don't have a religion, I believe in God... Cool Cool



I don't have a religion, I don't... Cool
Trent DeWhite
I believe in and follow Jesus Christ.
schumway
where is he going?

you meeting him at Tim Hortons?

Wink
postcd
Christianity, because i proven on myself, that its true religion. In Bible you can find all answers of your life. From where fe comes, Who we are, Where we going.

Religion and faith is most powerfull thing in this world and always will make conflicts till the end. Idea Wink
talonsmallville
Hi People,

I respect all religions and have no preference - I guess religion is very important for all people.
I was born catholic Wink - my family are, then I´m too.
postcd
Religion is more than only name or any sort of peoples. Its based on faith.
Ducksteina
I'm atheist.
freakinlame
A child of God, friend of Christ and faithful servant of Jesus Christ..believe in Holy Spirit and teh Holy Trinity..Christian, Protestant..Jesus for life
brycearonium
I am a christian. I attend a church that is non-demonational and is usually referd to as the church of christ.
jcvincent
I'm a Roman Catholic.

___________________________________________

I'm active in our Church's organizations and activities. In fact, I always come home in our province to celebrate the holy week. I'm a volunteer in our Church. Making me present there almost every day. I'm also a former guitarist in our choir,a former choir, a youth ministry member, a former Altar Knight, an active member of our apostles' group, and a current member of the Guadians of the Eucharist.
irsmart
Roman Catholic
Sparmactro
I dont belive in god! he doesnt exist and all people that bvelive in himnwill go to the hell sith the deamon, because heexists!!!!
Jakob [JaWGames]
My whole family is christian and members of "svenska kyrkan"(swedish church) so I guess that I am christian until I am 18 even if I not believe in any god.
MixNMatch DJ
Agnostic right here...
studsstudio
I'm a christian, protestant. well, i was raised as a christian.

i don't view the bible as an historical book. the bible is written by humans and formed by humans. everyone that reads it will find something that can be interesting and that may help in our search for hapiness.

believing is for me not the same like: yes i know there is a God. believing is for me the search for love and hapiness, also involving my fellowmen, and being uncertain. i can live with uncertainty, that's why i can believe. it makes you stronger. strange huh?
quicksilver00x
hindu...
iagero
Jedi - Ha
angry_hindu
quicksilver00x wrote:
hindu...

hey im hindu too! cool i thought i would be the only one lol
quartnee
I am baptised Roman Catholic under Vatican Two, but unfortunately I am not a devout follower. In a way I could be considered a heretic, because though I believe in some of the laws of the church, there are a some that I chose to out right ignore or disagree with.

For the time being though, and most likely in the future, I will stay Catholic because as of yet no other religion has an appeal to me. Plus, all the arguements that I have heard so far that try to explain how there is no "higher being" or a God felt too much like they were putting me down for what I believed in and more like they were trying to get me to believe with their thinking instead of actually explaing to me how there was no such thing as a god or something.

As a side note, I find Greek and Roman mythology quite fascinating, but I do understand that it is mostly myth.
Matias
I suppose I am a christian, protestant. I rarely go to church, but I celebrate easter and christmas.
MeTHoD-X
I'm a member of the Church of Google. I worship the search engine Google. Our religion is known as Googlism.
skiddhard
I am a HINDU! But that's where I draw the line! When I say I am a humanist, what l really mean is that l do not have the time to differentiate between any religion with mine! Ask yourself, do you have the time for all that crap!?
doomz
I have my own Religion ^_^, come from my own mind.
tadssa
talonsmallville wrote:
Hi People,

I respect all religions and have no preference - I guess religion is very important for all people.
I was born catholic Wink - my family are, then I´m too.


yes 100% true!! religion mean so much for all of us !!

i'm Muslim
abedalmged
peace be upon you all

i'm muslem, i'm muslem like all the prophets including jesus.
jesus is a prophet and christians has missed that they made him a god.
jesus is a muslem just before the coming of prophet muhammed. CRAzyyy!!
no i'm not crazy it's the truth. muslem is the one who belives in The one god who sent all the prophets and who created earth,skies,angels, humans, and muslem who believes that this life is like a passing way to the after life.
jesus belived like that and he called for that so he is a muslem.
muslem is a word in arabic means a one who believe and obey something which is great of him.
prophet ibraheem is a muslem too and he called us muslems before the rise of islam. check that with holy books you will find it beleive me. and check in the bible you will find that jesus and moses knew that prophet muhammed will come after him and he is the last prophet for humans he told christians to beleive in him. but unfortantly christians are fighting him. shame!!!
redace
I only believe in myself, because it is impossibly to rely on some god in the world where is so evident that there is no universal power. But maybe I belive in the Nature. Nature is very clever and when a man looks around him he must realize that there are many wonders that only genius could created.
Ratman2050
abedalmged wrote:
peace be upon you all

i'm muslem, i'm muslem like all the prophets including jesus.
jesus is a prophet and christians has missed that they made him a god.
jesus is a muslem just before the coming of prophet muhammed. CRAzyyy!!
no i'm not crazy it's the truth. muslem is the one who belives in The one god who sent all the prophets and who created earth,skies,angels, humans, and muslem who believes that this life is like a passing way to the after life.
jesus belived like that and he called for that so he is a muslem.
muslem is a word in arabic means a one who believe and obey something which is great of him.
prophet ibraheem is a muslem too and he called us muslems before the rise of islam. check that with holy books you will find it beleive me. and check in the bible you will find that jesus and moses knew that prophet muhammed will come after him and he is the last prophet for humans he told christians to beleive in him. but unfortantly christians are fighting him. shame!!!


Im Muslim too. I think you spelled it wrong. Its either Moslem or Muslim.
sir.paul.chaplin
I am a Christian, and have always attended Anglican/Episcopal churches, though I'm moving somewhere where there is a large CRC (Christian Reformed Church) community so I might try that out
solomon
Christian, Lutheran.
dyrtyrice
Buddhism is still my religion, the philosophy is the only one that is truly real and it's the only tolerant religion. Period.

Facts:

Buddhism: The religion based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha (ca 624544 bce). He refuted the idea of man's having an immortal soul and did not preach of any Supreme Deity. Instead he taught that man should seek to overcome greed, hatred and delusion and attain enlightenment through realizing the Four Noble Truths and following the Eightfold Path.



Prominent among its holy books is the Dhammapada. Buddhism arose out of Hinduism as an inspired reform movement which rejected the caste system and the sanctity of the Vedas. It is thus classed as nastika, "unbeliever," and is not part of Hinduism. Buddhism eventually migrated out of India, the country of its origin, and now enjoys a following of over 350 million, mostly in Asia.
theLOGANhole
I am baptised Roman Catholic, but I am not practising my religion and I find myself almost believing in nothing. I will keep reading and learning and maybe one day I will find my spirtiual self.
schudder
Under the influence of my very religious grandmother (and through tradition), I'm a baptised Roman Catholic, I even did my holy communion at 11 or 12.

However, ever since my brain got to the "independant thinking" stage, I've been a convinced atheist. No God or mindless waste of time for me!
kiawa77
I'm not sure what I am anymore. I was raised Catholic, which is why I am not Catholic now in my adult life. I asked too many questions and was basically told to shut up and take it on faith.

I did A LOT of reading on A LOT of other religions, the major ones as well as the lesser known or older religions. I finally didn't know what to believe and finally just assumed there is a God and a bunch of supernatural stuff we don't know about, can't see, can't hear, but has some kind of influence on us sometimes, especially if we pray.

I then ended up in the hospital with a very life-threatening condition, had a horrible time at it, and came out very, very weak. Oddly enough, the first thing I did when I had the strength was go to a Catholic Church for confession. I hadn't been there over 15 years, but it was my one driving need. However, I didn't stay for mass; as strong as I felt about confession my sins (which I wept as I did), I felt just as strongly that I didn't belong there anymore.

So what am I now? Anybody know?
Izar
I was raised Baptist, became agnostic, but I converted to Christianity.

It's very rude to say people who believe in God are mindless, ignorant, etc. I think I speak for everyone who does believe in God, that i is upsetting.

Hey dyrtyrice, I've met many Buddists who believe in a Supreme Being and believe Buddha taunt it at some point.

And the Muslim guy, Don't say "I'm Right, Christians are wrong about Jesus" Our religion came before, and out Bible tells mroe about him than your book(s).

Quote:
I only believe in myself, because it is impossibly to rely on some god in the world where is so evident that there is no universal power. But maybe I belive in the Nature. Nature is very clever and when a man looks around him he must realize that there are many wonders that only genius could created


Redace, you just described God. You said Nature is something taht only genius created. In religions that teach about a God, he is Genius.

I repect religions. If you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, I respect that. Religion is important, as someone has said. People who Diss religion are the cause of Religious peoples' anger.

studsstudio: You said that the Bible cannot be a historical book, however, if you look through history, and you watch the History Channel, National Geographic, etc, they are finding more and more that the Bible is very Historical.

If there was no God, there would be no Atheists. Very Happy Lol.
panacuba
im atheist cuz various thnigs one of them its cuz there exist to many religions i dont know who trust my soul the second one an irreparable lost that the most important one....i really belive if gods exist its no so good and protector....i respect religions something that my father told me to do ... the only reach which I have with the religion is by my mother she was catholic but nothing else....peace and love for all of those who belived in god and god failure you..

p.d. sorry for my english
bulek
I am Roman Catholic but I'm not visiting churches so frequently (maybe few times a year).
arkebuzer
well... I´m a christian... since I´m baptised (spelling?)

I dont really beleave in God though... I prefer sience...

I´m not sure that counts as an religion though :S

i can respect other religions, I dont say they are wrong, but personally I cant really beleave in any of them, I prefer facts (and now that might start some discussion here, lol)
schumway
what would the religion be that honors nature?

not a God but just in a life force of some sort and just being in nature beings a 'religious expereince'

in the old days I would say druid but it also has different connotations and not really overly accepted anymore although there are some followers... and I dont mean DND gamers LOL

any idea?
Bikerman
Still some real Druids around in Wales (just down the road from me)- they are the ones with the funny white dresses and the jawbreaking language Smile

There are a few cults/religions/beliefs in this category :
Paganism is probably the largest in this genre.
Lviter
I try to be Christian. Jesus teachings are not easy to put in practice, but I think they are the best principles to guide someone's life.

But I guess there's a way to spirituality in every religion. Your relationship with God and with the world deppend on you.

"The best religion is the one that makes every human being better. "
Dalai lama












"Nobody has talked like this man before"(John 7:46)
Maxgamer
I'm proud to say that I'm a Muslimah, a Muslim woman. It benefits you in every aspect of life. The religion that never suppress woman instead give them the liberation. I'm thankful to be born as a Muslim and till now stays to be a Muslim. Very Happy
SmartIcon
I am a Hindu. I go to temples. But what in religion? We every one is human and mankind should be our religion. Agree?
moonshadowinn
Im Agnostic, but i respect the other religions, expecially christianity--due to culture-- and neopaganism.
Wahwah Man
My mother was a raised Jehovahs Witness. As soon as she got out of the house though she broke apart from the congregation. My dad was protestant. I rarely go to church and have dubbed myself humanist. It just makes the most sense to me.

Why should we believe in a religion formed 4.6 billion years after the earth formed?
bsubash
Strife -- in philosophy, religion, and politics -- has certainly gained so much ground that it is impossible for us to reconcile with one another. But it is possible to find reconciliation ... by means of the foundation of all things, which is God. For he does not cease to be the same for all ... irrespective of our differences, and his earth bears us all, even if we preferred to see that the ground would cleave asunder beneath our enemies.
The sun sends his rays upon us directly, paying no heed that we look askance at one another. The rose smells sweetly to both the Jew and the Christian -- and to the Muslim too. And so God is God of all, and whatever he says, he says in the same manner to all that are ready to listen. If then we look to our own rules, books, and works, which we have made ourselves and which differ in many thousands of ways, we are irreconcilable. But if with due attention and honor we accept God's ideas regarding our lives ... reconciliation is easy.


I am the human, thats my religion........
Lonelyhut
Buddhism, I think.
In Taiwan, some people would mix many religious elements into one. We may have ceremony like the other one. So, it is hard to define my religion. But basically, I respect all religions.
ohioliberty
I am somewhere around a Unitarian Universalist haha :)
freeedy
I am a born Catholic but it's been a while since the last time I went to church. Actually a lot of things had happen to me, and I had stopped believing in this religion. I had investigate a little about some others but I haven't found a good answer for me. I do believe in God, but I don't know, most of the religions contradict themselves, or there believers seem so hipocricts, doing what they are not supposed to do. I don't know, thats just my impression.
moralesc
well, being new to this forum, i first have to explain the point where i stand, which is kind of confusing at times.
so here we go, im latin, from way down in south america and,
i guess i should be considering myself a kind of gelug tibetan buddhist.
not too weird already?
zenkirevolutions
I am a paradoxial poet.

My religion is this.... be kind... enjoy life... give back to nature....

I am a paradoxial poet because in my religion we call god by different names at different times, sometimes god is a seductive emerald godess, 5'2'' with cute... anyways... othertimes we plead affirmations to St.Michael or the norse god Odin...

We try not to hold any particular concepts in mind....

Instead by moving beyond concepts we can see we are already there,

like the zen master who said he has nothing to teach, and people have nothing to learn.

I read the Tao Te Ching, and love it's everyword, I read the Bible, I worship not Lao Tzu or Jehova, I try not to worship myself, I don't think being conceited is always a bad term..

Me and other freethinking paradoxial poets can't label god, we love the mantra OM , it's the closest thing we've found to a name of that all rightous all encompassing allness....

We realize we a bright from the beginning, and when we don't flaunt our brightness, we become enlightened.

We see life as an illusion, and we don't see this is bad..
Breaking down the word illusion.... we see an illusion is an illuminated vision. Sounds glorious to us!

We love song, music, dance, and celebration.

We cry for those who die, and we joke empathicly about the opposing sides of war, we think... Take the soldier of that side, and the one of that side, give em a few drinks at a bar, they'd laugh together at something universally funny.

We here theres a word for us... no not crazy, though most the time that's acceptable, the term is that we are Universalist unitarians. That sounds silly, almost communist.

Speaking of communism... The word sounds alot like community?
Why do we want to destroy a community?

We don't call ourselves followers of anything..
What we follow has nothing we could call front..
and we don't see it's back..
What we see is constantly changing.

Like I wrote earlier, we move beyond concepts as often as possible, one benefit, is it keeps us from growing tumors and keeps us from much frustration, suffering is a part of life, yes, and we don't deny when we suffer, but it's not our life's emphasis, life is... as I like to put it..

joyous movement.....

We look for visions, like the old indian wandering the forrest,
We dream alot, with our minds, our hearts, our eyes, our hands.

One time in a trance an angel spoke to me the meaning of life.

I was shocked... for I don't often hear voices that make me feel total ecstasy by their vibration, I tried hard to listen, the harder I tried the more her voice faded away, the concept of hearing an angel dilluted the experience, from what I understood was simple. We are love, love is the creator, when we lose love, we lose ourselves, it has always been this way, and always were. Poeticly speaking, I didn't really talk to an angel, no one is really a prophet, no one is really anything?

How can this be? Didn't quantum physics prove this?

If there is a god, we joke, it must be a verb...

Hail Allah said a friend...

moving joyously...
afgdomain
Ratman2050 wrote:
afgdomain wrote:
Quote: I Am Jedi

---

Laughing And I'm Darth Vader (Mwahahahaha) No actually I'm a stormtrooper. Ok. Back to earth.

My Labels: didnt-follow-my-moms-religion, bad-girl, science-freak, or in other words, Religionless (Don't know if that's a word)


So are you saying you have no religion or are just being pointless


I'm an atheist, so I don't see the point of coming here, but it's interesting to see what other people think.
adredwood
Good to see so many alternative religions and inclusive ideas in one place - im an atheist but i respect any personal faith that doesnt try to enforce itself on others or set in ideas in stone. If you believe something and wish to express this in spreading love and forgiveness, im definitely a fan.

I think that organised religion has a very negative effect on personal faith, pigeonholing genuine belief into dogmas that have to be defended whenever a contrary statement is made. My girlfriend asks me (when drunk) if i think less of her for believing in a God - i tell her no, because her God is just a personl expression of herself and the world around her that she has chosen to manifest in a deity figure. Why would anyone have a problem with this? (Except the Pope of course. He is the only path to our salvation, and would like to keep it that way.) As a good man said, 'if you dont like my fire, dont come around'.

Anyway, im rambling and this was supposed to be a short post, peace to you all.
TrueFact
I'm a Muslim. And like to be one as Islam is very simple to understand and give you all the answers and reasons. Why it's simple? Cause its very main rule in your life is "Don't hurt anybody and don't get hurt" If you wanna do anything and you don't know if God will like it or not ask yourself: Does it hurt anyone including me? And Hurting here means in any way or means. At the same time if there's no other way but doing this harming thing and for example your life will depend on it so do it and God will forgive you. Simple and doesn't have strict rules to follow.

It gives the reason why you created, why you are on earth, why we should obey God? for me Islam was the solution for all my questions and hard times. In return I respect every other religion and I like to know what the other religions stand for and what answers it gives, and it's reasons to make us live.
ZzZ_AluCarD_ZzZ
I'm proud to say that I'm christian.
randy
Well, since "Chet is dead," I guess that would make me an atheist.
Ceroianz
muslim------> sunnah------> mazhab syafie'
tenoranin
I'm a Muslim. Sunni

I don't like the fact that the world thinks of us as people that will kill anyone that isn't a muslim..
Islam is a peacfull religion. The name "Islam" comes from the world "Peace"

I love what TrueFact said
Quote:
It gives the reason why you created, why you are on earth, why we should obey God? for me Islam was the solution for all my questions and hard times. In return I respect every other religion and I like to know what the other religions stand for and what answers it gives, and it's reasons to make us live.


If only the world can sit down for a minute and learn what Islam's message, I bet they would change thier point of view about us
Muffi
I am a Muslim - Shiat - the ones murdered for what they believe is spiritual enuf to be tolerated by others.. lol.. just a quick look at iraq boombings & syria... but umm i dont really think am that spiritual, i believe every religon have a single reason and thats the CREATOR, we all seek help and happiness from the creator, some calls it, Allah, God, Khuda, Buddha(s), Bhagwan & so on.. (sorry am not so much familiar to other faiths) ..

in the end, i quote " our religon & your religon are no much different as most of us want the same"
tar-xzv
Hello,

The worst post ever! I don't like that Raymond!!!

We are all good people.

5ani Silenced
mhcjsquires
I am a southern baptist.... so yeah.... you might think I am radical, but I am actually a pretty laid back kinda guy.
etonator
I happen to be a Christian but I don't belive and don't follow everything it preaches.
Denime
I have no religion. God or Allah does not exist for as far i see. People can control their own life. After death you live on in your sibblings, or in your ideology.

I strongly believe that anyone should have the religion of believes that he/she is most comfortable is. Power to live lies in within yourself, not in the divine.
ArmaghBhoy
Catholic
Lennon
Lapse Catholic
Jinx
Pagan agnostic pantheist with Wiccan roots.
I usually find it easier just to say I'm Wiccan, less explanations that way.
Basicaly, I rejected my Southern Baptist upbringing because I found that Christianity had too many internal contradictions, found Wicca instead and followed that 'religiously' for a while, and now I'm pretty much a seeker with no dogma, just an open mind.
I do believe that there is something out there, but to my mind most religions are like the blind men in the fable about the blind men and the elephant. I'm blind too, but instead of only listening to one and believing that an elephant is like a wall or a tree, I'm trying to piece them all together for a better understanding of what the elephant really is.
ahamed
I belive in quran and the only god. I'm muslim and Islam is my religion. But, I can'y say I'm pure. It's not so easy to be a pure muslim. At leat I try to be a good muslim by practicing it's rules.
Rejoice44
I am a Christian [Methodist]
dbaker6165
Well I am Christian... Catholic to be exact. I was born and raised into my religion. I am pretty much satisfied with my religion. If I had to choose a religion other than Catholicism, I would choose Hinduism because it reminds me of the concepts that the greeks believed in, that is the greeks gods' and goddesses. If I had to inqire about a religion it would be Islam because it is expressed by the media and by many followers as being very violent and I hope that this is not true.
cvkien
my family are Buddhism. but i go to church and buddhis temple. and i learn about islam. so i believe all the religions unless it is harmfull. and i respect all the religion. so can i say that i am a free thinker?
Keran
Christian Catholic
dwinton
I am an athiest by choice. I am of Jewish decent
Asgardsfall
My religion is Optimism. OK so its not a religion but its the closest I will get to one.
I dont believe in God. I dont actively renounce God.
I see God / Gods or whatever as an idea, a tool people use to try and foster the things they see as right and good.
Not everyone agrees with everyone else and so we have religious conflict.
As soon as these ideas and ideals are Deified they take on a stronger and more sinister role. The "My way is right, and you will see that I am right, or be punished" is seen time and again for motivating the faithful to rise up against the unbelievers, heathens, or whatever.
Religion has had plenty of time to develop over the years and now much of it seems like a bad game of Chinese whispers.
I would like to strip it all back to core values.
I am Optimistic that at the heart of religious values, all most people want is safety, security, the love of their family and the ability to live their lives unmolested.
I am no Religious Studies major so I apologise for my simplistic approach.
Additionally I am not getting in to the Life after Death issue as I dont believe it, although I have dabbled elsewhere.

There is a great short story by Terry Bisson called "They're made out of Meat" (Google search will find it no problem) which kind of highlights my opinion of our standing in the Universe.
farhad0
muslim Very Happy Very Happy
Coclus
I dont believe in anything, but if someone can proof anything I will believe it gladly.
imamkhalid
I believe in God. I believe in Angels. I believe in Holy books. I believe in Messengers. I believe in hereafter. I believe in now and then.

I believe I'm a Muslim, practising Islam, from my first day of existence, now, forever and ever. Wink
just-in
CHRISTIAN but God is people.
glenwood
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) and yes, we are Christians. I actually just returned from a two year mission in New York City where I worked within the Hispanic communities. It was an amazing experience.
douzy
I was born into a Catholic family, but I guess I can attend any church I wish to attend, even outside Christianity.
bearglove
I'm a neutralist-meaning that I believe that whatever a person believes in their heart to be the true faith is what matters, and that it is different for anyone. There are as many religions as there are people-so labelling them and trying to bind them all under a handful of umbrellas is just ridiculous. I just don't agree with other people pushing their beliefs on others.

I suppose if I had to define my own personal religion it would be a mix between Satanism and Buddhism, with a healthy dose of agnosticism.

I believe that I am my own god, but doing good deeds for others is essential for achieving contentment, and am always in pursuit of an ultimate truth-despite the unlikelihood of there actually being one.
Lennon
Open-minded and curious.
window2
apostolic
TesseracT
I am a neopagan... jsut starting my path through this life as one, and am just trying to figure myself out Razz
sodredge
Coclus wrote:
I dont believe in anything, but if someone can proof anything I will believe it gladly.


I have always thought faith in anything is the belief in something you cannot prove. So if you can prove anything either way, tell me so I can further edumacate myself.
sherryrowe
I classify myself as a pagan. Unfortunately, the Christian church has attached terribly negative connotations to such a simple word. When I say I'm a pagan, all I'm really saying is that I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Most people get visions of devil-worshipping and the sacrifice of small children or something. Ridiculous, but I have had the response, "You mean you're a Satanist?" Uh, no. Sorry. I don't even believe in Satan. He's a Christian character. Yeah, you can keep him. I don't want him. Smile

I believe that there is almost no black and almost no white in our world. Everything is made up of shades of grey. Nothing is completely good, and nothing is completely evil. Granted, some things are darker or lighter than others, but it's still all grey. I believe we should do the best we can with the information we are given in this life, and the afterlife will work itself out. That's the "my religion in a nutshell" speech. Wink
SmartIcon
What ever be your religion, the best religion is Humanity. We call it in India as "Manab Dharma". Believe it and join it.
Rad Ultima 2
I don't think you can put a name to what I believe in. Here's my story:

Not everyone has the same beliefs. Some will read this and think nothing of it, I'm sure. On the other hand, there will also be those who read this and then start to wonder the possibilities.

My name is David and this is the story of how I was saved. It’s quite a long story, so you may want to get in a comfy seat with some snacks. The entire story is as true as I can remember it. This entire story really exposes me to a lot of things that I would normally not talk to people about. I do this because many people have talked to me about my life and want to know more about why I am the way I am. Even though some may look down on me because of this, this is where I come from.

When I was young, my relationship with God was strong. I was brought into the world knowing about God from the start and I could swear I could see Him when I needed Him most. It was when I was growing up, when my mother stopped talking about Him at the end of each night, when I thought I didn’t need Him, and when I questioned myself that He may not exist.

It all starts with me being two years old. I was like any other two-year-old, curious about everything, getting myself in trouble, and giving my parents gray hair. One morning I was playing around on the carport with my brothers (Robert, John, and Michael). My father pulls his truck up next to the carport and comes out with a shoe box in his hands.

He kneels down and opens the box with a girl puppy inside it. Her name was Lady. When dad puts her on the ground, she started to run around and I tried to run from her. She was small, yet able to keep chasing me as I was trying to run away from her. I was scared of her! I tried to stand on top of a small pile of wooden blocks that had a beam in the center of it, supporting the end of the carport opening.

It was a family event; the first day Lady joined the family. We ran all around the yard and had a lot of fun trying to play dead, while she curiously went over to us and sniffed our faces with our eyes closed. It was a day I will always remember.

When Lady got tired, one of her back legs didn’t look right and she limped a little bit. My father called the pound and the person that sold him the dog said that a car had hit her not too long ago and she did that when she ran around a lot. He explained that he was trying to get the dog a family, so he didn’t tell dad that piece of information. My father didn’t mind too much, since she was an overall healthy puppy. As time goes on my brothers and I have some playtime with Lady almost every day.

Each night, before bed, my mother would pray with me. This kept my faith and kept me strong inside. I prayed for everyone and everything I held dear – even Lady.

At the age of five, I started going to school. I was like anyone else; I had friends, family, and things seemed more than perfect. My mother stayed at home and helped my father with his truck-driving business. More time went by and I came to the end of my second year of first grade (Yes, I got held back; due to my reading skills not being as strong as my parents would have liked).

During this time, my parents explained to us that we were all going to move far away and live somewhere else. It made me pretty upset, having to leave my friends and home for the first time in my life. Dad had already gone to this site where we were going to live on and mowed it down. Apparently, it was all wooded with trees, etc. in the countryside.

We traveled some days later to get the site set up to live in. My parents had already thought of a house plan and everything. We left sometime near the morning of one day, and kept Lady at home, since we wouldn’t want her to run off while we were building the new house. I loved traveling. Seeing the capital of Georgia, Atlanta, was very neat, I thought. I went to Europe when I was four and remember the airport. My brothers and I always tried to count the planes every time we passed through the city.

Hours later, we moved from the 2-dimentional flat landscape to the 3-dimentional mountain area. I could never get used to going up and down so many times to get there! Rain started to fall when the sun soon fell down the mountain and the fog on top of the mountain area was near impossible to see through. It was miserable weather!

We finally go there, I looked out the wet window into the dark and saw weeds, grass, and trees directly outside the window. When the van stopped, the rain was still pouring down on everything. My father and mother told us to stay inside the van, while they set up the two tents. Some minutes later, they gave us a flashlight and told us to run inside the tent and try to sleep, while they go to their tent.

Extra Note: Years later we realized that some of us could have just slept in the van. The back seat of the van was even able to hold down into a bed.

The sound of the rain against the tent kept my mind off of things. I didn’t mind moving all that much, the only thing I really didn’t like was not being able to see my friends again. To this day, I have only seen one or two of them a time or two over the years and I really would have liked to keep in touch with some of them. So many things ran through my mind that night, but it would pass and I would awaken to a new beginning.

What a way to start the summer. I wake up in a tent in the middle of the woods. On the top of the mountain, I could look down into the valley of Menlo. Trees and huge rocks made up the majority of the environment. On the bright side, the whole place served my brothers and myself as a huge playground.

Our house soon became under construction. When the basement area was carved out and a few layers of blocks were put around the perimeter, we brought over Lady and some belongings. During this time, we had bought a mobile home to live in, to make living a little bit more normal. I was away somewhere during the time they put it there, and I have absolutely no idea how they managed to move that huge thing there, as it was so many rough turns to take in order to get to the property.

Oh boy did we ever have a lot of stuff to take over... One of my father’s friends helped us tow an 18-wheeler full of stuff and carried it all the way to out new home. It was several trips going back and forth across two states.

After the summer was growing short, I was going to school in the second grade. This is a major turn of events in my life. Getting new friends was hard - really hard. I don’t know what it was, but I was never able to get along well with the others my age.

Because I was trying to get along with others, I tried to play some sports like baseball and basketball. I soon found myself quitting them due to health problems. Allergies really, really, really, suck badly. Every time I did anything active, I would be disabled for continuing due to my allergies. Another problem I had was SVT, a rapid heartbeat problem. Out of nowhere, my pulse would go crazy due to this.

This was yet another reason why I never got along well with my friends. Because of this, Lady was basically my closest friend at the time.

Time went by and my relationship with other people was still not as good as I believed they should have been, even towards the end of the second grade. On Monday, May 6th 1996 I woke up and went outside to go on the bus for school, not knowing that this is the worse day I would have ever lived.
“Lady’s dead! Lady’s dead!” my younger brother cried out. I didn’t believe him. I ran towards the scene and saw for myself. There is no combination of words that can describe what I was feeling. I saw Lady lying on the ground, flies crawling all over her, blood staining the ground, and could see into her lifeless eyes. It was the most horrifying thing I have ever seen. Someone shot her during the night.

I was nine years old and just screamed as I ran inside the house that was almost finished. I ran through my parents’ bedroom and buried my head in my mother’s lap and cried. My mother held me close and tried to explain that she was an old dog and was going to eventually meet her end soon anyway. I don’t know if this helped me or not at the time, but I did understand that I would have had to face this at sometime… though I had not intended for it to be so cruel.

I went upstairs in my room and looked out the window at the site where Lady was lying. Minutes later, my father drove the backhoe and laid Lady in the bucket. He carried her to an area within the woods, dug a hole, and buried her there to rest forever.

Two days later, my school counselor spoke to me and tried to help me get over this. We got a piece of paper, wrote a small poem on it, placed a picture of Lady on there and had it laminated. I still have it next to me now, as I type this. It is too hard for me to upload it and not feel like a sissy (as the red pen marks now turned pink over and sloppy kid hand-writing), so I choose not to show it. The picture above of Lady is from the poster thing I made.

It was during this time when questions about God came through my head. The questions starting with “why” kept coming up in prayers. The whole thing stabbed me in the heart and I thought it would never heal.
Years pass by and it was still hard for me to accept this. You may think that is an exaggeration, but it really was that powerful against me. I thought it would never leave me; it was a constant nightmare to have it come through my mind so often.

Some time later, we had another dog for a while. This dog was named Dixie, but dad got rid of her after she tore the screen off our back porch. Sad

I believe I was in the sixth grade and was having trouble at school one day and felt really bad. Coming home from school, my spirits rose when my mother was waiting for me with a weenie-dog named Oscar. She was vacuuming the kitchen and Oscar was barking (sounded more like high-pitched squeaks!) and playing with the vacuum end. We decided to keep him indoors. As I went to feed our chickens, I thanked God for making this day better, as it had started out pretty bad.

He was a very wild little dog and my brothers and I had some fun times playing with him. After I got in from school and finished my chores, I almost always spent time with him. Training him was pretty cool too, getting him to sit, shake, fetch, etc. was successful.

A few months later, my oldest brother, Robert, sneaked a puppy into the house. He was named “Dale” (after a racecar driver that had recently died) and was a bit smaller than Oscar at the time. Dale kept growing and Oscar remained the same size, the two dogs played with each other all the time.

Things were going along well, until something came through my head. Eventually, they will die also and I thought I knew for certain that it would be as hard as it was the first time, when Lady died.

In order for my brothers and myself to get covered by a scholarship, my parents made another decision to move back into the state of Georgia. At this time of my life, I was questioning the existence of God. I honestly had no idea if He existed or not. I could pray saying “If you exist, why don’t you show yourself to me?” but it doesn’t work that way and I often found myself endlessly questioning the facts of life.

However, I did make a sincere prayer, even when I did not know the truth about God. The way to think about this is: “If he doesn’t exist and I pray, then woopty-doo. However, if I prayed and he does exist, then things may fall in my favor.”

A prayer to the thing I was worried for the most was the only thing I could do, so I did it. I prayed to God and I explained everything, how I felt, why I needed help, that I didn’t want to ever be hurt that bad ever again.

Some time had passed. I was in the tenth grade, 17 years old, tired from a day of working around the house. The year earlier, I had discovered what I was allergic to and had that under control for the most part. I also had surgery on my heart to fix the SVT problem I had (again, for the most part).

So after this day of work, the night creeps up over the mountain hills. The family settles in their beds and I take a shower. Before wanting to head to bed myself, I step outside and feel the last bit of warmth of summer day against my chest. The night sky was so clear and calm. Every star was clearly visible and lighted the ground around the house.

It felt so nice outside, that I got a lawn chair and a quilt to make myself comfortable. As crazy as it sounds, I just sat out in my lawn for hours that night and gazed into the Milky Way. Some distance away, I could hear Oscar coming over, checking out what the noise was when I was getting comfy.

When Oscar realizes it was I, the little dog jumped up in my lap and seemed to take about ten full minutes before getting situated. I stayed out there for well over an hour, just gazing at the sky. It would be hard to believe, but there were so many shooting stars. The whole sky was just filled with them.

The whole thing was just magical. The sky continuously spat out beams of light like I have never seen before. There is no way to describe how amazing it was to be there, to see so many shooting stars and with Oscar in my lap, sleeping away.

The next day was like any normal day. It was the weekend, and things were normal. My little brother, Michael, went outside to check the mail and discovered a site that would bring back old wounds. Oscar had died. Michael spotted him on the side of the road when he reached the mailbox.

My father was away working on some house and so we got an old cardboard box and placed Oscar on it and left him on top of some concrete blocks we had outside our house. Dad would come home and would bury him.

Everyone went back inside the quietest house in Georgia to wait for dad to arrive. I was taking things well so far. On the other hand, I was not right in front of Oscar at all since he died. I had watched everything from the front porch.

When everyone was in, I pulled on some shoes and went outside to Oscar. When I got to him I noticed that there was no blood whatsoever. His eyes were closed and I pat his head and said good-bye for the last time. A tear rolled out down my face as I walked into a solitary environment on our property.

I approached a small lake on our land and washed my hands. Dad came home soon afterwards and my mother came out to tell him what had happened. Dad checked Oscar’s body and took him to a place to bury him.

At the end of the day, dad said that Oscar died from snakebite. Apparently, Oscar died somewhat quickly, since the bite was near his heart and he was, after all, a small weenie dog.

I believe God planned that last night I had with Oscar. That night with the shooting stars showed me that there is more to Heaven and Earth that meets the eye. So how do I know this wasn’t coincidence? Did God really answer my prayer and give me that miraculous night with my dog the day before he died? Folks, all things are questionable, but there is a point when you draw the line in what is true and false.

I prayed and I believe it was answered. Things as small as common house pets can mean everything in the world. Oscar meant a lot to me and when he died it gave me more than I could have ever imagined. The second that I thought my prayer was answered, I put faith in God and the truth has spoken for itself.

It wasn’t coincidence. I live now, with an open mind, while knowing the truth.

Edit: There are some things that I don't believe in that a lot of other people do. Such as, I think Saturday is the actual Sabbath day; not Sunday. I also think that God and Jesus were two different people with their own personality traits. I don't think God was actually Jesus. lol

Edit#2: Wait a sec, I only got four points from all of that? Not cool! Razz
MetalFaith
Hardcore Christian. You can tell by every aspect of me (clothes, jewelry, attitude). The things that I have been through and have experienced leave me no other alternative than to put my faith in a higher being. After exploring, I found Him. I plan on going to a Christian college very soon and getting a degree in theology.
cbf-cma
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, and Jew!!!!


P.S. That guy who just posted about 5 pages of a comment needs to get a life. No offense DUDE, but not only is it pathetic to write pages of a response to a subjective online question, it would be ridiculous for someone to read all of that.
PomS
I am Christian Catholic, but i don't go anymore to the church. Well i am still curios and open mind too.

And if i was in born in 2035 i will certainly choose the Jedi path ahahha ! Rolling on floor laughting !
medievalman26
I am a Christian, I don't really care about what you believe I just care that you believe it with your whole being. I believe that as long as you believe in God you should be fine. That means Islam, Judisim, Christianity, Hinduism, and most religions excpet for (sorry this is just what I believe) paganism, polythesim, atheism, Bhudism is OK to me.
Tyler
My religion is Judaism. I am a Jew who lives in awe of God's wonder.

May God be Praised!!!

"As we wait for the coming of the Messiah, we praise God for what so far He has done." - Chabad Morovhokachad 156:91
Airodonack
I'm Catholic and I believe that all religions just worship God. Isn't that basically all?
saratdear
I am a hindu, and a keralite, from India.

swapnalokam wrote:
Iam HINDU and a pure dravidian as same as you mega star.. but not from andra... Iam from kerala...


Goodness's sake, you are a Keralite? I was fairly surprised to find many Indians here, but I didnt think I would meet another Keralite. From which district in Kerala are you?
akshar
varun_dodla wrote:
I'm a HINDU but I really don have any hard feelings for religion and caste. I respect ppl as individuals and except others to reciprocate in a similar way.


Actually that is the characteristic of every hindu.
I am also a hindu and I believe in contemplative religion rather than ceremonial religion. I think religion is a relationship between individual and god and no one has any right to dectate any terms related to this.
bulek
I'm Catholic.
Winterborne
well i was born and raised Baptist (Christian) but I couldn't really tell you what I am now... It's kinda complicated.
androjuni
i am a christian, a southern baptist. less conservative than other baptists secs in our country (Pilipinas). Very Happy

Jesus is my saved me form my sins! i praise and love him for that. Wink

just a thought...

this system we call religion... well.. centuries had passed since a lot of it(religion) were founded/born... don't you think it has gone through a lot of changes and is not genuine to be called belief? i mean, for political purposes, for example, religion has been used and its foundations(such as documents and historical facts) changed.

correct me if i am wrong please Smile
nothingXelse
Agnostic. I deny evolution, I think its just a crack job. But the concept of God/Gods/Godesses I believe. Because, I believe that we can only hold a certain amount of information. That our truth is way over our heads and if we knew the truth we would corrupt from the massive amount of information. But I believe in some form of God.
Bikerman
nothingXelse wrote:
Agnostic. I deny evolution, I think its just a crack job. But the concept of God/Gods/Godesses I believe. Because, I believe that we can only hold a certain amount of information. That our truth is way over our heads and if we knew the truth we would corrupt from the massive amount of information. But I believe in some form of God.


Do you 'deny' gravity as well ? Unfortunately neither gravity nor evolution will be much changed by your denial in the same way that the 14th belief that the world was flat didn't really make it so...

Regards
Chris
nothingXelse
Bikerman wrote:
nothingXelse wrote:
Agnostic. I deny evolution, I think its just a crack job. But the concept of God/Gods/Godesses I believe. Because, I believe that we can only hold a certain amount of information. That our truth is way over our heads and if we knew the truth we would corrupt from the massive amount of information. But I believe in some form of God.


Do you 'deny' gravity as well ? Unfortunately neither gravity nor evolution will be much changed by your denial in the same way that the 14th belief that the world was flat didn't really make it so...

Regards
Chris

No, because I can feel it and it's been proved. Evolution is just stupid actually. Theres no way to know ecactly if things actually evolved just by their skeletons. It could actually be an entirely different animal. PLus with religion there actually might be a connection with a god or godess, thats why I'm agnostic. Not sure what religion is actually telling the truth. I believe more in faith than evolution.
Bikerman
nothingXelse wrote:

No, because I can feel it and it's been proved. Evolution is just stupid actually. Theres no way to know ecactly if things actually evolved just by their skeletons. It could actually be an entirely different animal. PLus with religion there actually might be a connection with a god or godess, thats why I'm agnostic. Not sure what religion is actually telling the truth. I believe more in faith than evolution.


Evolution is stupid ? Hmmm...methinks you have a different view of stupidity to me. To most scientists it is logical, almost obvious, as well as being very well tested (the entire fossil record has not produced a single specimen which would contradict natural selection, for example).
If you believe that evolution is stupid then you obviously come at the issue from a non-science viewpoint, which is, of course, your priviledge.
To believe in faith per se rather than hold a specific faith is a rather odd stance and I'm not sure how I can approach it since it is almost entirely opposite to my own position which is that belief in general is bad since it removes the requirement to evaluate and test for yourself.

Chris.
socialoutcast
I will agree with Bikerman that evolution is a stupid idea.

I have heard an interestng thing this weekend that says something to the effect of: we can continue to refine lies until they look like truth.

This doesn't mean that lies are truth, cause they can't, but we have to be able to figure out what the lie is and what the truth is if we are to know what to believe with absolute certainty. I do not consider faith to be retricted in a religious sense or as a noun, but rather to be an action word. I would say that faith is an assurance of the things we believe. If we do not know what to believe then it is impossible to have this sort of faith. So faith and belief go hand and hand.

I have seen lies which are made to look like the truth, and a lot of them is on television in the form of advertisments (not all though), and some even saddly in politics. The Judical system is set up in a way to justify (make right) the law and settle matters in a way that extract the truth of the matter. Of course even this is not perfect.
____________________
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
Bikerman
socialoutcast wrote:
I will agree with Bikerman that evolution is a stupid idea.


Suggest you read my post again......I was saying the opposite.

As for faith and belief....in this context surely the two mean the same ?

Chris
socialoutcast
I know.
androjuni
faith and belief?

hmm you could believe in something yet have no faith in it.

it seems to me they are not the same.
Bikerman
androjuni wrote:
faith and belief?

hmm you could believe in something yet have no faith in it.

it seems to me they are not the same.


Really ? Believe in something but without having faith in it ? To me the two things mean the same in this context, so I cannot see how you can believe in something without having faith in it...the two are interchangable....
Perhaps my English is worse than I thought, but I'm not sure it is.....

Chris.
budiman
When I study this topic, I remembered John Lennon, the beatles.

He wrote a song Imagine.

Personally I don't think the song is anti-religious. It is just hopes for a more peaceful world.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
arkebuzer
Atheist! Twisted Evil
Although I´m baptised in christian church... but I was just a baby then, so I didnt really have much of a choice Wink
I beleave in science.
ardabarda
I agree with you about Science but what about Metaphysics? Do you have some opinions about that??
The-Master
I am Christian. This is a major subliminal message. Please email me if you find it as I think it is really cool. My email address is the-master@supanet.com Anyway Congratulations if you found this as I really did think that no one would ever find it and it would be one of those things on the Internet that no one will ever find like one of those free sites that no one ever visits. Not like ones made on this site they are cool!!! I love this site and thanks for it.
solarwind
I proudly present my religion: Science

My god is: Einstein and all of the other great thinkers.
johnflores
I AM A REFORMED PROTESTANT!
Bikerman
Despite the moderator's view, Atheism is NOT a kind of religion and trying to assert that it is, is both incorrect and also a typical ploy of the religious when debating with atheists.
Just because Animal asserts that I follow a religion does not make it so and I would be interested to see some support for the position as I can happily profide counter evidence and refutation of the statement. A blithe statement of belief is no substitute for reasoned debate so please support the assertion if you can, otherwise withdraw it.

Regards
Chris
Cole
Quote:
Despite the moderator's view, Atheism is NOT a kind of religion and trying to assert that it is, is both incorrect and also a typical ploy of the religious when debating with atheists.

Completely True.
With Religion comes belief.
With Atheism comes lack of belief.

-Being Atheist does not mean you believe in Evolution or even Gravity.
-Being Atheist does not mean you believe in Science or Math.
-Being Atheist does not mean that you deny of the existance of god.
-Being Atheist means that you have lack of belief in a god(s).
-Atheism is a default state of mind and everybody is one until they develop the belief in a god(s).


Religion: None
Why: I'd rather search for the truth than believing what my parents told me to believe.

About Evolution: Well heres one form of evolution. Genetics. Mutations in the genes happen all the time. Some people die at birth, some don't even enzymes to digest milk, etc.. Some Gene mutations are very good, some are extremely bad. These genes can pass onto offspring. Eventually this gene could spread throughout the entire population or create it's own population seperate from the rest. This could be considered a form of evolution. We see evolution in bacteria all the time. Sometimes things evolve because of there predatory\prey.
Evolution does not deny the existance of god(s) either. It would make god(s) seem smarter. To me evolution seems obvious.

Although I was raised Christian and baptised. Overall though.. Christians are complete idiots in following there own religion. I mean no offense to anyone but face the facts:
In the new testament Jesus tells you he did not abolish the old testament but rather was enforcing htem.
By following old testament you should have killed 2/3 of the world for not being Christian and you will be punished by God when you die for not doing so.
Of course there are quotes in the bible telling you not to kill. However the Bible states that anyone who goes against the word of god or jesus they are a false prophets. Therefor anyone telling you not to kill someone from another religion is a false prophet and should not be worshiped.
jumpbox
I am a born again Christian. I am a creationist who thinks of God as the creator and redemer of the universe. I have found in my own life he is merciful and kind. And because Christianity solves all the problems of the world. I am so looking forward to meeting Jesus face to face and being welcomed into his presence.
quex
Athiest, but I love going along with the Tenri folks. How can you help but love Tenrikyou? XD
tekage
I am a Lutheranism s sheep,but I believe in the ecumenicalism, and somethimes I find some answers in the religions of the East. I think all religions are a part of all.
If we can understand this, i think we will find the peace between us
oscerl
I have my own religion.

I do not have a name for it, but here's a short text to describe it.
My religion is simple. I do not believe in miracles on earth such as walking on water, or healing with hands. I do not believe in religions telling me how god or gods look like, what they do or what they are.

What I believe in is that there is something greater than man, that created man. Nothing more. I don't believe that this person has ever been on earth or has some "son" on earth.

I do not understand how this person created The Universe, Earth and Mankind, but I feel no need to understand. I know there's something greater than me that created me and that is watching me. That's enough for me to believe in.

So these two lines summarize all my religion:

"I believe that I am not the greatest."
"I believe I do not fully understand what's greater than me."
Bikerman
oscerl wrote:

What I believe in is that there is something greater than man, that created man. Nothing more. I don't believe that this person has ever been on earth or has some "son" on earth.

Did this entity create man as he is or simply create the evolutionary chain which led to man ? ie do you think that evolution is wrong ?

Regards
Chris
BruceThePainter
I'm an atheist, and do not follow any religion. I'm shocked to read in this thread that someone is an agnostic, but thinks the idea of evolution is "stupid". The only reason not to believe that life evolved is if you're a dogmatic, fundamentalist follower of certain religions where the scriptures seems to contradict evolution. Evolution makes so much sense, is so obvious, it is stunning that anyone otherwise could doubt it (let alone call it stupid). Maybe they should try reading Richard Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker". Actually, if they read the original paper on the theory of evolution written by Alfred Russell Wallace (who was religious, btw), it should be enough to convince them.
Bikerman
BruceThePainter wrote:
I'm an atheist, and do not follow any religion. I'm shocked to read in this thread that someone is an agnostic, but thinks the idea of evolution is "stupid". The only reason not to believe that life evolved is if you're a dogmatic, fundamentalist follower of certain religions where the scriptures seems to contradict evolution. Evolution makes so much sense, is so obvious, it is stunning that anyone otherwise could doubt it (let alone call it stupid). Maybe they should try reading Richard Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker". Actually, if they read the original paper on the theory of evolution written by Alfred Russell Wallace (who was religious, btw), it should be enough to convince them.

A very good book (Blind Watchmaker).
Here's a link to a paper Richard wrote some time ago on the subject of memes and religion, and a paper on the improbability of God.
These may irritate/offend the devote so my advice would be to pass them by if you think that describes you......

http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/Dawkins-Viruses.htm
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/Dawkins-ImprobabilityOfGod.htm
misswynne
Bikerman wrote:
nothingXelse wrote:
Agnostic. I deny evolution, I think its just a crack job. But the concept of God/Gods/Godesses I believe. Because, I believe that we can only hold a certain amount of information. That our truth is way over our heads and if we knew the truth we would corrupt from the massive amount of information. But I believe in some form of God.


Do you 'deny' gravity as well ? Unfortunately neither gravity nor evolution will be much changed by your denial in the same way that the 14th belief that the world was flat didn't really make it so...

Regards
Chris


Are you implying that evolution is the true theory? As you know, there are many theories of Creation, but only one can be true. As no human can possibly confirm the absolute truth of any of those, we choose to do our best by believing what seems right to us as individuals.

NOTE: I'm a Christian, Mennonite Brethren (different from Mennnonite)
Bikerman
misswynne wrote:

Are you implying that evolution is the true theory? As you know, there are many theories of Creation, but only one can be true. As no human can possibly confirm the absolute truth of any of those, we choose to do our best by believing what seems right to us as individuals.


True is a word avoided in science as it implies final and unchangable position. I am certainly implying that evolution is extremely solid and reliable as scientific theories go. I would put it on a par with, for example, gravity and Newton's laws of motion. It is logical, it fits in with other data, it has never been refuted by any fossil discovery and it explains the phenomena better than any other theory. Whilst I would never say that a theory is 'true' in the way you mean, that is more a choice of expression than any indication that I have doubts about it. In short, yes, I am saying that evolution is how we got here! What you believe is your choice. What actually happened is not.

Regards
Chris
fasa
I'm an atheist with a belief in science. I believe science can explain the things we do not know today.
bond4154
I'm agnostic, meaning that, although I respect all religions, I do not believe that man can prove through science that God exists. Man must find his own way to find his own God and to achieve realization that karma exists. Obviously, as you can see, I have yet to find karma.

On an ironic note, I was agnostic while going to a private Lutheran middle school. I bet no one knew, though.

Honestly, though, I do share a certain amount of distaste for religions, though, mostly because it has become a source of so many of today's modern problems. Whenever I see stuff on the media concerning church scandals, I kind of get irritated, not because of why the church is doing this, but that the church is giving the media the excuse to report this kind of useless and irritating crap.

Still, I do have a healthy respect for all religions, and I don't have any sort of religious bias that would be reflected in the way I treat people.
creezalird
I was born as Muslim..and till now still Muslim
rooparam
i am hindu and from rajasthan and now a student in jammu & kashmir
Cole
If I had to pick any religion it would be Buddhism.
Why?
It's the only religion that I know of that is nonviolent.
sancho
Christian!!!!!!
AgenthHero
Muslim And Proud
Noner
Hello! This topic it seems to be intresting, so I will answer to your question. I am a muslim and I believe that theres only one god. Yes, I am also an arab, but I am pretty sad, as many people has a lot of predicujes at my "civilization and nationality". I know, that there has been a lot of terrorist attacks, but I can say for you, that no-one, who is saying, that he is muslim and doing terrorism, is really a muslim. Those people, who are doing that, are mad and they are not muslims, as the most biggest sheiqs (they are like priests for christian) has said, that killing a people, which haven't done anything it is not allowed in islam. I really would like to be proud of my religion and I am, but after those idiots I can't say, that it is very nice to tell, that you are a muslim.
Puzzledmoose
I believe in a God/Greater Being .. whatever you would like to call it but have no desire to associate myself with most religions which I see as the root of most of the problems in the world ..
DivineConclave
I am pagan, personally.

I am a druid, though not a follower of 'druidism'. Let me explain...

Druid was a title and never was an -ism. The druids were the warriors and scholars of a given tradition. The ovates were the herbalists and scryers, and the bards were the record keepers (verbal).
I am a druid of a grove based in the North Midwestern region of the United states.

Overall, I find all theologies interesting and try to make a point of studying as much as I can. Theologies are the only aspects of life that people can believe so truly and yet no one can prove. To me, that is a very interesting place of study.
skinnykhalida
MUSLIM!
ALLAHUAKBAR!

well, i donot only have a religion, i have a system, a guide to life =D u can get whatever u wish for as long as u sincerely make prayers to Allah (SWT)
SonLight
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who said, "No one comes unto the father except thru me." He also said things like, "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first," and that those who were considered outsiders will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before those who think they belong to the Kingdom.

I believe that all people will eventually have to answer to Jesus, as "there is no other name by which men shall be saved." Nevertheless, I believe He will judge the state of a person's heart (their deepest desires), not on appearances or on what knowledge a person has.
noshir
I am jewish
Afaceinthematrix
To make things simple, i'll say Christian. I attend a Christian church, try to live by Christian values, and believe in God, yet my religious ideas are so much different from any other person in the Church. Most Christians annoy me because of their ignorance and close-mindedness to other ideas. I mean I like the people there, but most Christians are ignorant and give us all a bad name.
mackemdezzy
i'm nothing because i don't belive in Religion Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
TymonBlueSword
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(aka Mormon)
No, we do NOT support polygamy. You get excommunicated for that.
.Locke
TymonBlueSword wrote:
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(aka Mormon)
No, we do NOT support polygamy. You get excommunicated for that.

wow, I'm new and I thought that I would be the only person that was mormon... and also remember that people who are from Utah do not have horns. I have no idea where people come up with this stuff, but people still ask
DivineConclave
.Locke wrote:
TymonBlueSword wrote:
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(aka Mormon)
No, we do NOT support polygamy. You get excommunicated for that.

wow, I'm new and I thought that I would be the only person that was mormon... and also remember that people who are from Utah do not have horns. I have no idea where people come up with this stuff, but people still ask


Horns? hehe.. Never would have thought that. I think of Utah and I think of salt and fun driving. Smile
THEemu
Christian, protestant.
Josephwweaver
Well i dont really believe in denominations, but im an Apostle and Pastor in a non denom church. I just love Jesus and want to serve people and the community.
Babsta
I'm a Muslim Very Happy.
tyrant
I was born an Indian Hindu, but over the years i've stopped following my religion or any other for that matter, which i have reasons for. I simply believe that there is a higher power.
dlougha
I was born and raised Anglican. However, I started questioning many of the rituals and beliefs of the Church, and I started reading the Bible. I desired to go back to the simple teachings of the early church as they were revealed in the Gospel (New Testament). Later, I met a group of like minded undenominational Christians who had the same plea and desire, so i became a Non denominational Christian.

I worship with a "Church of Christ" which practices and believes in simple New testament Christianity, Believes only in the Gospel (new testament) as the only rule of faith and belief, and which is not part of an overall hierarchy or central denomination.

I call myself a member of the "church of Christ" or "church of God", not because those names reflect a denomination, but because they were names used in the New testament. It is God who automatically and spiritually makes us members of his church when we put our faith and trust in him through his son Jesus Christ.
Muslim4life
Discover Islam - The Fastest Growing Religion in the World!



All praise is due to Allah, Sustainer of the Universe, Who informs us that:



“Those who believe in GOD, and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into mercy from Him, and grace, and will guide them to Him in a straight path.”

[Glorious Quran 4:175]



-For the millions of years humans have lived, some of them always believe in GOD. Yet some do not, what makes these disbelievers refuse to believe? What makes the believers believe?

-Many people have come and gone trying to explain GOD and failing.
-Surely something must keep the believers clinging on to truth?

While religions such as Christianity demand blind faith and say: “Don't think, pray”. Although this results in high spirituality, it closes off the urge to seek for Truth.

Atheism says: “Don't pray, think”. Although this results in a great thirst for knowledge, it closes off spirituality.

Islam says “pray and think”. Which is a perfect combination. If Islam disagrees with correct proven science, one tiny bit, then there is instant conflict. Only an All-Knowing Being could create a religion that fits perfectly with science. Islam agrees perfectly with science. See http://www.thedaughterofthenile.com/.

The aim of this website, my brothers and sisters: To find TRUTH. May GOD lead us to truth.

Thank you. May God bless you.
Muslim4life
I am A Muslim and i am proud of it, thanks to god i am a muslim!
chic_optic
earth, water, sun, air
DivineConclave
*blink* Thanks for the sermon. I was starting to feel unoppressed.

Muslim4life wrote:
Discover Islam - The Fastest Growing Religion in the World!



All praise is due to Allah, Sustainer of the Universe, Who informs us that:



“Those who believe in GOD, and hold fast to Him, He will admit them into mercy from Him, and grace, and will guide them to Him in a straight path.”

[Glorious Quran 4:175]



-For the millions of years humans have lived, some of them always believe in GOD. Yet some do not, what makes these disbelievers refuse to believe? What makes the believers believe?

-Many people have come and gone trying to explain GOD and failing.
-Surely something must keep the believers clinging on to truth?

While religions such as Christianity demand blind faith and say: “Don't think, pray”. Although this results in high spirituality, it closes off the urge to seek for Truth.

Atheism says: “Don't pray, think”. Although this results in a great thirst for knowledge, it closes off spirituality.

Islam says “pray and think”. Which is a perfect combination. If Islam disagrees with correct proven science, one tiny bit, then there is instant conflict. Only an All-Knowing Being could create a religion that fits perfectly with science. Islam agrees perfectly with science. See http://www.thedaughterofthenile.com/.

The aim of this website, my brothers and sisters: To find TRUTH. May GOD lead us to truth.

Thank you. May God bless you.
Thomas_uk
hi im new. I'm christain and more susificly - can't spell - church of England but I go to a Chatolic shcool so have to sit through the really long masses. I find that the Church of England branch of Christianity is allot more layed back and welcoming that others for example women are allow to become preists and servises are more "fun".
pashmina
i am a buddist. i love being a buddist
leslewis
Gee, is Athiesm a religion? It is certainly my spiritual viewpoint.
Bikerman
leslewis wrote:
Gee, is Athiesm a religion? It is certainly my spiritual viewpoint.


No it is not a religion.
Chris.
DivineConclave
leslewis wrote:
Gee, is Athiesm a religion? It is certainly my spiritual viewpoint.


A religion? No. A faith? yes.
It could even be argued to be called a spirituality of sorts.
jrschool
Im Buddish...
kurogane
Im member of the Church of Jesus christ of later day saints. [mormon]

Very Happy
zenyuk
I am ortodox, but in this muslim country it is better to be a member of any Iesus Chorch to emmigrate (I am from Kyrgyzstan)
mehtab
I am Sikh and I am proud if it! Long live sikhism!
MistDragon
I'm Atheist. Some people seem to think that means I worship Satan or that I don't have any morals. This is untrue. It means I don't worship anything... except maybe chocolate, and I do have morals. In fact, I am more polite than many people I have met in the past.

I also get the whole "You're going to Hell!!" thing a lot. It's funny how strangers condemn me to a fate I don't even believe in.
kirancnair
I am a hindu..learning to be a buddhist.
Certain ideas in buddism like..There does not exist a god, who controls the entire universe..

are more aligned with my scientific beliefs...

Think the world would have been a better place...if all where buddhist.

again i am not a buddhist!
muslimeen
I am a Muslim. Muslims are the followers of Islam. So My religion is Islam. Our Holy book is Quran. Islam mean Peace as Islam teaches how to maintain peace on earth. Islam teaches the rights of women and men. As we are created we must obey the creator. The creator is the God and god is no one but Allah.
chastise
I am agnostic. One who doesn't believe in the existence of a God. There IS a difference between agnostic and atheism. Atheism, is more like a person who doesn't care or believes in a god but doesn't follow any religion.
Bikerman
chastise wrote:
I am agnostic. One who doesn't believe in the existence of a God. There IS a difference between agnostic and atheism. Atheism, is more like a person who doesn't care or believes in a god but doesn't follow any religion.

Err,,I think you have it the wrong way around.
Atheist - one who does not accept the existence of a Deity or Divinity
Agnostic - a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Regards
Chris
kamu
101% MUSLIM! any questions about islam? pls do not hesitate! and message me!
tolerance
New Christian all the way and couldn't be happier about it. :>
baronblod2007
Atheist here...
DILLIGAF
Christian. Smile
DivineConclave
chastise wrote:
I am agnostic. One who doesn't believe in the existence of a God. There IS a difference between agnostic and atheism. Atheism, is more like a person who doesn't care or believes in a god but doesn't follow any religion.


yeah. ya kinda got that backwards. Wink
chaquer2001
Why people always afraid about others religions?
For me i think that every human bean should love each together!
Dr Carruthers
I'm an atheist. Or, more likely, not religious.

Quote:
For me i think that every human bean should love each together!


That's something I find hard to agree. I don't hate people because of the things they were born with, I'm not racist, homophobic, antisemite, anything... But still, I don't understand why should I love everyone. I don't expect everyone to love me, because I know that I have many flaws.
As everyone.
There are people I can't realte to at all. Maybe I just don't agree with them on some points. This doesn't mean that I want to hurt them.
Loving someone is too special to spread it out to everyone.
DivineConclave
Dr Carruthers wrote:
I'm an atheist. Or, more likely, not religious.

Quote:
For me i think that every human bean should love each together!


That's something I find hard to agree. I don't hate people because of the things they were born with, I'm not racist, homophobic, antisemite, anything... But still, I don't understand why should I love everyone. I don't expect everyone to love me, because I know that I have many flaws.
As everyone.
There are people I can't realte to at all. Maybe I just don't agree with them on some points. This doesn't mean that I want to hurt them.
Loving someone is too special to spread it out to everyone.


I agree with your statement whole-heartedly. I understand completely where you're coming from here and I, too, feel the same way. In regards to the previous poster's comment, I also see where s/he was coming from. I think it was more a question of respecting everyone. Not on an individual basis, perhaps, but on a social level. Don't judge others because of the paths they've chosen, basically. That, I also agree with... if that was the initial intent of the post.
jlg421
Pagan, in good standing. If you can be in good standing as a Pagan. Wink
oktavianuz
Christian, protestant. Smile
polis
I'm Agnostic. No religion, but yet, not atheistic.

I believe that there is a 50% chance that God does or doesn't exist, so i'd rather to respect everyones opinion only if they do as well.

I think that choose the Agnostic way is smarter than choosing Atheism, beacause at the moment there is no way to assure that God doesn't exist. No ofense to atheistic people of course.
TribalArt
Im guessing I am church of England and go to a Catholic Sixthform. Although I have a tiny interest in muslim ideals.

I don't practice it much. But there are some good morals in the bible.
lerian
I'm a Moslim.
jameswpope
Southern Baptist
urangkayo
i'm a moslem

i proud to be a moslem person Smile
divinitywolf
i have no religion. I follow what beliefs i choose to follow and live my life without rules and restrictions. There are times i am tempted to join a religion but it short lived. If i had to join a religion i would join buddism because it uses the mind and trains it to try and reach its full potential. I have many things in common with buddists.
gaurav.baral1
I am Hindu from Nepal..
DivineConclave
jlg421 wrote:
Pagan, in good standing. If you can be in good standing as a Pagan. Wink


I hope you can... otherwise, everyone is wasting their time professing their religions and we may as well have a global theo-war until there is one religion standing. Which would be really embarrassing if at the end of time, the "winner" finds out they were wrong.
debowski
I'm an atheist...
kevbailey
I am Christian, and belong to a United Church. I wouldn't go so far to say that I have a denomination that I belong to, because I believe in God, not the politics behind him.
Mouldylocks
I am a christian but I think nowadays, your religion matters less than your job. Nobody can really discriminate you for which god you believe in, nobody really practicies religion amongst young western people, and you are more likely to be discriminated for your race or social status.
That is why I was wondering what difference it makes to ask what religion people are from. Are we not all human ? Arenn't money and globalization the modern time gods ?
DocWonton
hmm.. i dont believe there is a God but i am spiritualistic and i believe in a mind-body-soul connection.
justnewbie
I'm a nonreligion atheist. Believes in the existence of God, but never in any of the Prophets. Have been to temple and church, but I think Christians are much better in my point of view.
brokenbells
Hindu.....but it really doesnt matter.

I am good for myself, and i am happy Smile
ayvee
atheist here.

and please, i know i'm going to hell. noone needs to remind me.
Divinaeon
Quaker/Pagan

I've got you all beat.
iZen
I'm a Modern Satanist who holds lectures in my local area.

Atleast I get involved lol.
el sol
Hi, I'm a Buddhist and I love its philosophy very much...I feel lucky that I can meet with Buddhism... Cool
jaranda98
I am Catholic.

megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]
oleszka
I am Orthodox Chrisitan
blk3
I was baptised Catholic, but not very religious.
Heroin
I am Christian catholic.
Captain Fertile
I'm Christian - Church of England. Pray
peacedove
roxawannable wrote:
Christian...but was raised catholic...didn't agree with lots of things there...so now consider myself Christian


Yeah, I know what you mean SmileI am a Roman Catholic too but I like to regard myself as a Christian Wink
doeshereallyloveme
I am a protestant Christian. I know God exists. That simple statement bamboozled me when I was an atheist. I was sure you could never be sure that God exists. Then He entered my life like He hit me over the head with a sledgehammer. I know He exists.

Then I started reading up on the issue, and realised that actually you can be sure intellectually as well as spiritually that Jesus did rise from the dead, and existed.

Amazing.
pikameowmeow15
YAY IM AGNOSTIC!!!

wait, that means i have none.

oh snap.
gluingquarters
Raised southern baptist... now am agnostic. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about what happens after we die or that I know who created the universe (obviously, I'm actually a big believer in evolution). I'm also not closed-minded enough to say any particular religion is absolutely wrong when it comes to their ... philosophies. When it comes to their actions, though, many religions have been wrong.
The-Nisk
My religion is my quest through life(to find my ultimate self) -and since my religion is life itself, it covers great many things, everything good. Cool
Marinho
I am a protestant Christian from Brazil.
SonLight
doeshereallyloveme wrote:
I am a protestant Christian. I know God exists. That simple statement bamboozled me when I was an atheist. I was sure you could never be sure that God exists. Then He entered my life like He hit me over the head with a sledgehammer. I know He exists.

Then I started reading up on the issue, and realised that actually you can be sure intellectually as well as spiritually that Jesus did rise from the dead, and existed.

Amazing.


So many atheists and agnostics who have studied the evidence have become convinced of God's existance and the reliability of the Bible. Of course, many will not believe because it is not in their heart or they do not persue the study far enough.

For example, some find one "mistake" in the Bible, and are willing to throw the whole thing out. While believers generally have confidence that there is truth in every part, rules of evidence say that if you can test a sample for consistency and historical accuracy, then you ought to withhold judgment and give some credibility to the rest. An example of a "mistake" often pointed to in the past is that Pontius Pilate was believed to have the wrong title in the book of Luke. Recent finds show that Luke's term is very likely correct.

That Jesus existed, was executed, and His body was missing from the grave appears very likely, based only on non-Christian historical sources. Of course, the resurrection itself cannot be substantiated easily, although the claim that he resurrected can. The best historical evidence I know of for the resurrection is the fact that nearly all His closest followers willingly went to the grave proclaiming His resurrection as a fact.
Mordane
Agnostic!

The religion test, http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907

Agnosticism 67%
Buddhism 54%
Atheism 46%
Paganism 46%
Satanism 46%
Islam 38%
Judaism 38%
Hinduism 33%
Christianity 25%
Lobo23
I'm... uhh, agnostic eclectig paganistic, in a way...
polis
Mordane wrote:
Agnostic!

The religion test, http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907

Agnosticism 67%
Buddhism 54%
Atheism 46%
Paganism 46%
Satanism 46%
Islam 38%
Judaism 38%
Hinduism 33%
Christianity 25%


Wtf... you got to be kidding.

Satanism 100%

agnosticism 83%

Buddhism 50%

atheism 33%

Christianity 25%

Islam 17%

Paganism 17%

Hinduism 0%

Judaism 0%

I find myself as an Agnostic, if not, then I'm Atheist....but satanism come on.
Royal
I am a Christian (orthodox, calvinist, reformed, presbyterian), I enjoy a solidly trusting faith that God loves me, that through his son Jesus Christ there is salvation for me (regrettably dayly I do and think things that really are not in accordance with God - but thanks to Jesus who died at the cross now I am nevertheless 100% one of his beloved and longed-for children). So now I believe also that the world is a great place to be, that it is wonderful to be surrounded by people (even if we regularly disappoint each other). And that it will be amazingly better - of course I mean: after this life, in the new world.

# Een vast vertrouwend geloof, dat God van mij houdt, dat er door zijn zoon Jezus Christus redding voor mij is (ik doe en denk helaas dagelijks dingen die op die manier helemaal niet zo bij God passen – maar dankzij de kruisdood van Jezus hoor ik er voor God helemaal bij!). En nu dus ook dat de wereld een prima plek is om te zijn, dat het heerlijk is mensen om je heen te hebben (ook al stellen we elkaar wel nogal eens teleur). En dat het nog onbeschrijfelijk veel gaver gaat worden (natuurlijk bedoel ik hier: na dit leven)

# Ik ben Christen, ik ben actief lid van de kerk ‘gereformeerd vrijgemaakt’ in Leusden (1000 leden).
sonofmorris
I do not believe in religion

in my opinion i find the whole idea of worshipping a diety who we have no proof really exists is quite comical, and i have some pity for the people who dedicate themselves so wholely to their religion

i do not have to explain my existance through the act of some greater inteligence, i have an ut-most belief in science and evolution, and i take pride in the fact that i am a product of thousands of years of evolution to become the perfect adaptive organism to take hold of a whole planet over all other species.

being made by a god and stuck on this planet.. i find it simply offensive to my existance

survival of the fittest boys and girls, what are you made of?

jamo
sonofmorris


++ Edit ++ instead of posting again...

satanism: 96%
atheism: 83%
judaism: 50%
agnosticism: 50%
buddhism: 38%
Paganism: 33%
Christianity: 4%
Hinduism: 0%
Islam: 0%

stanistic tendancies apparently, did soem research, sounds really like me actually, which suprises me

jamo
sonofmorris
Bikerman
sonofmorris wrote:

stanistic tendancies apparently


I blame that Eminem chap for this. Until he used that Dido sample and made that record the tendency towards Stanism was under control, but since the record many people are reporting outbreaks of Stanism and it seems like we may be on the brink of a significant epidemic. My advice would be to inoculate.
MrBlueSky
Bikerman wrote:
sonofmorris wrote:

stanistic tendancies apparently


I blame that Eminem chap for this. Until he used that Dido sample and made that record the tendency towards Stanism was under control, but since the record many people are reporting outbreaks of Stanism and it seems like we may be on the brink of a significant epidemic. My advice would be to inoculate.


Read it 1 time... confused... read it a second time... still confused... the third time:

ROTFLOL Very Happy

(+5 funny)
Bikerman
MrBlueSky wrote:

ROTFLOL Very Happy

(+5 funny)

I wondered if it would be picked-up Smile
scorpiosemotion
My religion is my own. No title; no classification. My beliefs are all mixed up and half backwards a quarter sideways, and out of thin air... GO figure, no wonder I'm such a nut. Laughing
creezalird
Moslem..
Holy
Christian. Jesus is the bomb!!!! Razz
Macbeth
Im general Pagan with strong Catholic and Wiccan roots.

My patron dieties are Anubis and Athena. My patron saint is St. Jude and I believe in the powers of witchcraft and the Mother Earth.

Mostly Im very eclectic but I really don't believe in all the fluffy bunny B.S. that is associated with Wicca, Hence why I claim myself Pagan.
kmvinodkm
Only one Religion.
Loka Samatha Sukhino Bhavanthu
coolnow
I'm a Muslim, but i've got british culture in my veins so, i think i'm called a British Muslim!
LordHateSphere
Atheist,

I seek the divine inside everyone, both Evil and Good, EVIL is represented in the deeds u do that require courage Good, requires wisdome to see that u are doing the right thing.
Mr_CEO
I have my faith in Christ Jesus. Also known as Yeshua!
I am NOT religious because religion and ritual can't compensate for my sins or grant me access to Heaven.

A lot of people who call themselves
Christians need to learn that well.
Bikerman
Mr_CEO wrote:
I have my faith in Christ Jesus. Also known as Yeshua!
I am NOT religious because religion and ritual can't compensate for my sins or grant me access to Heaven.

A lot of people who call themselves
Christians need to learn that well.


Well, there are 3 definitions of religious that might be relevant here:
  • 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
  • 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
  • 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

I presume that you are saying that the third is the one which does not apply because of your sins ? As far as access to heaven, I guess that depends on which branch of Christianity you favour. For Catholics a sincere act of contrition before death would, I believe, do the job....
trousersalive
Secular humanist. No supernatural all-powerful multidimensional space aliens creating universes for me thanks. That just sounds a little bit silly.
DivineConclave
Bikerman wrote:
Mr_CEO wrote:
I have my faith in Christ Jesus. Also known as Yeshua!
I am NOT religious because religion and ritual can't compensate for my sins or grant me access to Heaven.

A lot of people who call themselves
Christians need to learn that well.


Well, there are 3 definitions of religious that might be relevant here:
  • 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
  • 2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
  • 3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

I presume that you are saying that the third is the one which does not apply because of your sins ? As far as access to heaven, I guess that depends on which branch of Christianity you favour. For Catholics a sincere act of contrition before death would, I believe, do the job....



Well, in actuality, religion is the "ceremony" and "repetition" of a faith and/or spirituality.
That's why ecclectics drive me nuts when they call it a religion. Actually, it's a spirituality. Religion is the practice of the dogma. Spirituality is the practice of the beliefs themselves.

Simple, quick reference:

Spirituality = faith
religion = mundane
rubik
i'm atheist and i hope everybody will be atheist soon
Anotherevil
I'm Jainist! It's like a branch of hinduism.
mina
I consider myself agnostic, and the test seemed to agree with me. Religion is extremely interesting to me, and I love to learn about the beliefs associated with all of them, even though I don't choose to follow any of them explicitly. It usually makes for interesting conversation with other open-minded people, whether they are religious or not. Though it does cause some problems when you come across the hard-headed religious person... I mean, I understand and respect your religion, why can't you understand or respect why I don't completely agree with it? Fortunately, I don't run into too many of those kind of people. Plus, it's been interesting reading people's beliefs in this topic. ^-^
Manus et Therion
The name of the religion I subscribe to is called Thelema. That means that I accept the Law of Thelema, which is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." This does not mean do whatever you want, like a hedonist, but do what you intended to do all along. It would take a long time to explain how so many average people haven't misunderstood Aleister Crowley, the first of this religion, but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.
boya
Taoism. a Chinese religion.
abhiz
I am human who believe in self to the last breathe then to some one who I don/t know
DivineConclave
Manus et Therion wrote:
The name of the religion I subscribe to is called Thelema. That means that I accept the Law of Thelema, which is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." This does not mean do whatever you want, like a hedonist, but do what you intended to do all along. It would take a long time to explain how so many average people haven't misunderstood Aleister Crowley, the first of this religion, but it wouldn't hurt to look into it.


Studied Thelema for some time. Not for me, but that's not a judgemental statement at all. I am just not a Crowley fan... but you have to respect him, really. It isn't necessarily too dark for me, as many people claim... it just has too many holes for me which, ironically, is a bit hypocritical since I am Celtic traditionalist (pre-Christian). Talk about holes... research on actual traditions is a lot of fun, let me tell ya. *sniff sniff* Smell that? That's sarcasm. Wink
joyfulheart
First and formost, I am a Christian. Second, I am a Southern Baptist who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that Jesus Christ was God/man and died to save me from my sins. I believe that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour (which I have done and I have peace and confidence where I will spend eternity).

joyfulheart
moworks2
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]


I don't have any religion...does that mean I can't play?...it hit me one day when I was around fifteen how empty organized religion is...it hit me how violent they all are, how they dumb down the mind/brain...and i thought to myself I don't want to be part of anything that is a cause of violence or conflict...

I know lots of people just couldn't even conceive of living without being a member of some organized cult...like the world would fall from under their feet, heaven forbid, if they ever stopped 'believing'...

and it's all fine and good with everyone 'tolerating' everyone else's choices about what to believe...we should have classes in grade school about tolerance and what it is and why it's necessary...I think in a 'sane' world tolerance, the word and idea, wouldn't exist...

but that's me...i just can't see myself as part of any of these religious groups...none of them make any sense to me...seems like far too narrow a road to travel...life is short...i'd not consent to brainwashing of this sort voluntarily...good luck to the rest of you...

M
Tiger
I have studied many of the world's religions, especially the mainstream ones. I do not 'belong' to any of them. I have my own beliefs and 'calling' in life and I try to follow a path that does no harm to others, and I am continually learning.

I have learnt many things about life and I have already 'died' once. Personally, I don't remember the experience. I look forward to living my 'second' life in a way that is beneficial to me and others, and I intend to have fun and enjoy myself while doing it.
joyfulheart
moworks...
If you don't want to be a part of anything that causes violence, etc. you had best resign from the human race!! Smile

You are profiling people by the acts of a few in comparison to how many Christian's there have been/are. I do this myself sometimes, I am afraid, and have to beware less I fall into a deep hole of discrimination. (I win this battle by trying to look at people as Christ does).

You will be in my prayers.

ajoyfulheart
http://ajoyfulheart.net
brilliantbeauty
I'm an atheist. If you call that religion. Smile To me, it makes the most sense, but I do realize what a powerful, and usually positive, factor religion can be.
moworks2
joyfulheart wrote:
moworks...
If you don't want to be a part of anything that causes violence, etc. you had best resign from the human race!! Smile

You are profiling people by the acts of a few in comparison to how many Christian's there have been/are. I do this myself sometimes, I am afraid, and have to beware less I fall into a deep hole of discrimination. (I win this battle by trying to look at people as Christ does).

You will be in my prayers.

ajoyfulheart
http://ajoyfulheart.net


Are you suggesting suicide or a monastery? Like organized religion, they are a convenient place to hide. And suicide, no, that's not an option.

I'm not profiling anyone. It's clear that religious groups create/are the cause of conflict. The same can be said of political groups. This incessant call to 'join us' only creates 'them and us'...I guess I'm living 'we'. You choose to live how you want.

I wonder why you have to see things like some man who has been dead for 2000 years. Does joyful heart have any view of his own?

And talk about discrimination. Who do you think you are that you can pray for me? You assume you know what is right and wrong and so pray for my lost soul? I think it's people that are lost and confused that search out organized religions.

Honest, all you've got is 2000 years of propaganda and a boring imagination. Geez, heaven and hell is so passé.

The religious mind is crippled by 2000 years of authority imposed upon it by those who are afraid to stand alone. All these centuries of gods and idols and blessings and miracles and saints and buddha's and the holy and where has it gotten us?

Have you looked around lately? Have you seen what the world has become? I'm living in it. I live it every day. I wonder where the religious live. No really, i do wonder. Don't waste your time praying for me, I'm just a handle and some words in cyberspace.

M
Heart Ticket
thpn wrote:
My Labels:

    CHRISTIAN---->CATHOLIC---->AMERICAN---->TIGER---->CRUSADER---->DAIGLE


I don't have a religion but im labeled Smile

Very Happy Emo--->Gothic---->English Very Happy

James
allhopedeleted
I am sorry if I offend people by saying this but I think religion is just dumb

It causes millions of wars and you have to follow commandments, in all honesty you only have one life (even though some religions proise after lives but i'd rather not take my chances in believing a book which lacks evidence) and I think you should live it to your potential, religion is probably something thrown in by the government to lower crime rate
dez_trukshun
I am a Hindu, but I am against the idol worship of our 1000+ gods and goddesses....lol

and yes, i absolutely agree with allhopedeleted.
allhopedeleted
dez_trukshun wrote:
I am a Hindu, but I am against the idol worship of our 1000+ gods and goddesses....lol

and yes, i absolutely agree with allhopedeleted.


I seriously never thought i'd hear those words :p

are you Hindu by family or by choice?
SlugDragon
I am an atheist and will verbally battle for my right to be it.

Too often in my school do atheists sit in silence when religious topics are risen due to the fact that people actually find ways to ridicule atheists. I'm tired of it, and I often know more about religion than any religious zealot in my school.

It's ridiculous for us to be afraid to voice our opinion and be 'bashed' for being 'lazy' or 'a lsot soul' (that one really pisses me off).
greatfire
I'm Greatfuric. Basically its just Atheist except booze is my god. but seriously, atheist. although my mind is still open
Vladalf
I am a Christian. I believe in God but I don't go to the church, I think God sees you wherever you are not only in the church!
rfarrand
I am a Christian

I believe in one God and that either our souls are condemned to Hell or if we believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins and live for Him then our souls will sit with God and be with Him for ever and ever.
Simulator
My religion is People... well.. I believe in people, no set creed or anything of the like, I just believe in mankind...
I know it's called Humanism, but that rejects spiritual beings, I don't deny a higher plane of existence, I deny the existence of the impossible, that being anything that would be illogical science wise, not the unexplained, rather the theory of creationism, one being that created all, rather than one unexplained phenomenon....
jabapyth
I am a Latter Day Saint. also known as LDS, though the slang term is "Mormon". Yes I am Christian, believe in Jesus Christ, do not worship Joseph Smith or Mormon, and polygamy(being married to multiple wives) was outlawed over a century ago. Thank you
gillo
hindu... n i'm pround of it ...y??? weeds r allow ma friend...infact encouraged if you want to devote urself to the supreme god(shiva)!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
psydevil
i believe in myself, in my higher self. thats my religion.
tempdbs
So many discussions have been locked by Admins & Moderators, But I am not at all getting why these persons are encouraging this type of discussions.

Its a stubborn topic on which people fight & leads to become so cruel.
As a human, be as a Human and donot mess-up the religion into this.
There's only one religin ie..,
Humanity.


Donot prove your foolishness by these things.

Thanks one and all..
Pescador
I'm Christ Follower. Christian then...
dravidan
I am hindu ... but I am
a bit indifferent towards
religion. Its not that I am
against it, religion is a great
discipline in self-cultivation.
Having a fundamental belief
such as this could strengthen
a person. But I cannot just
approve of it, cause ... ,no
offense, the building blocks
of most religions, mine included,
are based on beliefs that are
entirely assumed and got from
ancestors. While it is very
important to respect all these
centuries of development
... it
is also equally necessary to
justify things with hard facts and
the rules of reality.

This is just my view, me who has
the same potential as you ... as
everyone else. It's up to you to
think and reason ...

But I wont forget that I am a
human being ... after all, religions
along with all their unique values
teach you that you are human and
you must be kind to others ... things
like that ... Smile
pedalist
Hi

Don't know what I am from a religious way of thinking. Just have a sort of nice fuzzy feeling about the world. Was brung up as a sort of Christian, but lapsed years ago. Been lurking silently for weeks, so thought I would join the party...
Edas
I am baptised Roman Catholic, but I am not practising my religion and I find myself almost believing in nothing. I will keep reading and learning and maybe one day I will find my spirtiual self.
dravidan
Edas wrote:
I am baptised Roman Catholic, but I am not practising my religion and I find myself almost believing in nothing. I will keep reading and learning and maybe one day I will find my spirtiual self.


This is exactly my line of thought.
It is good to identify with someone
that thinks and reasons like you. Smile

My belief is that we are very potent.
But it is when you achieve self
actualization that you ll start to
find your spiritual self. Its when
you ll get your answers ... answers
to the age old questions.

It may develop in due course
of learning.

Its just better to leave things as
they are. If you are indeed fit
to handle truth ... it will come
to you ... and then there will
be a definite closure Exclamation
DivineConclave
moworks2 wrote:
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]


I don't have any religion...does that mean I can't play?...it hit me one day when I was around fifteen how empty organized religion is...it hit me how violent they all are, how they dumb down the mind/brain...and i thought to myself I don't want to be part of anything that is a cause of violence or conflict...


Doesn't mean you can't play at all... quite the contrary. A belief is belief, whether it's focused on deity, self, or science.

Quote:


I know lots of people just couldn't even conceive of living without being a member of some organized cult...like the world would fall from under their feet, heaven forbid, if they ever stopped 'believing'...


I do think you calling all religions "cults" is a little disrespectful, though. And remember, not all religions started wars or went on mad slaughtering sprees. Those are just the ones we hear about in the history books.

Quote:

and it's all fine and good with everyone 'tolerating' everyone else's choices about what to believe...we should have classes in grade school about tolerance and what it is and why it's necessary...I think in a 'sane' world tolerance, the word and idea, wouldn't exist...


Interesting concept... and probably true.

Quote:

but that's me...i just can't see myself as part of any of these religious groups...none of them make any sense to me...seems like far too narrow a road to travel...life is short...i'd not consent to brainwashing of this sort voluntarily...good luck to the rest of you...

M


Then one of two things will happen... you'll find one that does make sense to you and will begin to follow it, or you won't. Either way, it really shouldn't affect your view on the world.
An analogy I try to use is that you see a mountain before you. On the top of that mountain is an altar. There are many paths going up that mountain and some of them intersect at places and some don't. It doesn't matter which one you walk, the result's the same... you get to the altar. The only difference is the scenery on the way.

Of course, some people just hop in a helicopter. Razz
mina
well, i posted a response on this awhile ago, and came back to see what else some people had posted, i really am interested in the way people think about religion... it's one of the things that is great to think about, because it opens your mind up.

one thing i've noticed is that people do get really frustrated when religion is pushed on to them, when they really aren't too sure that it's what they want to believe, or when they just know that it doesn't agree with who they are. i'm pretty sure it's an obvious thing to say, but thought i'd state it for the record.

another thing is that people tend to flock to others that hold the same beliefs that they do. now, i'm really not trying to be offensive at all. but christians stick with christians, roman catholics with same, etc. i've been kind of thinking about why that is, if maybe the idea that someone else holds the same belief as you makes it more real, makes it seem to be something more believable. people feel justified in their beliefs, and it makes others seem to be wrong when they don't agree. which is one of the reasons i don't like to associate myself with a religion, because it categorizes me, and separates me from the beliefs of other things.

in some ways i think the world would be better off without organized religion, because there would be no prosecution of those that didn't hold the beliefs of that religion. an example: gay marriage. now, i don't really have any feelings about it, in the sense that it doesn't bother me or make me feel much of anything at all, standing alone. but many religions say it's wrong, the most predominant one being Christianity. but why is it wrong? exactly why? love is love, it is different for everyone... and why should we deny someone something that makes them feel good? why limit what they can have at all? why limit what any group can have based on the fact that they are "wrong" according to your religion?

of course, you have to look at the other side of the coin. if there were no organized religion at all, then life would be a lot more... hectic, shall we say. for some people the only thing keeping them in line is their belief in a higher being and the idea that they will be rewarded in the end for their good deeds in this lifetime. it is a somewhat cynical idea, possibly, but without religion there would probably be a lot more terrible things going on in the world, though quite a few go on despite of it, or maybe due to it... i really just don't know. but the fact does remain that some people feed on their religion to keep themselves in line.

i don't know if anything i wrote made much sense, but it is a somewhat condensed idea of what i think about when it comes to religion...
dkelite
Im christian, but well, because we are as free as we are, then it barely matters, i care for persons personality, not their relegion in such matters that it's more importent then them self... i dont think i have to mention it...

i dont know what happends after death, i can hope it wont be booring black, but well, none have told me so far
Bikerman
mina wrote:
of course, you have to look at the other side of the coin. if there were no organized religion at all, then life would be a lot more... hectic, shall we say. for some people the only thing keeping them in line is their belief in a higher being and the idea that they will be rewarded in the end for their good deeds in this lifetime. it is a somewhat cynical idea, possibly, but without religion there would probably be a lot more terrible things going on in the world, though quite a few go on despite of it, or maybe due to it... i really just don't know. but the fact does remain that some people feed on their religion to keep themselves in line.
If this is true then it would mean that either we should see a higher incidence of 'terrible things' amongst atheists or that atheists are just better people. I don't believe the second is true so that leaves the first. Statistics are quite difficult to come across but I came across a piece of work which might be considered relevant. A Slovenian professor of Sociology carried out a survey to examine the potential correlation between religiosity and delinquency. The results are not surprising but do give us some sort of statistical handle on the issue. I would have predicted a definite negative correlation (ie religiousity inhibiting delinquency) and that is what was found. The number, though, are more interesting than the actual result. The stats from the survey are here presented as a simple path diagram for those who are comfortable with statistics:



Basically it shows an inhibiting factor - ie religiosity does tend to lessen delinquent behaviour as one might think. The scale of the effect, though, is fairly small - much lower than, for example, the influence of gender.
The result are in line with similar work in this field.

So, yes, religion (or rather religiosity which is not quite the same) does seem to have a positive effect on delinquent behaviour. The level is fairly small, but it is statistically significant.

http://www.pfmb.uni-mb.si/sociologija/reli.htm
smartpandian
That's amzing scientific explanation and its greek for common man..

Hindu.. its often refferred as Way of Life rather than Religion.

I consider Religion as just another belief more than practice.

Its like the color of the shirt we were wearing and We were humans( afterall ) Very Happy
Sweet Escape
Lutheran (Protestant Christian)
eljormaz
I could say I am Gnostic. This does not mean anything but I am doing an inner work, and I have experienced the nature of the inner work myself, with the aim of a certain toolset, a truly powerful one.

Meditation, physical and psychological practices, and a certain theoretic model to express the abilities of the tools and practices, are the ways one can work with to start to know what is happening inside us.

In my personal experience, I have seen absolutely ANY truly spiritual person is almost the same... ALL the religions tell about something quite similar... and, this makes sense... because all of us have got a mind, a body and a spirit. And this is to be experienced by oneself... any other approach is not valid.

Then, with love in my heart, please let me send you all a strong hug and the wish to encourage all of you in whichever you are to endeavour. Go ahead with love.

Cheers,
sarbaraj101
Me the first person saying it freely...

Spiritual SATANIST!
LordJuvent
My religion is christianism i am from poland
Dalv87
I don't believe in any organized religion, but there are some things that science doesn't explain (like what came before the Big Bang), so I think a higher being of some kind might exist. I'm kind of in between atheism and deism I guess.
EdgeHawk
I believe in the teapot orbiting the earth.

(The ones who saw the documentary will know what I mean.)
Dalv87
EdgeHawk wrote:
I believe in the teapot orbiting the earth.

(The ones who saw the documentary will know what I mean.)


I've never seen the documentary, but I've heard the idea before somewhere else. Smile
EdgeHawk
Dalv87 wrote:
EdgeHawk wrote:
I believe in the teapot orbiting the earth.

(The ones who saw the documentary will know what I mean.)


I've never seen the documentary, but I've heard the idea before somewhere else. Smile


To anyone who hates this documentary.
I have absolutely no intention to demotivate people to practice there religion. I have respect for every religious person who has respect for other religions or non believers. If you are religious and you are happy with it, that's fine with me. But at least try watching this documentary as objective as possible. And Think twice before you reply.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-330281245697942053&q=The.God.Delusion
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&q=The+Virus+of+Faith
mesianica
I was sexula, but I am now Messianic Nazarene.

My web adress here: http://www.eliyah.com
wentao
Egotheism.
Bikerman
Dalv87 wrote:
I've never seen the documentary, but I've heard the idea before somewhere else. Smile

The idea originates with Bertrand Russell...
Quote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


PS - Post edited to correct spelling mistake.
mike1reynolds
psydevil wrote:
i believe in myself, in my higher self. thats my religion.
When all the bull crap is done, that is the only true religion there is.

God is all of us. Each and every one that makes it too salvation.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
The idea originates with Bertram Russell...
You are so quick to baffle the ignorant with fancy sounding quotes. Shall we engage in a discussion of how "Betram" Russell (Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell) (your own God damned countryman that you can't spell right) commissioned Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” which wipes your pathetic arguments against higher order and meaning in the universe aside?
Bikerman
(General point of information)
Russell certainly did NOT commission Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.
Edas
I believe that there is almost no black and almost no white in our world. Everything is made up of shades of grey. Nothing is completely good, and nothing is completely evil. Granted, some things are darker or lighter than others, but it's still all grey. I believe we should do the best we can with the information we are given in this life, and the afterlife will work itself out. That's the "my religion in a nutshell" speech.
StoneColdSoul
Im an atheist.
EdgeHawk
Edas wrote:
I believe that there is almost no black and almost no white in our world. Everything is made up of shades of grey. Nothing is completely good, and nothing is completely evil. Granted, some things are darker or lighter than others, but it's still all grey. I believe we should do the best we can with the information we are given in this life, and the afterlife will work itself out. That's the "my religion in a nutshell" speech.


Isn't grey a little too depressing? I see it more like; between black and white there is a rainbow of colours side by side who seamlessly blend together. Wink
alphone
my religions are:

Buddhism, Taoism, and more...

are there any one else believes in more than one religions?
nivinjoy
i am proud to be a christian.a roman catholic...
toughtrio
Proud Muslim. I thank God to raise me in a Muslim family..
R-Jey
Proud to be muslim too. I think that were are one God for all of us (all monoteist religions) but we say it in difirent ways only. I say Alah - and it is the same as God.
creezalird
past,present.future always moslem
silviayguga
ATEA
SoundDoctrine
I'm a Missouri Synod Lutheran.
-TU-
"Naturalist" the human ethos is often governed by his surroundings
YushuaMalik
I am a Submitter to the Will of the One God........Muslim.
dbhai
I am a Hindu by birth and what i believe is in humanity which is is far above all relegions
dinael
I am Christian - catholic.
betagalvan
I deeply respect everyone's opinion, but if you think about it, there is not such thing as religion. Religion is just culture and traditions. Evey one needs these in order to associate and create his identity. When you really start to know god, you find out that there is just one god and there is not religions. Therefore it is important to get to know him. More questions email me betagalvan@gmail.com
anonymous21
I'm a Roman Catholic. Based on what I've learned and in my understanding, I believe in my religion.

Jesus Christ is my Savior.
catscratches
haha, this thread looks like a joke. I can't believe people are meaning this XD

I'm atheist.
srinath
i am hindu
Bru, stuffce
I am atheist. I choose atheist rather than agnostic because agnostic always sounds a bit wishy-washy to me.

I do not believe there are any gods. If I'm wrong, so be it, I'll worry about it when I find out. For now I'm going to act on the assumption that there is no deity to order me around and I'll bet no harm will come to me as a result.
kingtendo
I would say i'm more of an "atheist". But maybe someday my view will change
JimmyHoffa1029
Roman Catholic 4 life w00t Very Happy
aaanonym
I'm an atheist or an agnostic. I don't really know it. It's a fact, that I don't believe in god. But praying can help sometimes.
AVA182
I'm atheist.
mdsite
Muslim
isyan
i am a Born Again Christian and im proud about it...

jah blez!
Peterssidan
the moust common religion around me is christian but I can't say I one of them.
Timic83
Atheist here.
spinout
hm, hm, hm, hm, I am in the statechurch as the most Swedes (or paying good taxes for the great service it has ) but not folded into a common religion as they are not up to standards....

I'm a polyteist in a way, n thats my natural answer to all who asks Smile

But I guess I'm already in the future 'religion' that shall come here... It will be 'mentally formed' this century I guess.
joshumu
Hmm. I don't think it has a main stream name. Agnostic / Animist would work good i suppose. I believe all religions are in essence true because they are just different interpretations of the same thing. But some religions are definitely less healthy for our planet and humanity. Religion's that say their way is the only way, or the planet was made for man alone so we can exhaust and damage it as much as we like and god will some how make it right, or that humans are somehow all flawed and need salvation, or that god is in some far off place and not with us right now.
Unfortunately that is all the monotheistic religions and they dominate the globe. I think religion has a much stronger impact on our way of living then most people give credit. And our way of living is going to make this planet a really crappy place for our children. So i think its time we challenge some of these ideas. But i do see how raping the planet and abusing humanity can be fun so monotheism cant be all bad.
{name here}
To sum up what I believe based on previous religions I am an Agnostic Deist, but I don't abide by those terms completely, so I'm also a freethought.
Bikerman
{name here} wrote:
To sum up what I believe based on previous religions I am an Agnostic Deist, but I don't abide by those terms completely, so I'm also a freethought.

Are the terms 'agnostic' and 'Deist' not exclusive? In my understanding an Agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to prove the existence of a deity; and a Deist - one who believes in a Deity that started the universe but which then left it alone to develop according to 'natural' laws and further believes that reason alone demonstrates the existence of a Deity.

If those definitions are correct then they are exclusive and you cannot be both.
The Conspirator
Bikerman wrote:
{name here} wrote:
To sum up what I believe based on previous religions I am an Agnostic Deist, but I don't abide by those terms completely, so I'm also a freethought.

Are the terms 'agnostic' and 'Deist' not exclusive? In my understanding an Agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to prove the existence of a deity; and a Deist - one who believes in a Deity that started the universe but which then left it alone to develop according to 'natural' laws and further believes that reason alone demonstrates the existence of a Deity.

If those definitions are correct then they are exclusive and you cannot be both.

Not really. You can believe that a god exist and at the same time believe that its imposable to prove that a god exists or not. You just acknowledge the fact that it is imposable to prove a god exists but choose to believe in a god.
Deism works very well with agnostic theism. You can't prove God cause God dose not involve him self in the universe.
Bikerman
The Conspirator wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
{name here} wrote:
To sum up what I believe based on previous religions I am an Agnostic Deist, but I don't abide by those terms completely, so I'm also a freethought.

Are the terms 'agnostic' and 'Deist' not exclusive? In my understanding an Agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to prove the existence of a deity; and a Deist - one who believes in a Deity that started the universe but which then left it alone to develop according to 'natural' laws and further believes that reason alone demonstrates the existence of a Deity.

If those definitions are correct then they are exclusive and you cannot be both.

Not really. You can believe that a god exist and at the same time believe that its imposable to prove that a god exists or not. You just acknowledge the fact that it is imposable to prove a god exists but choose to believe in a god.
Deism works very well with agnostic theism. You can't prove God cause God dose not involve him self in the universe.

You missed the italicised part, which is critical.
The Conspirator
There is no reason when it comes to belief in any god(s). One could choose to believe something even though they know there is no evidence for it.
Bikerman
The Conspirator wrote:
There is no reason when it comes to belief in any god(s). One could choose to believe something even though they know there is no evidence for it.
That is not, however, the definition of a Deist. Deism started, or became popular, in the 17th century.
Wikki wrote:
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.

If this definition is accepted then, I repeat, it is exclusive to agnosticism.
sonicsight
i am christian, 100% Puero rican.
rabbani
Muslim, But not following the rules. Crying or Very sad
maejaeos
I prefer not to associate myself with any label... religious, political or otherwise. I do however find meaning and truth in every religion I have studied. So, I guess you would say I am a little bit of everything, but nothing at the same time. It seems society teaches us that we need to belong to a larger group to validate our ideas, but I dont think its necessary. I am a part of the world and that is enough for me.
skipz
I would like to post in this forum. I have no religion. I am a Christian. I follow God and do his work here on Earth. I will go to heaven some day. I don't force God or Jesus on people I just approach them about it and let them decide. I love you guys. Very Happy Have a great day God Bless.

P.S
If you have any questions you can PM me. I am happy to talk to people about my beliefs. Very Happy
Bikerman
skipz wrote:
I would like to post in this forum. I have no religion. I am a Christian. I follow God and do his work here on Earth. I will go to heaven some day. I don't force God or Jesus on people I just approach them about it and let them decide. I love you guys. Very Happy Have a great day God Bless.

P.S
If you have any questions you can PM me. I am happy to talk to people about my beliefs. Very Happy


You have no religion but you are a Christian ?
Shurely Shome Mishtake?
socialoutcast
Bikerman wrote:
skipz wrote:
I would like to post in this forum. I have no religion. I am a Christian. I follow God and do his work here on Earth. I will go to heaven some day. I don't force God or Jesus on people I just approach them about it and let them decide. I love you guys. Very Happy Have a great day God Bless.

P.S
If you have any questions you can PM me. I am happy to talk to people about my beliefs. Very Happy


You have no religion but you are a Christian ?
Shurely Shome Mishtake?


Mmm... As a believer in Christ Jesus, I guess that makes me a Christian. However, Christianity is not a religion. It is common to call Christianity a religion. If you really knew what Christianity is all about, then you would see what is really is. It is a relationship with God and a relationship with one another. There are now rules that tell me that I must pray everyday or that reading the Bible is requirement, or helping the poor is mandatory. all these are good things to do, but when you must understand why these are done. Doing good deeds is not for the outward appearance of the matter, but it's about looking after your fellow neighbor as they do the same. As far as Bible reading, it is only to understand the the nature God and understand what living is about. Bible reading could be better put as Bible study.

If you really want to see who far this rabbit hole goes, you have to get into it.

Love God, love people, drink coffee
www.socialoutcast.co.nr
Bikerman
socialoutcast wrote:
Mmm... As a believer in Christ Jesus, I guess that makes me a Christian. However, Christianity is not a religion. It is common to call Christianity a religion. If you really knew what Christianity is all about, then you would see what is really is. It is a relationship with God and a relationship with one another. There are now rules that tell me that I must pray everyday or that reading the Bible is requirement, or helping the poor is mandatory. all these are good things to do, but when you must understand why these are done. Doing good deeds is not for the outward appearance of the matter, but it's about looking after your fellow neighbor as they do the same. As far as Bible reading, it is only to understand the the nature God and understand what living is about. Bible reading could be better put as Bible study.

If you really want to see who far this rabbit hole goes, you have to get into it.

Once again, thanks for the advice, but Ithink I have, perhaps, already been as deep into it as I would ever wish to do (I was ediucated by the Salesian Monks in a strict Roman Catholic upbringing from the age of 5 - 18yrs, in single sex clerically run and taught schools. That is as much religion as anyoneneeds and certainly entitles me to speak with some knowledge and experience about religion per se.
You will seem uncleat whata religion is and is not. Let me tell you quite clearly and authorirively - Christianity IS a religion.
A religion is a faith in a higher power or being, normally accompanied by other things (ritual, dogma, group worsjip etc - but not always). Since you believe in a God then you are religious - QED, You may wish to call it something else but if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, swims underwater all day and tastes good on toast with bechamel sauce, then I say it is a fish - you can insist it is a cow all you like......
socialoutcast
I refer to Christianity as being separate from Catholicism. my beliefs would follow those of Martin Luther who help give birth to the Protestant Reformation. I'm not Catholic nor do I claim to be, but I am more protestant in theology.

Hope this helps in understanding my view of what Christianity is.

Love God, love people, drink coffee.
Bikerman
socialoutcast wrote:
I refer to Christianity as being separate from Catholicism. my beliefs would follow those of Martin Luther who help give birth to the Protestant Reformation. I'm not Catholic nor do I claim to be, but I am more protestant in theology.

Hope this helps in understanding my view of what Christianity is.

Love God, love people, drink coffee.


I made no assumptions about your 'brand' I merely pointed out thatI have some knowledge of Christianinty in general. The point I made (and still make) is that it is still a religion, just as MLK would have described his own faith as a religion...to say it is not is simply untrue...
nopaniers
I think socialoutcast was referring to Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King. According to whom faith in Jesus Christ - not mediation through church, or "religion" - is required for salvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Bikerman
nopaniers wrote:
I think socialoutcast was referring to Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King. According to whom faith in Jesus Christ - not mediation through church, or "religion" - is required for salvation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther


How stupid of me not to see that - after he said he was protestant as well....dumbass.
OK...I still say the point is mine because Luther was rebelling specifically against a corrupt and ungodly catholic system at the time and even he would not have claimed to be non-reeligious -0 justthe opposite. He just wantd to distinguish himself from the corrupt church at the time.....
socialoutcast
Martin Luther through his studies of the Bible, yes "rebelled" against the Catholic church, to point out the inerrantancies in Catholic theology. This is why He issued his 95 theses to Catholics which began the protestant reformation.

In short, what makes Christianity different then Catholicism is that the Christian church only requires two "sacraments", if you want to call them that, communion and baptism.

Translation:
to be a Christian, all you have to do is believe/accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we can pray directly to God the father without the need of priest. Number 2 is to be baptized to be identified with Christ. This a profession of faith. But some people say that faith isn't necessary and this is why they fail to understand.

Love God, love people, drink coffee
Bikerman
socialoutcast wrote:
Martin Luther through his studies of the Bible, yes "rebelled" against the Catholic church, to point out the inerrantancies in Catholic theology. This is why He issued his 95 theses to Catholics which began the protestant reformation.

In short, what makes Christianity different then Catholicism is that the Christian church only requires two "sacraments", if you want to call them that, communion and baptism.

Translation:
to be a Christian, all you have to do is believe/accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we can pray directly to God the father without the need of priest. Number 2 is to be baptized to be identified with Christ. This a profession of faith. But some people say that faith isn't necessary and this is why they fail to understand.

Love God, love people, drink coffee


You are still confused over terminology.
A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ, in the simplest sense. Tp some extent that would make me a Christian, but I reject all of the 'extra' stuff about son of God etc because I am also an atheist. Now I think you would agree that because I am an atheist I am therefore not religious? This is because Christianity means more than philosophy - it means acceptance of a traditional concept of a Deity that is rooted in Judaism. Catholics ARE Christians, just as protestants are. There is NO difference between Christianity and Catholicism because the question is wrongly conceived. There are many branches of Christianity, Catholicism is one, Protestantism is several others...All of them are RELIGIONS, unless you want to agree that I am an atheist religious?
socialoutcast
Bikerman,
I am not convinced that you really know the difference between Catholicism and Christianity. So instead of cut-and-pasting text in this post, i'll just do links.

First up to bat, just one quote on what religion is with some else's words that I though was cool:
Quote:
"... Christianity is not a religion. Religion is when human beings try to work their way to God through good works [like Catholicism]; Christianity is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ to offer a relationship with himself."
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/josh/josh2.html


What Martin Luther was getting at in his debate with the Catholic church is that man can not earn his way to salvation. Jesus has already done what was required on the cross.
I think this point is important enough to note:
Quote:
"Although Luther faced much opposition he continued to stand on two convictions: First, salvation was by faith in Christ alone, and second, the Scriptures, not popes or councils, are the standard for Christian faith and behavior."


Bikerman, you say that you were raised Catholic then turned away to atheism and now say that anything have to with God or the idea of god or the church is religion. I can understand your decision from a catholic mindset. This is why Martin Luther has done what he did and received much opposition, to correct to the dogma of catholic doctrine. First lesson, learn your history. Christianity came before the institutionalized Catholic church. The Catholic church wasn't declared until sometime at the end of the roman empire.

A brief summery of church history can be found here:
http://www.acts1711.com/rcc_bbl.htm


Christianity, as I said before, is not a religion it's a relationship with Jesus Christ. (read the article linked above)

I found an over-simplified comparison chart between Catholicism and Christianity here"
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm

Also read, "Why Catholicism is not Christianity." (it's short)
http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/roman_cath_main.htm

This just very briefly summarizes the differences in major theological doctrines. Over here in the western hemisphere, the word dogma is usually used with connect to the Catholic church not protestant.

Just for fun if you fell like it, here is a google search on Christianity versus Catholicism:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=christianity+versus+catholicism&spell=1

Finally, for anyone who would like to know more about what is means to be a Christian, here is a cool
link:
http://www.surfinthespirit.com/advice/what-does-it-mean.shtml

Love God, love people, drink coffee.
hilariouslicorice
i was raised aetheist. i always knew that wasn't quite the way the world worked...when i was little, i went to christian preschool. everyone would go around and declare their faith in jesus christ. i would declare my faith in My Little Ponies.

the closest i have read of that i could get into would have to be chaos magic. grant morrison (author of the invisibles & many others) is a practitioner.

read more!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic
Bikerman
socialoutcast wrote:
Bikerman,
I am not convinced that you really know the difference between Catholicism and Christianity. So instead of cut-and-pasting text in this post, i'll just do links.
And patronising on the side...
Just get it through your head that Catholicism is a form of Christianity before you start explaining matters of theology to me....
Quote:
First up to bat, just one quote on what religion is with some else's words that I though was cool:
Quote:
"... Christianity is not a religion. Religion is when human beings try to work their way to God through good works [like Catholicism]; Christianity is God coming to men and women through Jesus Christ to offer a relationship with himself."
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/josh/josh2.html

I'm wasting my time here. Look...you believe that Christianity and Catholicism are different religions, I don't. If your belief makes you happy then fine but please don't then try to offer me lessons in theology and history
Quote:
Bikerman, you say that you were raised Catholic then turned away to atheism
No I don't, I say that I was raised a catholic, studied Christian and Catholic scripture and dogma, and decided I didn't believe either.
Quote:
and now say that anything have to with God or the idea of god or the church is religion.
No I don't. I'm normally quite careful in my choice of words.
Quote:
I can understand your decision from a catholic mindset.
No you can't, since you know almost nothing about me and how I arrived at particular decisions. Frankly it is gob-smackingly arrogant of you to assume you can.
Quote:
This is why Martin Luther has done what he did and received much opposition, to correct to the dogma of catholic doctrine. First lesson, learn your history. Christianity came before the institutionalized Catholic church. The Catholic church wasn't declared until sometime at the end of the roman empire.
Of course it did, how on earth do you think it could be otherwise? How would an institution be able to pre-date its founders? Time travel?
Quote:
A brief summery of church history can be found here:
http://www.acts1711.com/rcc_bbl.htm
Err....yes, OK, if you say so. I thought it was just a chunk of Shelleys 'Church History in Plain Language' (which I have in front of me). The link supplied doesn't cover the early development of the Church at all since it starts in around 70AD, An more comprehensive and factual summary can be found on wikki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Early_Christianity_.28.7E33.E2.80.93325.29

Quote:
Christianity, as I said before, is not a religion it's a relationship with Jesus Christ. (read the article linked above)
No thanks, I'm happy believing that Christianity is an of-shoot of Judaism and can be classified as a monotheist religion. You call it what you like.
Quote:
I found an over-simplified comparison chart between Catholicism and Christianity here"
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm
No you didn't - you found a comparison between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Quote:
Also read, "Why Catholicism is not Christianity." (it's short)
http://www.biblebc.com/Roman%20Catholicism/roman_cath_main.htm
This just very briefly summarizes the differences in major theological doctrines. Over here in the western hemisphere, the word dogma is usually used with connect to the Catholic church not protestant.
Do you know what dogma means? It means a set of beliefs held by an organisation, religion or other ideology, held to be authoritative.
Sounds like the correct word to me.
Deias
I Do not like to label myself with any one religion, preferably I would wish to be looked at as somebody who studies all religions for just the sake of knowladge. Ive spent many years studying both mainstream religions and some of those.. not so mainstream types. (such as discordism etc etc)

but I guess in a more comical sense I could label myself a following of the church of gaming(alt+ctrl+del) lol
Bikerman
Deias wrote:
I Do not like to label myself with any one religion, preferably I would wish to be looked at as somebody who studies all religions for just the sake of knowladge. Ive spent many years studying both mainstream religions and some of those.. not so mainstream types. (such as discordism etc etc)

And what, then, have you concluded in your study?
Deias
Quote:

And what, then, have you concluded in your study?


Well honestly I could go off for ever on a topic, which I happily do when I'm hired to give talks or sessions at different religious study groups on a religion. hopefully by teaching others of different systems of beliefs it'll help stop some of the hypocrisy and prejudice found in some people.
But your question is rather broad in scope what do you mean concluded in your study?
If you are speaking of my general overview of religion(as it groups of people of the same faith) I think its useless form of mass hysteria. Almost every faith Ive learned about have borrowed tid bits from other faiths, Christians took from Judaism, Judaism borrowed from Babylon,Greek, and Roman and a large chunk for Egyptian culture. if I had the space here to publish a full paper I would so I'm going to stick to generalities unless asked to go more in depth at a later time.
Religion is a creation of man and there for in the hands of greed and corruption.
Spirituality is the real message of the Gods,God,Goddess,Flying anus monkeys or whomever you believe in and that should be what you place your soul and heart in, not the congregation of masses. I do not know if Spirituality is actually sent to us from on high, or if its just some place in our minds but regardless it is beautiful, just wish it wasn't warped by different factions.

There really is only one faith that Ive had to laugh at, and that was discordanism but then again its goal is to be laughed at, there tag line is "A religion that is a joke, and a joke that is a religion"
but then again when your principle deity has flying monkeys sprouting out of her ass and denies her followers hot dog buns on Fridays... who wouldn't get a chuckle out of that?

I'm used to getting Flamed for what I say so if you have one fire away I'm not going to take offense.
Deias
On a completely different note. Christianity is not technically a religion, it is a system of loose ethics and beliefs in a Figure of Christ. Christianity is a philosophy, the branches that took that philosophy are the religions. of course now in our time that line is fuzzed because of non denominational sermons and gatherings which of course would force that overall philosophy to become a religion.
I will have to completely agree with Bikerman and say that Catholicism is a form of Christianity because the bases of the philosophy of Christianity is that salvation is through Christ. Christ is a part of the "God Head"(holy spirit, Christ, God) there for, and even though there Dogma has separated them greatly from other forms of Christianity, there are still Christan

And Im sorry for the Double post but I left that part out on mistake
virre
Bah, I'm sorry but heavy belif is religion, and so on.

The belife in an afterlife is rather religous...

But I don't want to discuss that, I don't want anyone to suffer, that says a bit about my religion

I try to fold the eight-fold path, but I are not member of any Sangha so I aren't a real Buddhist. But thats the religion that is closest to me.
Bikerman
Deias wrote:
On a completely different note. Christianity is not technically a religion, it is a system of loose ethics and beliefs in a Figure of Christ. Christianity is a philosophy, the branches that took that philosophy are the religions. of course now in our time that line is fuzzed because of non denominational sermons and gatherings which of course would force that overall philosophy to become a religion.
I disagree, but I see what you are saying and have some sympathy with it. The fact is that we use generic or blanket terms for many religions which include multiple branches, sects or traditions - Islam is an obvious case in point. The fact that there are several forms of Christianity does not mean that the generic term in not itself a religion. Christianity is defined in various ways but the following, from the Free On-line Dictionary is, I think, reasonable:
Quote:
a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

That last point is, I think, key. Without it, I agree, Christianity could be regarded, at least in some interpretations, as a philosophical stance or ethical system. With it, however, you introduce the metaphysical and mystical; at which point, I suggest, you move onto the territory of a religion.
Deias
Well Bikerman after reading your post and quickly and almost automaticly heading over to http://www.sacred-texts.com to do a few hours of heavy reading. I have to say I see your point and will succumb to it lol
jadeyfalconis
I am a Wiccan/Neopagan with a Scottish Celtic background. I was raised as nothing my family let me choose my own path.
ganesh
I am a Hindu, but I like to take the good things from all religions Smile
cornga56
Druid Agnostic -

reverence for nature and seeks progress through technology based in nature and various social developments. adapting beliefs depending on truthful data, like nature, I change according to my environment and what I've come to know. belief in cyclic entropic systems, and that there is a higher power than human beings, though no possible way of knowing in what ways. I just wanted to clarify that because I'm sure most of you will bug out and accuse me of being a witch or some other childish thing.
scojiro
Roman Catholic...or not? what religion is Matrix? Cool
SonLight
cornga56 wrote:
Druid Agnostic -

reverence for nature and seeks progress through technology based in nature and various social developments. adapting beliefs depending on truthful data, like nature, I change according to my environment and what I've come to know. belief in cyclic entropic systems, and that there is a higher power than human beings, though no possible way of knowing in what ways. I just wanted to clarify that because I'm sure most of you will bug out and accuse me of being a witch or some other childish thing.


Most of the members at this site would probably not assume witchcraft was a part of your belief system unless you said so. I'm not too sure what about your belief system is Druidic, though. I do not know many specifics about the historical beliefs of the Druid peoples, but I expect they were nature worshippers. You do not seem to worship nature, though you have a good healthy respect for it. I'm not too clear how your beliefs are related to the historic Druids.

I would consider you a very open-minded agnostic based on what you have told us about your beliefs.
socialoutcast
Quote:
a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior.

A vague and weak definition. This hardly defines what true Christianity is apart from similar "religions" or counterfeit off-shoots. (I'm using the term religion loosely here.) This may be good enough who never experienced Christianity and Catholicism doesn't count here.

If you what to find what Christianity is about go back to where is started, back before Catholicism and its deviations but after Judaism. Christianity begins with Christ, No Pope, no Biships and a miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus. If you want to learn what the church is about, I encourage you to start reading the books of Acts and also the letters of the Paul.

Just curious, are all catholics or ex-catholics bitter about protestants and what happened during the protestant reformation? I see why the catholic church is considered dogma, but protestant churches encourage its believers to look up its doctrine for themselves and see what the Word of God really says.

Love God, love people, drink coffee
socialoutcast
iamarun
I am Christian who is pursuing to be in Christ likeness (in character, attitude and in relationships)
satksri
I am Hindu- which, by the way is not a "Faith". It tells you more about the region I come from. Anyway, my faith is - to accept all the manifestations of Divine - all that have come in the past, and all those who may come in future. Since a loving father will forgive not once, ten times or a thousand times- but times without number. Hence, I like to accept and respect all the prophets, God (like) men, Incarnations and manifestations of purity, kindness, love. The manifestations may be different according the context- but the substance is one and same. Hence no need to prove that one is greater than the rest. How did I reach this understanding? By reading the life of Sri RamaKrishna Paramhamsa, a 19th Century Indian Mystic.
eefh1
I am an Indian.. and I belong to ......... religion

But, I don't why this question arises?? My policy is "We all belong to a religion called Human beings"
SonLight
satksri, I'm glad to hear from you. I have read books by swami Vivekananda, Sri RamaKrishna Paramhamsa's disciple, although I know almost nothing about RamaKrishna personally. I find much to ponder about in studying India's spiritual ideas.
medievalman26
I have officially denounced structured religion because it is too political and has become a tool for politicians. I now say that I am just a Christian and don't follow any of the groupings like Mormon or Presbyterian. I still go to church it is just that I don't follow those standards I follow my own.
edzofcit
I'm a Roman Catholic. Most of us Filipinos are Catholic.
pacslim
born christian but by now know im not beliving but knowing Wink Cool
studprog
i am an IGLESIA NI CRISTO member
bokaier
I'm a non-theist. Though the idea of a creator is appealing, earth dogma is unappealing in the extreme.
PawelDabkus
I'm Christian Cool
akshar
I belong to a religion where in there is no compulsion to worship one particular GOD or to believe in one particular philosophy. In fact my religion permitts me not to believe in anything either.
I belong to a religion , adherence to which does not force me to believe that other religions are not true or other gods are not true etc.
I am proud to be part of a religion which has tremendous diversity in it and at the same time allows me completely to respect and adore other religions as well.

Its a religion that is OLDEST. It was never spread with the help of Sword.

To be part of that religion you need not do anything... No baptism no formal ceremony nothing....

Can you guess my religion? Yeah exactly ..
laurenrox
I guess you can say that I really don't have a religion, seeing as how I don't really agree with any particular one of them. Although I still maintain a strong belief in God (probably not the Christian version of God, but a god nonetheless). So I guess you could best describe me as a theist.
mad-life
Is there something like an angelican belief? Belief in the angels, but not necessarily God's?
kuhdorf
protestant
russel26
im catholich Wink
yagnyavalkya
I am a scientist
You know some call science a religion
Helios
I'm a Philosophical Satanist for the past 10 years or so.
JessieF
Atheist
Miriah
I believe in life after death of the body....I believe in reincarnation of the spirit into another body to continue evolution of the spirit.... I cannot say that there is ONE religion that I profess though.
cybernytrix
Hindu by birth. Atheist otherwise. I think this God business has very narrow political ends that are used to control people and nations alike.
I hate to be controlled.
amicalindia
sanatan dharma - the oldest religion on this planet
approx. 2.4 million years old.
Believe it man.....No kiddin
now will u stop that smile Evil or Very Mad
amicalindia
amicalindia wrote:
sanatan dharma - the oldest religion on this planet
approx. 2.4 million years old.
Believe it man.....No kiddin
now will u stop that smile Evil or Very Mad



One correction/clarification....

2.4 million years on 'THIS PLANET'......
amicalindia
PawelDabkus wrote:
I'm Christian Cool


So do you follow the ten commanments?

Did thou never covet thy neighbors wife?
crazytown_b
I am muslim 4 life!!!

Islam the religion of all religions Smile
fancyboy
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]

Religion is not a philosophy but is is that path on which our life goes.I searched many religions but and i come to know that ISLAM is the best religion among all .It is that religion that practically shows the solutions of the matter of life.Although almost all religion teaches us best things but ISLAM has the solutions for all the problems .
if you want to know the true guidelines the i suggest u to visit these websites
www.irf.net
www.islamcity.com
adeydas
hindu!!!!!!
Gugun
Cool I'am a christian, i love read bible, i try not doing sin, sin make God anggry, you don't want to make Him anggry.
i'am in Indonesia, Call me if you are indonesian 98548605
still_water06
To me religion is a path to attain tht which u aspire in in life.
I'd like to an atheist. A perfect atheist. By a "perfect atheist" , i mean one who doesnt believe in god; one who does not need god. If there is to be anyone who foes not need god, then he must be a perfect being who is in control of his life and is able to handle all that life throws at him and emerge on top . Am i someone who is in control? the truth is , i am not in control of life. More often than not, i find myself utterrin short prayers askin for deliverance; asking for strength and wisdom. since i'm not able to resist prayin to "the almighty"(whoever that is), i am not perfectly an atheist.
there must be some other religion that i follow or find most appealing. If not an atheist i'd like to be a hindu. I'd like to follow the hinduism as interpreted by swami vivekanand. My hinduism is a plural religion. it has a multitude of gods and goddesses. has anyone wondered why hinduism has a multitude of gods and goddesses? after 900 bc, as hinduism as a religion began to take shape it began spreading into all parts of india.. and as the races that initially followed hinduism began spreading into the continent they came across many tribes and settlements in the intereiors of the sub continent. these races wanted to find a way to integrate the other aboriginal races into their community. the solution was not anything like wat the inquistodors set out to do in modern india. their solution was not anything like wat the spanish occupants did to aboriginal south american cultures. the solution that early followers of hinduism was to incorporate the local tribal gods into their own hindu myths. in this manner hindu mythology expanded to include a multitude of local gods and goddesses. these tribal god's were incorporated as sons of trimurthis(the three omnipotent gods above all others).
Hinduism in this manner was able to accomadate all other races and beliefs of the indian sub continent into itslef. did u know that there are tribal gods to whom meat and alchohol is offered? that is the greatness of hinduism. its tolerance and flexibility. there is no one set way to live life, similarly there is no one set way to reach god. Budha began a new sect primarily because he was disgusted with the hinduism of his days that was corrupted by the priestly classes and ridden with dogma and customs and rituals. today hinduism has reformed itself and people now say that budha was also an incarnate of vishnu(one of the trimurthis)! jesus, krishna, prophet muhammad, budha are all said to be incarnations of vishnu. ofcourse it is debatable, that is agreed readily by me. but, wat i'd like to bring attention to here is that hinduism is not just a religion , but a philosophy. religion is rigid, but, philosophy is dynamic and living. philosophy is organic and breathes and grows.
to conclude, i'd like to be an atheist or a hindu.
redace
I don´t believe, I cannot believe. It´s impossible for me, but I´m trying to understand people who believe in someone or something.

megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]
perlpoint
I'm a Jehovah's Witness
icecool
human

does that count?

cheers
htetkyawlwin
I am buddhism...
Coen
I am an atheïst. Might not be a religion you say. It is in my eyes. My disbelief is my belief and can be called some sort of religion.
Bikerman
Coen wrote:
I am an atheïst. Might not be a religion you say. It is in my eyes. My disbelief is my belief and can be called some sort of religion.

Careful. Atheists are not necessarily believers.
Do you believe that God does not exist? If so then, yes, that is a belief.
Alternatively, do you not believe in God, but not affirm that God does not exist? If so then that is not a belief. It is possible to not believe in God without making the statement that he does not exist.

It may sound confusing but there is a very real difference. The first is sometimes known as 'strong atheism' and the second 'weak atheism'. Strong atheism is a belief, weak atheism is not.
Coen
Bikerman wrote:
Coen wrote:
I am an atheïst. Might not be a religion you say. It is in my eyes. My disbelief is my belief and can be called some sort of religion.

Careful. Atheists are not necessarily believers.
Do you believe that God does not exist? If so then, yes, that is a belief.
Alternatively, do you not believe in God, but not affirm that God does not exist? If so then that is not a belief. It is possible to not believe in God without making the statement that he does not exist.

It may sound confusing but there is a very real difference. The first is sometimes known as 'strong atheism' and the second 'weak atheism'. Strong atheism is a belief, weak atheism is not.


In my eyes, there is no such thing as weak or strong atheïsm. Atheïsm means that you do not believe in the excistence of a god or any higher entetity. If you are not sure you're agnostic.

Everyone has a belief. Even those who say they haven't. Think about it, they're not believing in something is a belief too.
Bikerman
Coen wrote:
In my eyes, there is no such thing as weak or strong atheïsm. Atheïsm means that you do not believe in the excistence of a god or any higher entetity. If you are not sure you're agnostic.

Everyone has a belief. Even those who say they haven't. Think about it, they're not believing in something is a belief too.

Well, that's why I asked. The problem is that you don't understand what the terms mean. Let me try to explain.
An Agnostic is NOT someone who is unsure about God. An Agnostic is someone who is SURE that the existence of God cannot be proved one way or the other. It is possible, therefore, to be a religious agnostic or an atheist agnostic.
An atheist agnostic, for example, would be someone who does not believe that the existence of God can be proved, and does not personally believe in God. A religious agnostic would be one who does not think the existence of God can be proved but DOES believe in God.
Do you see the difference?
Disbelief is NOT a belief. To use a simple example, I don't think there is a small teapot in orbit around Jupiter. I do not, however, state that there is not such a teapot, because I haven't enough evidence either way to be sure. I just personally do not think there is. If I were, on the other-hand to say 'There is NO small teapot in orbit around Jupiter' then that would be a belief. Finally if I had sufficient evidence to prove one way or another whether there was such a teapot then I wouldn't need to believe at all....
karrupin
I'm a Roman Catholic, I'm only believe in one God & the Holy Catholic church Very Happy
gr8inferno
Me --- Struggling Christian
Coen
Well, that's why I asked. The problem is that you don't understand what the terms mean. Let me try to explain.
An Agnostic is NOT someone who is unsure about God. An Agnostic is someone who is SURE that the existence of God cannot be proved one way or the other. It is possible, therefore, to be a religious agnostic or an atheist agnostic.
An atheist agnostic, for example, would be someone who does not believe that the existence of God can be proved, and does not personally believe in God. A religious agnostic would be one who does not think the existence of God can be proved but DOES believe in God.
Do you see the difference?
Disbelief is NOT a belief. To use a simple example, I don't think there is a small teapot in orbit around Jupiter. I do not, however, state that there is not such a teapot, because I haven't enough evidence either way to be sure. I just personally do not think there is. If I were, on the other-hand to say 'There is NO small teapot in orbit around Jupiter' then that would be a belief. Finally if I had sufficient evidence to prove one way or another whether there was such a teapot then I wouldn't need to believe at all....[/quote]
That is nonsense. An agnost is someone who believes the excistence of a god cannot be proven and thus is not entirely sure what to believe. They do not acknowledge nor deny the excistence of a god thus an atheistic agnost cannot excist, as an atheist, per defenition, denies the excistense of a god (or gods).

And by disbelief I mean my disbelief in the excistence of a god and that is a belief. I really believe there is no god; meaning that I believe my own disbelief.
Bikerman
Coen wrote:
That is nonsense. An agnost is someone who believes the excistence of a god cannot be proven and thus is not entirely sure what to believe. They do not acknowledge nor deny the excistence of a god thus an atheistic agnost cannot excist, as an atheist, per defenition, denies the excistense of a god (or gods).
Yes, that is a common misperception. Even Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in his writings. You do not have to believe that something can be proved to believe in it. In fact that is the very nature of belief - you do not believe in things that can be demonstrated, you simply know them.
An agnostic is, as you say, someone who believes the existence of God cannot be proven. Regardless of whether it can be proven or not, it is possible (indeed necessary) to 'believe' in or 'disbelieve' in God. Thus it is perfectly consistent to describe myself as an agnostic atheist because I don't believe God's existence can be proved, and I don't personally believe in him.
Quote:
And by disbelief I mean my disbelief in the excistence of a god and that is a belief. I really believe there is no god; meaning that I believe my own disbelief.
I share your disbelief. Do you, however, believe that God can be shown not to exist?
Coen
Bikerman wrote:
Yes, that is a common misperception. Even Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in his writings. You do not have to believe that something can be proved to believe in it. In fact that is the very nature of belief - you do not believe in things that can be demonstrated, you simply know them.

An agnostic is, as you say, someone who believes the existence of God cannot be proven. Regardless of whether it can be proven or not, it is possible (indeed necessary) to 'believe' in or 'disbelieve' in God. Thus it is perfectly consistent to describe myself as an agnostic atheist because I don't believe God's existence can be proved, and I don't personally believe in him.

I was mostly implying to the fact that an atheïst denies the excistence of a god while an agnost doesn't know whether or not there is a god. That is the defenition you will find on every site you see so I would hardly call that a misperception.

Quote:
And by disbelief I mean my disbelief in the excistence of a god and that is a belief. I really believe there is no god; meaning that I believe my own disbelief.
I share your disbelief. Do you, however, believe that God can be shown not to exist?[/quote]
Yes, for myself I can perfectly prove that God does not excist. Those reasons, however, are personal and might not be sufficiant to others. For me, they are good enough as are they shared by some of my friends. For the outside world I mostly use the phrase: "Abensence of evidence is evidence of abscence."
My main reasons, however, are personal and are not sure to convince anyone. Although if I do look at everything that is going wrong in the world I cannot believe a god would let such a thing happen if he was "almighty". Then that god would surely be some prick. Which he isn't according to the religions.
Bikerman
Coen wrote:
I was mostly implying to the fact that an atheïst denies the excistence of a god while an agnost doesn't know whether or not there is a god. That is the defenition you will find on every site you see so I would hardly call that a misperception.
So you say agnostic is one who does not know whether there is a God, wheras I maintain it is one who thinks it is impossible to prove it either way. You say that your definition occurs on every web site you see. Well, let's test that should we? Here's the results of a quick 'google':
Web Free Dictionary:One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
Wiki: Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.
Answers.com : The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Those are the first three sites that came up on google when I queried the meaning....They all seem to agree with my definition I think, although the wiki alternative definition is closer to yours.
Quote:
Yes, for myself I can perfectly prove that God does not excist. Those reasons, however, are personal and might not be sufficiant to others. For me, they are good enough as are they shared by some of my friends. For the outside world I mostly use the phrase: "Abensence of evidence is evidence of abscence."
My main reasons, however, are personal and are not sure to convince anyone. Although if I do look at everything that is going wrong in the world I cannot believe a god would let such a thing happen if he was "almighty". Then that god would surely be some prick. Which he isn't according to the religions.
So you are saying that you believe it is possible to prove that God does not exist. That makes you a strong atheist. I, on the other hand, do not believe it is possible to prove that God exists or does not exist. We therefore do not believe the same thing, even though neither of us believes in God. That is why I am insisting on the different definitions of the terminology. I regard myself as an agnostic atheist whilst your position is one of a strong atheist.....
Coen
I have a feeling you still don't get my point. An agnost believes it cannot be proven there is no god, thus he can say: OK, I think there is no god. While an atheist does not believe in god.
Quote:
Wiki: Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

By being agnostic you say that there is no evidence for excistance of gods but there might be a small chance there are thus, in my eyes, you cannot be a real atheist as they do not believe in the excistance of a god.
Bikerman
Coen wrote:
I have a feeling you still don't get my point. An agnost believes it cannot be proven there is no god, thus he can say: OK, I think there is no god. While an atheist does not believe in god.
Quote:
Wiki: Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

By being agnostic you say that there is no evidence for excistance of gods but there might be a small chance there are thus, in my eyes, you cannot be a real atheist as they do not believe in the excistance of a god.

I get your point, I just think you are wrong. It is perfectly possible to believe in a God whilst also believing it is impossible to prove that there is a God. Likewise it is perfectly possible to believe that the existence of God cannot be disproven, and yet personally not believe in such a God.
You make the mistake of adding a 'thus' to your statement. There does not need to be a 'thus'. So the statement that you make ; "An agnostic believes it cannot be proven there is no God THUS he can say....." is going beyond what an agnostic is. If you stop before the 'THUS' then you have the definition of an agnostic. What the agnostic chooses to do as a result of that stance may or may not be to believe in a God.
kalihto
hindu
flyfamilyguy
death_dealer wrote:
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!

Thats pretty scary dude! From here in the USA. I would not be advertising that too much if I were you.
flyfamilyguy
poet wrote:
or in my view beleaving in ones self,... Do i feel there is a higher spirit, of courseis...

Thats a pretty arrogant statement. Especially when you go on to state that you believe in a "higher spirit". That spells big trouble dude!
flyfamilyguy
The key word here is 'Eternity.' Where will you be without Jesus? "If you are right and I am wrong, then what do I lose? Nothing! I believed in Nothing, so no harm-no foul. BUT, If I am right and YOU are wrong, then you will be wrong for Eternity., eternity without God."

[img]http://www.flyfamilyguy.webs.com/title.gif/[/img]
itolerance
I am a proud muslim Very Happy
itolerance
flyfamilyguy wrote:
death_dealer wrote:
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!

Thats pretty scary dude! From here in the USA. I would not be advertising that too much if I were you.


what maked you think its scary.... i mean being a muslim or saying that i am a muslim. I will never fear to say anything.... whoever be it... bcozim not wrong... not islam is... well whats ur religion.
HalfBloodPrince
flyfamilyguy wrote:
death_dealer wrote:
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!

Thats pretty scary dude! From here in the USA. I would not be advertising that too much if I were you.


Really. Why? You think all Muslims are terrorists?
Coen
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
flyfamilyguy wrote:
death_dealer wrote:
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!

Thats pretty scary dude! From here in the USA. I would not be advertising that too much if I were you.


Really. Why? You think all Muslims are terrorists?

I have to agree with you on this one. I wouldn't make a secret out of hiding my faith. What's wrong with muslims except for those very few how like blowing up themselves and others.
On a side note, all those people are said not to be true muslims by the ones with sense (which would be most of the other muslims except for the terrorists).
HalfBloodPrince
M'hm. I'm a Muslim. Islam is built on the same basis as Christianity and Judaism since they came from one source.
amicalindia
Hindu Vaishnava
gottastory
I am baptist but not an advid one. I am breaking away from what I read in the Christian bible because to me it doesn't make that much sense. From reading the bible I adopt the ideas (such not to steal, not kill, love one another, etc). But As I have gotten older and more knowledge, I have come to the conclusion that people use religion like a crutch rather than a tool to enrich their lives and people around them (this is not an absolute). I believe in the higher power, because science can explain but so much. God does exist, just some people choose not to accept the signs in everyday life. I am very leary on the idea of the Christians' version of heaven and hell. I feel that would be a whole new topic.
m-itachi
i am musulam
BrianElliott0218
I'm an Apathetic Agnostic.
http://apatheticagnostic.org/
I don't know, and I don't care.

I think that religion in general has caused a lot of pain and grief, and guilt in our world, and even though most religions talk about dealing with others with tolerance (and even love) I have found most very religious people to be intolerant and argumentative.

I have had people trying to convert me to one religion or another since I was about 6 or 7. It never made sense to me. A big invisible being in the sky who created everything, and he'll send you to hell, unless you believe in him, BUT he loves you... And he needs money... Lots and lots of money. (apologies to Mr. Carlin).

Ultimately, all the holy writings I have seen preach being good. The fear of a higher authority (divine being) is the influencer of the good behavior. Well, personally, I have no use for it. I try to treat people well. I have low tolerance for people with avid beliefs (fundamentalists, conservatives, zealots, or whatever you want to call them) who try to convert or tell me I'm living my life wrong because I don't have a belief in a higher divine creator. Basically, it doesn't matter. We're all going to die, and we'll all find out one way or another. Having a belief in what happens to you when you die has little to do with how you should treat people.

You should treat your fellows with the best of intentions and in the way that you would like to be treated. Many people, of various religious backgrounds, do not do this, and hatred is the end result over the years, decades, centuries, and on...

We are all of one people. One planet. Take care of what we do have. Use your brains. Recycle and appreciate the planet. Appreciate the differences we have, because that is beautiful too. Let us be fascinated with each other instead of fearful of the differences we have. Variety is a wonderful thing, and we have a diverse population. Religion (and MTV, and Wal-Mart) have diminished our diversity. We need more people banding together, not pulling apart.

Religion is a bad influence on our world today, and probably has been for millennium. People want to bring it into schools more, and into government more, and into the bloody workplace more. I won't stand for it without being heard! Love your family, and friends, and pray to your gods, whomever they may be, but leave others to their own. Preach within the family, and go to the house of worship that your family, or culture enjoys, but treat people with common decency and common sense regardless of their religion.

One other thing all you people of religion... The world is well populated now, you can stop with all the thriving. Let's not have more children than we should. Yes, every child is a joyful thing to be loved and brought up with fine ideas, but one per parent should be plenty. Pregnancy is not a competitive sport! Use family planning in an intelligent way. I don't believe in abstinence, but if that's what it takes! We need some common sense. We are already the most successful species on the face of the planet, but we are going to be the victims of our own success without some thought to the future.

Take up the fervor that you waste on religion and bring it to your government. Make them stop catering to the big businesses who are all lobbying for bettering their companies revenues and not making things better for the people who live in the country. Put common sense in front of corporate profits in government. (I'm in the US, so this may be a little slanted for those of you out of the US). If you were to spend half as much time on writing to your congressmen and less on praying for betterment, you might just find that your prayer get answered more often.

Conviction to your belief is fine, but don't let it run your life. It's meant to guide your action, not make all the calls for you.

All it would take to destroy any religion on this planet would be for us to discover (or more likely be discovered by) and alien culture. Although, I guess it would be a big push for the Flying Spaghetti Monster Religion.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Imagine,
~Brian Elliott
hpphkl
On my papers it reads lutheran. For me religion is tradition and should not be more because faith is dangerous.
sushpop
I think this is the best way i define my religion.
Lv4snobrdg
Pagan

Specifically a Shaman of Native American influence.

Peace

Lv
alyer
I am Christian. Rolling Eyes
zevampyre
I am a Veron. Follower of Veronity.
Socioed
I am Jedi!
JohnCarlo
Roman Catholic
The-Ron-Man
Deists don't get no respect. It's a bloody shame. Oh well, I know plenty of Deists where I live, so it's all good. I'm not alone.
Bikerman
The-Ron-Man wrote:
Deists don't get no respect. It's a bloody shame. Oh well, I know plenty of Deists where I live, so it's all good. I'm not alone.
Why should you automatically expect respect for a belief that you hold?
Does the fact that you are not alone change this?
satksri
I am Hindu- one of the most mis-understood faiths. In a sense good. If you understand it, you tend to go around teaching and converting others. So, basically, Hinduism says- that everyone has his / her special path back to her/his Godhood (perfection). No need to imitate anyone else- however ancient / modern.
zi1nightman
I'm a Muslim, worshipping God using the Islamic teachings...
Crinoid
Baptized ortodox christian, agnostic by beliefs.
frih
i m HINDU....
joshsm
i m muslim,
satksri
I am Hindu- but it is difficult to define that word..
In a nutshell- it means accepting all paths as true paths to God- but realising that one path may not be the path for everyone. Accepting differences in people's approach to Godhood..
sachin
roninmedia
I'm a Mahayana Buddhist. However, I take it to be more a state of mind in approaching things in life than actual religion.

I'm of a belief that you don't have to be believe in God to be a good person.
supjapscrapper
I am a convinced muslim and a world citizen.

But I would never have thought that would get to read things like:

Christian catholic --> ... tiger --> crusader???!!!
In what for a world do we live in??? Are you people nuts? The guy just asked for your religions? He didn't ask you if you wanted to kill the rest of the world??! mann... you guys are nuts...
jpterri
I am a Chassidic Jew. I love the topic of religion and while Jews don't try to "sell" their religion, I am fascinated by the many flavors of belief. Atheism seems to offer more questions than answers, and the "mainstream" religion offers much confusion. For instance: What (or who) is a "real" christian? It depends on who you ask. The answers are all over the place.

Okay, I'm bracing myself for the avalanche! Rolling Eyes
hiquality
ORTHODOX here , but religion shouldn't separate us...
xtupie
Christian - Blood bought saint of Jehovah God
xtupie
Christian - Blood bought saint of Jehovah God
dougblackjr
....even though He's not a religion. It's about a relationship.

Church was never a big part of my life. I was a real hateful kid, hating pretty much everyone around me (including my friends). I was depressed, and had attempted suicide.

My friends invited me to a Christian Concert, and it was the first place I heard about Jesus, heard about how He died to rescue me from my sins.

Things changed. I decided to live for Jesus, and noticed an incredible, instant change in my actions and attitudes toward people!

Sorry to go off...just thought it's important for you to hear.
chocbizkit
muslim
Poetsunited
i'm an atheist, but with a strong sympathy for religions. I love reading about those religions but more as a fiction novel
nigam
I am a Roman Catholic. We are obliged to hear mass on Sundays and its only 1 hour. It is so shameful to say that I can't go to attend mass on Sunday even if it is just a few steps near in my house. I felt so guilty. I can hear them singing. I can only go there once in a while in a prayer room and if I am in need of help. I just hope I will change myself. I hope God won't punished me for not giving him a time to visit him every Sunday. I hope that God won't forsake me.
TheCraft
I'm a Wiccan. Never really felt right following any other beliefs.
Pensive-Koala
I'm currently an atheist, and relatively confident that I'll stay one. If you have evidence that you think will persuade me to change my mind (please, don't quote the Bible at me), please get in touch.
handfleisch
You Probably Don't Know What Your Religion Really IS! This test will ask you about your beliefs and then tell you what religion you have the most in common with. For example, you might think you believe in the Jewish religion but your beliefs correspond to Buddhism! Or you might think you're an agnostic but you really are a Quaker! It also tells you what religion you have the LEAST in common with. Try it, it's fun at the very least. I turned out to be a PAGAN!

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html

PS somebody please vote on my posts, I need to set up a webhosting account!!!!
Gonzalo
Well, I am actually Catholic and live in Argentina. Our community is built on Christian bases but more or less you can find a lot of different religions going on. For example, I live in a place that particularly has a lot of Jew temples, so I have many neighbours and friends of that religion.

Gonzalo.
cadilak
Christian Orthodox, its real religion..
Tutor
Pensive-Koala wrote:
I'm currently an atheist, and relatively confident that I'll stay one. If you have evidence that you think will persuade me to change my mind (please, don't quote the Bible at me), please get in touch.


I'm Christian, Evangelical Lutheran.

I have no actual evidence. But the scientists have. In fact, for example archeologists have found more evidence about Jesus than about any other well-known persons combined. And when the lifestory of Alexander the Great was written approx 400 years after his death, first documents about the Jesus Christ were written only 2 years after his death, while his whole life in gospels were written by the people living beside Jesus. Matthew and John were disciples of the Jesus himself and Mark was a disciple of the St.Peter. Their testimonys were "fresh". It is proved that gospel according to Mark, the first gospel, was written only less than 30 years after the death of Jesus.

Also Jesus is mentioned by dozens of Mediterranean historywriters who have nothing to do with Jews (and the early Christians). They have mostly written about kings and noble. It would be crazy that a poor carpenter would get in their important writings, if he wouldn't be someone exceptional.

And also I have to mention that you all must have heard about the Big Bang, I suppose. It was originally discovered by catholic church, as a proof of existence of God. Today scientist still cannot explain how the mass of everything, the point of singularity, had been born from nothing. If it wasn't created, how can it in any means exist?
Bikerman
Have you got any evidence for these astounding claims. I think you are labouring under some illusions here.
It is well known that the New Testament Gospels were written well after the time of 'Christ'. (45CE - 140CE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
What archaeological evidence are you talking about - I know of non.
What history writers are you talking about? Certainly not contemporaries.
It is certainly true that Lemaître proposed the BB theory and he was a Roman Catholic priest but it was not 'discovered' by the Catholic Church and it was not 'proof of God'.
Tutor
Wikipedia has the answers to everything, huh?

I recommend the book Jesus and the Gospels by dr. Craig L. Blomberg, the leading writer and researcher what comes to the Gospels, in the US. I don't know who wrote the stuff in wikipedia, but I sure know it wasn't the Blomberg. I could spend hours while writing you all the proofs, but I stay short.

Luke was the disciple and doctor of Paul, he wrote the Gospel according to Luke as well as the Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Epistles ends suddenly when the Paul is in house arrest in Rome. What happened to the leading character of the book? Pauline Epistles doesn't explain it, because it was written before the execution of Paul which happened in the year 62. Gospel according to Luke was written before his second writingproject, the Pauline Epistles, before year 62.
Tutor
Bikerman wrote:

It is certainly true that Lemaître proposed the BB theory and he was a Roman Catholic priest but it was not 'discovered' by the Catholic Church and it was not 'proof of God'.

Yes, Lemaître was the discoverer and catholic church was only the institute. Just like today the science-centers publish in their name the acchievements of their researchers. And Church DID claim it as the proof of God, so I don't understand your argument they did not.

Bikerman wrote:

What archaeological evidence are you talking about - I know of non.

I'm just talking about over 24 000 found documents about the events of New Testament. I hope you're not a reseacher if you don't know none of them.
Bikerman
Tutor wrote:
Wikipedia has the answers to everything, huh?
No but it is a useful quick reference.
Quote:
I recommend the book Jesus and the Gospels by dr. Craig L. Blomberg, the leading writer and researcher what comes to the Gospels, in the US. I don't know who wrote the stuff in wikipedia, but I sure know it wasn't the Blomberg. I could spend hours while writing you all the proofs, but I stay short.

Luke was the disciple and doctor of Paul, he wrote the Gospel according to Luke as well as the Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Epistles ends suddenly when the Paul is in house arrest in Rome. What happened to the leading character of the book? Pauline Epistles doesn't explain it, because it was written before the execution of Paul which happened in the year 62. Gospel according to Luke was written before his second writingproject, the Pauline Epistles, before year 62.

That is one theory. There are many others. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Gospel of Luke was based on Josephus since both accounts contain many similarities and parallels.
If this is correct then Luke cannot have been written before 94CE.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

Other bible scholars put it somewhere between 59 and 90CE. How accurate do you think such an account would be after such a time lag? Try writing down in detail what happened last year. Then try it for 30 years ago...

I'm still waiting for this archaeological evidence you spoke of, and the list of mediterranean historical accounts.
Bikerman
Tutor wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

It is certainly true that Lemaître proposed the BB theory and he was a Roman Catholic priest but it was not 'discovered' by the Catholic Church and it was not 'proof of God'.

Yes, Lemaître was the discoverer and catholic church was only the institute. Just like today the science-centers publish in their name the acchievements of their researchers. And Church DID claim it as the proof of God, so I don't understand your argument they did not.
Lemaître was working as a scientist, not as a priest. There is no parallel. The university he was working at (Université catholique de Louvain) could claim some credit, but it is a long stretch to credit the Catholic Church as a whole since he was not working on a specific church project, but on his own account.
Lemaître himself was very clear that the theory was a physical theory with no religious significance, but Pope Pious XII saw that is allowed a 'first cause' explanation and pushed it, even before it was widely accepted.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

What archaeological evidence are you talking about - I know of non.

I'm just talking about over 24 000 found documents about the events of New Testament. I hope you're not a reseacher if you don't know none of them.
What documents? Documents would be a historical record unless they are actually contemporaneous, in which case we could regard them as archeological. To the best of my knowledge there are no original copies of the Gospels. The earliest manuscript fragment (known as Papyrus 52) dates to around 150CE...

You claim that we have a document from 2 years after Jesus...what is this document?
You claim that Mark was written less than 30 years after the death of Jesus. Most bible scholars put the earliest possible date for the gospel after the destruction of the second Temple of Jerusalem (70CE).
Tutor
Bikerman wrote:

That is one theory. There are many others. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Gospel of Luke was based on Josephus since both accounts contain many similarities and parallels.
If this is correct then Luke cannot have been written before 94CE.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

It is perfectly reasonable to believe but not perfectly reasonable to assume. You know how some theories are just bigger, better, faster and stronger depending on the proofs and support of the sciencecommunity. Theory I mentioned is one of that kind of theories.

Gospels according to Luke and Matthew base on the Gospel according to Mark. And that's not even suprise if you take a look at the gospels. They look VERY similar. I believe even your precious wikipedia gives you that answer.

Bikerman wrote:
Other bible scholars put it somewhere between 59 and 90CE. How accurate do you think such an account would be after such a time lag? Try writing down in detail what happened last year. Then try it for 30 years ago...

First I have to mention that the majority of researchers see earlier mentioned lifestory of Alexander the Great as very accurate and see no reason why it wouldn't have happened as it did. No matter if it was written 400years after his death.
It would take me ages to tell all the reasons why 30 years is nothing but I try to cut corners a bit and give you the mainpoints.

1. Gospels include references where is mentioned that they write with honest hearts and accurately as possible. Example Gospel according to Luke starts with such a statement. And then Gospel according to John 20:31 has such an statement.
2. You have to remember the culture where they (the early christians) lived in. They had taught the teachings of the prorhets for centuries and did rehearse the events all over and over again. And remember this wasn't some old children's game where you put one sentence to go through a circle whispered. We are talking about very accurate people who would have said "excuse me, tell me louder" and "could you repeat that? Go again" and "ok so this is how I understand what you said, is it correct?".

Bikerman wrote:

You claim that we have a document from 2 years after Jesus...what is this document?

Document is an early Confession also found in the Bible (1. Corinthians, chapter 15). If crusifixion happened around year 30, turning of the Paul was around 32 after which he was taken to Damaskos to christian Ananias. Paul's first meeting with the Jerusalem's christians happened in the year 35 by latests approximation, when he was handed that Confession. As it was already been modified to have the core of christianity it has been written 2-5years after the events.
Bikerman
Tutor wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe but not perfectly reasonable to assume. You know how some theories are just bigger, better, faster and stronger depending on the proofs and support of the sciencecommunity. Theory I mentioned is one of that kind of theories.
Says who? Up to now you have cited one source for your belief. Whilst I admit that I have not read the book in question, I have read quite a lot of other texts on this which take issue with this 'bigger better faster' viewpoint.
Quote:
Gospels according to Luke and Matthew base on the Gospel according to Mark. And that's not even suprise if you take a look at the gospels. They look VERY similar. I believe even your precious wikipedia gives you that answer.
Yes it does. It still doesn't say, however, that the Gospels were written when you claim. Neither does it say they were written by WHO you claim. What you are saying is that a later work is similar to an earlier work. Well, call me a cynic if you like, but that is not really surprising is it?
There is a great deal of controversy over the dates and authorship of the gospel accounts and to suggest there is a clear consensus theory is simply wrong - there isn't. To suggest that the science community supports a particular viewpoint is also entirely spurious - it doesn't.
As wiki says
Quote:
To summarize, the only books for which there are solid authorship consensuses among modern critical scholars are the Pauline epistiles mentioned above, which are universally regarded as authentic, and Hebrews, which is nearly always rejected. The remaining nineteen books remain in dispute, some holding to the traditional view, and others regarding them as anonymous or pseudonymic.
That, I believe, is an accurate statement of the position.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Other bible scholars put it somewhere between 59 and 90CE. How accurate do you think such an account would be after such a time lag? Try writing down in detail what happened last year. Then try it for 30 years ago...

First I have to mention that the majority of researchers see earlier mentioned lifestory of Alexander the Great as very accurate and see no reason why it wouldn't have happened as it did. No matter if it was written 400years after his death.
But that is because there are a variety of secondary texts from which it is possible to build an accurate timeline of events involving Alexander. Many of his accomplishments are a matter of historical record so it is quite possible to verify both his existence and his chronology with a high degree of certainty. Many scholars have spent their life correlating historical documents/events and the current understanding of Alexander is the result of this work - involving thousands of secondary sources, contemporaneous accounts and archaeological evidence. The same cannot be said for Jesus. The only contemporary(ish) historian for Jesus was Josephus. There is a single mention in Josephus of Jesus - and that is contested, with many scholars thinking it is bogus (largely because of the later comments of Origen).
Quote:
It would take me ages to tell all the reasons why 30 years is nothing but I try to cut corners a bit and give you the mainpoints.
1. Gospels include references where is mentioned that they write with honest hearts and accurately as possible. Example Gospel according to Luke starts with such a statement. And then Gospel according to John 20:31 has such an statement.
LOL..so the source says it is accurate and that proves it ? Are you serious?
Quote:
2. You have to remember the culture where they (the early christians) lived in. They had taught the teachings of the prorhets for centuries and did rehearse the events all over and over again. And remember this wasn't some old children's game where you put one sentence to go through a circle whispered. We are talking about very accurate people who would have said "excuse me, tell me louder" and "could you repeat that? Go again" and "ok so this is how I understand what you said, is it correct?".
Don't make me laugh. Chinese whisper syndrome was just as prevalent in previous historical eras as it is today. The notion that there was an accurate oral tradition that led to the cannonical gospels is a myth. There are many non-cannonical accounts which differ fundamentally from the cannonical texts, as you well know.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
You claim that we have a document from 2 years after Jesus...what is this document?
Document is an early Confession also found in the Bible (1. Corinthians, chapter 15). If crusifixion happened around year 30, turning of the Paul was around 32 after which he was taken to Damaskos to christian Ananias. Paul's first meeting with the Jerusalem's christians happened in the year 35 by latests approximation, when he was handed that Confession. As it was already been modified to have the core of christianity it has been written 2-5years after the events.
Where is this document? In what archive is it stored? I have never heard of such a document - perhaps you can give me a link so I can verify its existence. I do not believe that there is any such existing document dating from 32-35CE, but I am happy to be proved wrong.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that 1 Corinthians includes an account which is supposed to have happened in 32-35CE then whoopie do...what does that prove? As you well know, 1 Corinthians was written about 55CE - 25 years after the events, not 2 years after the events - a slight difference I submit. Nor do we have any original papyrus of this epistle - the earliest papyrus containing 1 Corinthians (papyrus 15) dates from about 250CE.
I do actually know what you are referring to, but you refer to it in a dishonest manner which discredits your point. What you actually MEAN is that there is a creed in 1 Corinithians which can be reliably dated back before the actual writings. In the case of 1 Corinthians the creed in question is
Quote:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."
Some scholars put this original creed somewhere between 32 and 38CE. To suggest, however, that this is itself a document from that time is dishonest. It is a later account which contains a passage which can be verified, with a reasonable degree of certainty, as being authentic to previous times - that is all.

My local library has about 50 books on Robin Hood - some of which give great detail about his life and times. That doesn't mean he really existed though, does it? If we had a document from a historian who was contemporaneous with Robin Hood (even 2 years after his death would be fine) then we might be more inclined to believe he existed. We don't. The same applies to Jesus.

For what it's worth I do think, on balance of probabilities, that Jesus DID exist as a historical character. I don't, of course, think that the Gospel accounts are an accurate summary of his life and nor do I believe that he was 'divine' - but that is a matter of faith. The problem I have with you is that you blithely state that science and historians are all in support of the notion of Jesus as a historical character. Historians certainly do not agree and science has little or nothing to say on the matter. I am certainly no historian and neither am I a biblical scholar (but I would suggest that neither are you). My training and inclination is more in the realms of science and technology than history and biblical scholarship. That does not mean, however, that I am completely unknowledgable in this area. I have several years of 'religious education' and a couple of years of theology under my belt. I do largely rely on summaries and commentaries by others for my view of this era, since studying the original literature is the work of several lifetimes, and mine is spent largely on other things. The literature that I do read, however, leads me to the conclusion that Jesus probably existed as a historical character and, beyond that, we know next to nothing.
quilledbroomstick
I am pagan with humanistic tendencies!
Libby
I am Christian with anarchistic tendencies!

Very Happy
deanhills
Libby wrote:
I am Christian with anarchistic tendencies!

Very Happy


Interesting combination. How do the two gel together? Smile
cod3rbro
Islam Smile but I'm The DeviL Twisted Evil
Libby
deanhills wrote:
Libby wrote:
I am Christian with anarchistic tendencies!

Very Happy


Interesting combination. How do the two gel together? Smile


Surprisingly well! It's just instead of "No Gods No Masters!" it's "One God, the Only Master". So no earthly authority. Works for me.
chatrack
One Cast, one Religion, one God----For Human
Tutor
Bikerman wrote:
Tutor wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe but not perfectly reasonable to assume. You know how some theories are just bigger, better, faster and stronger depending on the proofs and support of the sciencecommunity. Theory I mentioned is one of that kind of theories.
Says who? Up to now you have cited one source for your belief. Whilst I admit that I have not read the book in question, I have read quite a lot of other texts on this which take issue with this 'bigger better faster' viewpoint.
Quote:
Gospels according to Luke and Matthew base on the Gospel according to Mark. And that's not even suprise if you take a look at the gospels. They look VERY similar. I believe even your precious wikipedia gives you that answer.

Yes it does. It still doesn't say, however, that the Gospels were written when you claim. Neither does it say they were written by WHO you claim.

You must be suprised but there never has been a real conversation among the researchers whether they were or weren't written by these people. There just isn't a reason why the Gospels wouldn't be the people they claim they are. Wouldn't there rather be Gospel according to Jesus, or Gospel according to Peter?

Bikerman wrote:
But that is because there are a variety of secondary texts from which it is possible to build an accurate timeline of events involving Alexander. Many of his accomplishments are a matter of historical record so it is quite possible to verify both his existence and his chronology with a high degree of certainty. Many scholars have spent their life correlating historical documents/events and the current understanding of Alexander is the result of this work - involving thousands of secondary sources, contemporaneous accounts and archaeological evidence. The same cannot be said for Jesus.

BWAHHAH, you cannot be serious?! Titus Flavius Iosephus and Gaius Cornelius Tacitus have a lot of references to Jesus in their text as does the Gaius Plinius Secundus have references to christianity.

Bikerman wrote:
Tutor wrote:
1. Gospels include references where is mentioned that they write with honest hearts and accurately as possible. Example Gospel according to Luke starts with such a statement. And then Gospel according to John 20:31 has such an statement.
LOL..so the source says it is accurate and that proves it ? Are you serious?

Yes, I am very serious. It was a custom a the time that the historywriters always began with such statements. It was necessary.
Bikerman wrote:
Tutor wrote:
2. You have to remember the culture where they (the early christians) lived in. They had taught the teachings of the prorhets for centuries and did rehearse the events all over and over again. And remember this wasn't some old children's game where you put one sentence to go through a circle whispered. We are talking about very accurate people who would have said "excuse me, tell me louder" and "could you repeat that? Go again" and "ok so this is how I understand what you said, is it correct?".
Don't make me laugh. Chinese whisper syndrome was just as prevalent in previous historical eras as it is today. The notion that there was an accurate oral tradition that led to the cannonical gospels is a myth. There are many non-cannonical accounts which differ fundamentally from the cannonical texts, as you well know.

Better start laughing, because "Chinese whisper syndrome" cannot be taken in account because of the tradition how Jews passed their knowledge on. I'm sure it's hard to believe if you are slave of the present. You cannot be serious that researchers shouldn't take in account the tradition old thousands of years.

Bikerman wrote:
Tutor wrote:
Document is an early Confession also found in the Bible (1. Corinthians, chapter 15). If crusifixion happened around year 30, turning of the Paul was around 32 after which he was taken to Damaskos to christian Ananias. Paul's first meeting with the Jerusalem's christians happened in the year 35 by latests approximation, when he was handed that Confession. As it was already been modified to have the core of christianity it has been written 2-5years after the events.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that 1 Corinthians includes an account which is supposed to have happened in 32-35CE then whoopie do...what does that prove? As you well know, 1 Corinthians was written about 55CE - 25 years after the events, not 2 years after the events - a slight difference I submit. Nor do we have any original papyrus of this epistle - the earliest papyrus containing 1 Corinthians (papyrus 15) dates from about 250CE.

You're right, it has not lasted such a period of time. That makes it a failure, oh wait a minute. It still exists in every bible in the world. It has been copied to the various texts, most known the 1.Corinthians. But how can it prove it was written 32-35CE? Like I said, it was handed to Paul while he visited the christians of Jerusalem. And he visited there approx. 35CE, so it cannot be written after this.

Bikerman wrote:
I do actually know what you are referring to, but you refer to it in a dishonest manner which discredits your point.
I don't like your tone, better clean your mouth or this conversation seems a groundfight, not an actual conversation.

Bikerman wrote:
My local library has about 50 books on Robin Hood - some of which give great detail about his life and times. That doesn't mean he really existed though, does it? If we had a document from a historian who was contemporaneous with Robin Hood (even 2 years after his death would be fine) then we might be more inclined to believe he existed. We don't. The same applies to Jesus.
Again, watch it. We are not just talking about existence of certain events but also important parts of some peoples lives. Such an abuse and insult is not tolerated. I don't have to compare Robin Hood and Jesus Christ, no researchers do, no intelligent people do. Do you belong among these people?

Bikerman wrote:
For what it's worth I do think, on balance of probabilities, that Jesus DID exist as a historical character. I don't, of course, think that the Gospel accounts are an accurate summary of his life and nor do I believe that he was 'divine' - but that is a matter of faith. The problem I have with you is that you blithely state that science and historians are all in support of the notion of Jesus as a historical character. Historians certainly do not agree and science has little or nothing to say on the matter. I am certainly no historian and neither am I a biblical scholar (but I would suggest that neither are you). My training and inclination is more in the realms of science and technology than history and biblical scholarship. That does not mean, however, that I am completely unknowledgable in this area. I have several years of 'religious education' and a couple of years of theology under my belt. I do largely rely on summaries and commentaries by others for my view of this era, since studying the original literature is the work of several lifetimes, and mine is spent largely on other things. The literature that I do read, however, leads me to the conclusion that Jesus probably existed as a historical character and, beyond that, we know next to nothing.

So you believe in science, not God. That's not the point. The point is do you believe in history? Do you believe that events of Jesus which have more historical evidence and found documents than any other person or event, are not real.

Now I name my resources which you should check out:
Craig Blomberg
Bruce Metzger
Edwin Yamauchi
John McRay (sorry, cannot be found on wikipedia)
Gregory Boyd
J.P. Moreland
Lee Strobel
HalfBloodPrince
Tutor wrote:
So you believe in science, not God. That's not the point. The point is do you believe in history? Do you believe that events of Jesus which have more historical evidence and found documents than any other person or event...

Meh, if you want to talk about prophets I would say there is more evidence on the existence of prophet Muhammed. Hey, as a Muslim I believe in Jesus too (but not as the "son of God" or any such nonsense) but I don't need any historical documents to believe in him. I believe everything about him that is in the Quran, and that's just about enough for me.

Quote:
I don't like your tone, better clean your mouth or this conversation seems a groundfight, not an actual conversation.

Ha! I'm still the only theist who has not yet gotten pissed off and said that Dancing
Bikerman
Tutor wrote:
You must be suprised but there never has been a real conversation among the researchers whether they were or weren't written by these people. There just isn't a reason why the Gospels wouldn't be the people they claim they are. Wouldn't there rather be Gospel according to Jesus, or Gospel according to Peter?
Nonsense. Many bible scholars have examined the evidence for who wrote the Gospels and when they were written. Bible scholars frequently exchange views on these matters.
Quote:
BWAHHAH, you cannot be serious?! Titus Flavius Iosephus and Gaius Cornelius Tacitus have a lot of references to Jesus in their text as does the Gaius Plinius Secundus have references to christianity.
Titus Flavius Iosephus=Josephus. Josephus contains ONE reference to Jesus - as I said previously. The authenticity of this reference is largely disputed because of the later commentary by Origen. Josephus also contains a later reference to 'James the Just' (the brother of Jesus) but apart from that there are no other references to Jesus at all. If you can provide other references then do so.
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus = Tacitus. Tacitus mentions 'Christos' - Jesus - in ONE reference to the great fire in Rome where he talks about the Christians in the context that Nero blamed them for the fire. This is written 86 years after the event.
Gaius Plinius Secundus = Pliny the Elder. I am unaware of any reference to Jesus in Pliny's writings - perhaps you can tell me where such references occur? Perhaps you mean Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger - 112CE)? In which case the only reference I know of is : "a hymn to Christ as to a god." Hardly a historical reference to Jesus, is it? This is written 82 years after the event.

You say these authors have 'a lot of references' - please supply your sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
The fact remains that the only accounts we have of Jesus are anecdotal and after the events. Most are simply retelling previous accounts and stories they have heard. You may wish to believe that these accounts are accurate - that is a matter of faith, not historical fact. Let's be honest here - we don't even know the very basics about Jesus - where was he born? Bethlehem? Nazareth? What was his occupation? Carpenter? Stone-mason? We know almost nothing about these questions.
Quote:
Yes, I am very serious. It was a custom a the time that the historywriters always began with such statements. It was necessary.
So the fact that it was a custom means that it is accurate? You think that this is a serious point?
Quote:
Better start laughing, because "Chinese whisper syndrome" cannot be taken in account because of the tradition how Jews passed their knowledge on. I'm sure it's hard to believe if you are slave of the present. You cannot be serious that researchers shouldn't take in account the tradition old thousands of years.
I never suggested that they shouldn't. It is your suggestion that the oral account is free from error - not mine. The fact is that this oral tradition led to widely disparate written histories of Jesus so they cannot be said to be 'inerrant'. Consider the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Judas, for example. The notion that a single 'tradition' survived orally, until it was later written down by the apostles is nonsense and is disproved by the facts.
Quote:
You're right, it has not lasted such a period of time. That makes it a failure, oh wait a minute. It still exists in every bible in the world. It has been copied to the various texts, most known the 1.Corinthians. But how can it prove it was written 32-35CE? Like I said, it was handed to Paul while he visited the christians of Jerusalem. And he visited there approx. 35CE, so it cannot be written after this.
More nonsense. You said there were documents existing from 32-35CE. When challenged you now admit that there is no such document and that the document is merely referred to in 1 Corinthians. The document referred to does not exist (or has not been discovered). The fact that it exists as a reference in every bible is simply not relevant since every bible contains a translation of 1 Corinthians. This is like saying the fact that every copy of Moby Dick contains a reference to the 'white whale' is conclusive proof that such a whale existed. You make dishonest comments and then whine when somebody points it out.
Quote:
I don't like your tone, better clean your mouth or this conversation seems a groundfight, not an actual conversation.
I don't actually care what you think about my tone. I have indulged in no personal comment, merely commenting on the facts and what you have written. If you don't like what I say then that is your problem, not mine.
Quote:
Again, watch it. We are not just talking about existence of certain events but also important parts of some peoples lives. Such an abuse and insult is not tolerated. I don't have to compare Robin Hood and Jesus Christ, no researchers do, no intelligent people do. Do you belong among these people?
Again I don't really care what you think - I have insulted/abused nobody. The fact that you interpret my words as insult is your problem, not mine. The point was valid. Numerous references to a 'historical' character in non-contemporaneous texts should not be taken as evidence that such a character actually existed. Whether you wish to 'tolerate' this or not is a matter for you, not me - the fact that you are intolerant is something which I cannot address.
Quote:
So you believe in science, not God. That's not the point. The point is do you believe in history? Do you believe that events of Jesus which have more historical evidence and found documents than any other person or event, are not real.
Again you ramble disingenuously. The notion that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for 'any other person or event' is simply laughable and not worthy of comment - it reveals more about you than it does about the discussion points. There are numerous references to Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Mars, and others in literature over the years - do you suggest that this offers some historical evidence of their existence?

I don't necessarily agree with Gauvin when he says that Jesus almost certainly did not exist - but he has some interesting arguments:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
I have said that, on the balance of probabilities, I think Jesus existed as a historical character. I think this is about as much as anyone can honestly say. It is not beyond doubt - it is probable.
The accuracy of the gospel accounts depend on which gospels you read, and which you BELIEVE is accurate (if any). Personally I don't think any of them are accurate and there is no historical evidence to support an alternative view.
PS - on your sources; I will have to come back on that when I have read more.
BCV36
I am a very proud methodist
anime
iam an Muslim
unknown_123
I'm not in religion. =O
AFriedman
Jewish, Conservative.
xavax
Im an atheist, but the idea of the IPU and FSM amuses me... Wink
WicCaesar
Pastafari!
chamakamo
Im a buddhist-theravada

Im happy that im a buddhist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
johnnyb
i'm a christian but respect all other religions
pmehta51
songsalways wrote:
I am Hindu.

But the main concept behind religion is what u feel from inside and what you feel towards others.

Our main motto is "Live and Let Live".


Well I believe our motto is even batter. "Live and help other to live batter".
Bikerman
pmehta51 wrote:
Well I believe our motto is even batter. "Live and help other to live batter".

Sounds like the motto of a fish and chip shop Smile
neartimeprophecy
Im a believer of Yeshua Ha'Machia and his father JHWH.
Im not a "religious" person, because i truly believe in everlasting creator JHWH.

ITS DIFFERENT TO REALLY BELIEVE, THAN JUST BE "RELIGIOUS" PERSON.
vineeth
Hindu, but not exactly the way this world is used commonly nowadays. Vedantin (considers Vedas as authentic) could be a better term...
elephant03
I am Buddhist. What religion are you?
kevbailey
I am Christian, Conservative (though not a neo-conservative), and an advocate for Christians in Toronto schools.
chyron_8472
Christian, Protestant, Moderate, Democrat.

neartimeprophecy wrote:
Im a believer of Yeshua Ha'Machia and his father JHWH.
Im not a "religious" person, because i truly believe in everlasting creator JHWH.

ITS DIFFERENT TO REALLY BELIEVE, THAN JUST BE "RELIGIOUS" PERSON.


Amen. =)
GiocoDigitale
I belong to the Catholic Church,
and I'm proud to be Twisted Evil
kevbailey
GiocoDigitale wrote:
Twisted Evil

Odd choice of Emoticons. Not sure what you're getting to there.
protoolsman
Christian > Evangelical
mikakiev
I am a buddhist.
bonusbux
Catholic Smile
gtoroap
That's relevant? Anyway, i dont have a religion... but I believe in God, i think
ProfessorY91
Muslim.
MatthijsM90
Christian, im not hard standing in it
mgeek
This is what I believe in
Ascaris
Hindu, by birth. I'm think I'm an atheist though.
krumariano
I am follower of spiritism
macacoescalada
I am a free thinker, but also I believe we are not able to determine our capacity of living entirely free.
andredesignz
I am a Seventh day Adventist.
tuptup13
kevbailey wrote:
GiocoDigitale wrote:
Twisted Evil

Odd choice of Emoticons. Not sure what you're getting to there.


Amen to that I dont believe in religion its what carrys on in the soul
formulam
Got to admit to being a rare church goer... but I believe I am a good christian (with a small c ) anyway. Having said I don't often go to church, come to think of it I go quite a lot as I work for a charity and often give talks in churches!
alchs_dragon
I am a catholic, what religion are you? (use poll)
Afaceinthematrix
What religion are you? Well I'm not a religion. But if you're referring to what religion I follow and practice, then none. I do not follow any religion nor do I believe in any deity.
liljp617
There's no poll on the sticky, but I really can't see a use for two threads on this exact topic.
Xaferrow
alchs_dragon wrote:
what religion are you? (use poll)

ur question should be like this :
What is your religion?

not :
alchs_dragon wrote:
what religion are you? (use poll)


And by the way, why u didnt put 'Islam' in your poll? it also had many followers isnt?
Xaferrow
im muslim,

yep, islam
joostvane
I'm Christian, but don't really care about it much. I was just grown up with it.
Afaceinthematrix
joostvane wrote:
I'm Christian, but don't really care about it much. I was just grown up with it.


Then can you really even consider yourself a "Christian?" That doesn't really seem like a Christian to me.
edwinl
I'm catholic and I guess people tend to have the religion of his/her parents.
liljp617
edwinl wrote:
I'm catholic and I guess people tend to have the religion of his/her parents.


A lot of people actually think for themselves when they reach a certain age.
DJonDemand
I am catholic, but I am not very religious, it's just a family of catholic inheritance.
aames_prov356
Christian!!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!

Glad to see I'm not all alone!!!! Very Happy
edwinl
DJonDemand wrote:
I am catholic, but I am not very religious, it's just a family of catholic inheritance.

I think the same but i'm more spiritual, good actions, good values, and God is the owner of truth.
moyyom
Doesn't seem like many people here are atheist. I've always thought of myself as Atheist. If I had to pick though, I would say I lean most towards Christianity. I love learning about new religions though. Hinduism has to be my favorite to study.
Bikerman
moyyom wrote:
Doesn't seem like many people here are atheist. I've always thought of myself as Atheist. If I had to pick though, I would say I lean most towards Christianity. I love learning about new religions though. Hinduism has to be my favorite to study.
I think you will find that there are a few atheists here Smile
Kyohtee
Christian now,back then, and forever.
Prasad007
Hindu with major Atheist/Agnostic beliefs currently.
Insanity
Needs to be an atheist/agnostic option...
deanhills
Insanity wrote:
Needs to be an atheist/agnostic option...
Thought it had already been discussed and clarified that atheism is not a religion? Interesting though that you should respond to this spontaneously in this way. There most be quite a large number of people who regard atheism as a religion of choice? Maybe there should have been an option for "None of the above"?
loyal
Peace.

I see there's already a sticky topic called "What is your religion?", but I suppose it's good to have a fresh empty one.

I would call myself Muslim, but that doesn't seem to be an option here...So i guess i'm "other".
Hmm...it seems that having 1.5 billion followers isn't enough to make it on to the poll. I wonder what criteria was used to choose which religion to put on the poll. :p

Lol joking
achowles
@ deanhills
Atheism/agnosticism would be the none of the above/not applicable option. It would make the poll more all inclusive.

That said, given the lack of "Muslim" option it's pretty lacking as it is anyway.

Personally, I'd fall under agnostic/atheist.
Zombie
I dont' have a religion... or maybe i do (because not believing in god is a religion i think.)
deanhills
Zombie wrote:
I dont' have a religion... or maybe i do (because not believing in god is a religion i think.)
Probably not. When you study some of the threads in this forum there are some good explanations about this.
Xanatos
There have been thousands of religions over the course of human history, and there are still hundreds active today. That is a pretty big amount of religions you crowded into the "other" category.
Xanatos
Secular Humanist. For those of you who don't know...
Secular Humanism
deanhills
achowles wrote:
That said, given the lack of "Muslim" option it's pretty lacking as it is anyway.
True, especially given their large numbers in the world. Can't the poll be fixed though? Two additional categories: No Religion (Atheist) and No Religion (Other)?
jessicawalker
Christian. Undoubtedly and unwaveringly. I explored so many religions and beliefs. In high school I was very interested in everything from wicca to many middle eastern belief systems. I even considered myself an atheist at one point, shunning anything spiritual. I always came back to this and this is where I shall stay.
muffinman187
i was born a catholic, now i'm just someone that believe in GOD
atul2242
This raises a question {in me} Is atheism also a religion today?
Arty
I voted "Other" because I am a Christian, not Catholic.
atul2242
Born Hindu so die Hindu .... Life maybe spent as an atheist
locoom
i have not a religion Sad sory guyzz no god no mesiah i was born in a muslim country and i think no god in the universe Smile
handfleisch
But are you the religion you think you are? Take this test http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx . Your opinions might correspond to a different religion than the one you claim for your own or the one you were brought up in. Try it.
Tuvitor
Undecided, open-minded, agnostic, and quite satisfied with my non-belief system at the moment. Smile
jjhawaii
I am a Christian
Noremac
I was never christened, so I guess I'm a heathen.

But I never will be, I believe the buddhist religion most though, probably because it's more a way of life than a religion. But generally I think religion is a crock
Afaceinthematrix
handfleisch wrote:
But are you the religion you think you are? Take this test http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx . Your opinions might correspond to a different religion than the one you claim for your own or the one you were brought up in. Try it.



Quote:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Liberal Quakers (80%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (77%)
5. Nontheist (77%)
6. Neo-Pagan (63%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (57%)
8. Taoism (53%)
9. Orthodox Quaker (47%)
10. New Age (46%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (44%)
12. Jainism (43%)
13. Baha'i Faith (39%)
14. Reform Judaism (39%)
15. Seventh Day Adventist (33%)
16. Hinduism (32%)
17. Sikhism (26%)
18. Scientology (25%)
19. New Thought (22%)
20. Eastern Orthodox (21%)
21. Islam (21%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (21%)
23. Roman Catholic (21%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (19%)
25. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (18%)
26. Jehovah's Witness (17%)
27. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (16%)


Wow... I'm 16% Christian science, 21% Islam, 19% Mormon, and only 77% atheist. I was under the impression that I was 0% Christian/any religion and 100% atheist... go figure...
Xanatos
handfleisch wrote:
But are you the religion you think you are? Take this test http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx . Your opinions might correspond to a different religion than the one you claim for your own or the one you were brought up in. Try it.


Well I took the quiz and it pegged me dead on. I identify as secular humanist.

Quote:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Nontheist (76%)
4. Liberal Quakers (72%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (69%)
6. Neo-Pagan (60%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (57%)
8. New Age (44%)
9. Taoism (43%)
10. Reform Judaism (39%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (37%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (36%)
13. Sikhism (30%)
14. Scientology (28%)
15. New Thought (26%)
16. Baha'i Faith (25%)
17. Jainism (24%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (23%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (22%)
20. Hinduism (20%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (18%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (16%)
24. Islam (16%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (16%)
26. Roman Catholic (16%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)
SonLight
Noremac wrote:
I was never christened, so I guess I'm a heathen.

But I never will be, I believe the buddhist religion most though, probably because it's more a way of life than a religion. But generally I think religion is a crock


"Heathen" is a very emotionally loaded word. In common use, it is usually seen as negative and suggesting the speaker, who generally considers him/her self to be non-heathen, is in some way superior to the one disdainfully called "heathen". Followers of Christ should probably avoid the word, and in any case must avoid the pride the word often encourages.

The distinction (the pure denotation of the word "heathen") is not, in my view, a matter of whether you have been through a specific ceremony, but is a matter of belief. The kind of belief referred to here is not mere lip service nor agreement on the basis of reason, but one that rocks your very inner world.

The Buddhist religion has excellent principles to live by, and is worthy of a careful study. I would disagree with some of the principles, such as reincarnation and the fatalistic view of "karma", which I understand as moral cause and effect. Nevertheless karma is a reasonable approach to understanding our position in the Universe, and the four noble truths are a reasonable way of looking at the world as we face it without considering God's grace.

Even with God's grace we will face some of the results of our mistakes in a similar way to what Buddhism teaches. For another look at life, similar to a Buddhist viewpoint, you can read Ecclesiastes in the Bible, You will find strong echoes of karma and the Four Noble Truths there, but mitigated by the fact that God is ultimately in control.
Chinmoy
I am a long time hindu from my birth. And i see my religion as a guidance, a way of life.
Solon_Poledourus
None.

I assume we are specifically talking about the Abrahamic religions of the Middle East, ie. Judaeo-Islamic-Christian... ism.. ity... or whatever.

Religion preys upon weakness. That's why it's so rife with guilt and stories of how we are all sinners before birth and we need to spend our lives apologizing for some ancient act of... whatever. If you need a god or a church or a political leader to give you comfort or solidarity in your life, then you are weak. Period. Religion, as far as I'm concerned, is pathetic.

Can anyone tell me of another Stone Age tradition that we cling to as vehemently as we do religion? It's a brutal system of social control, that plays on peoples' shame and insecurities, and when that fails, it plays on peoples mob mentality and turns violent. Religion and warfare are so inextricably intertwined throughout history that you almost can't have one without the other. All the while, the mouthpieces of these groups are calling themselves "religions of peace".

As far as the existence of God? Who gives a s**t? There is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other, so why bother trying? When someone asks you what your religion is, just think very carefully about the people you are associating yourself with when you answer.

Religion - According to Merriam-Webster
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back. From 13th century.


Cult - According to Merriam-Webster
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate. From 1617.

I wonder how many religious folks would consider themselves members of a religion if they had to wear that definition on their shirt.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
None.

I assume we are specifically talking about the Abrahamic religions of the Middle East, ie. Judaeo-Islamic-Christian... ism.. ity... or whatever.

Religion preys upon weakness. That's why it's so rife with guilt and stories of how we are all sinners before birth and we need to spend our lives apologizing for some ancient act of... whatever. If you need a god or a church or a political leader to give you comfort or solidarity in your life, then you are weak. Period. Religion, as far as I'm concerned, is pathetic.

Can anyone tell me of another Stone Age tradition that we cling to as vehemently as we do religion? It's a brutal system of social control, that plays on peoples' shame and insecurities, and when that fails, it plays on peoples mob mentality and turns violent. Religion and warfare are so inextricably intertwined throughout history that you almost can't have one without the other. All the while, the mouthpieces of these groups are calling themselves "religions of peace".

As far as the existence of God? Who gives a s**t? There is absolutely no way to prove it one way or the other, so why bother trying? When someone asks you what your religion is, just think very carefully about the people you are associating yourself with when you answer.

Religion - According to Merriam-Webster
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back. From 13th century.


Cult - According to Merriam-Webster
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate. From 1617.

I wonder how many religious folks would consider themselves members of a religion if they had to wear that definition on their shirt.
Another excellent posting! I'm not sure that I completely agree with everything in it though, just really liked the way you set and argued all of it out. For starters some people are genuinely religious from the heart, and they do it quietly and with reverence, i.e. they do not stand on street corners nor wear t-shirts with slogans on them. I admire and respect them, and am to a certain extent envious of their total faith and conviction in something.

I also do not agree that religion necessarily makes you weak or is a "weak sign" of character. For those who do it mindlessly, I would say definitely "yes", and there must be millions of those in the world. But then again there are devout followers of religion who do it with pure hearts, sincerity and conviction. When one has a very strong faith in something, like religion, you can only be strong. Sort of fires people up and I think history is a good example of that. Especially when people have been persecuted for their religion.

I sometimes think that people who take a position contra to religion, are also religious in a way. Through being opposite. Sort of a claim to being enlightened rather than from "the dark ages". That is also a conviction of sorts and can make that person strong as well. Except when he/she has doubts. I am convinced that faith in anything, and it does not necessarily have to be religion, strenghtens us, whereas doubt initially anyway, makes us weaker. If the doubt works its way to something better that we believe in, of course it can make us stronger too. I admire people like that as well. Those who struggle to figure things out away from religion. Always make for interesting people to communicate with. Smile
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Another excellent posting! I'm not sure that I completely agree with everything in it though, just really liked the way you set and argued all of it out.

Thanks. If one is to debate or argue a point, it's worth being concise.
deanhills wrote:
For starters some people are genuinely religious from the heart, and they do it quietly and with reverence, i.e. they do not stand on street corners nor wear t-shirts with slogans on them. I admire and respect them, and am to a certain extent envious of their total faith and conviction in something.

Having a belief or faith is not the same as religion. Mainly, I was talking about religion as an institution, not so much as a philosophy.
deanhills wrote:
I also do not agree that religion necessarily makes you weak or is a "weak sign" of character. For those who do it mindlessly, I would say definitely "yes", and there must be millions of those in the world. But then again there are devout followers of religion who do it with pure hearts, sincerity and conviction. When one has a very strong faith in something, like religion, you can only be strong. Sort of fires people up and I think history is a good example of that. Especially when people have been persecuted for their religion.

I don't think having a belief makes a person weak. I think that needing an institution, such as an organized religion, is a sign of weakness. Much like people who need to constantly be in a romantic relationship, no matter how adversely it affects them, it makes them very dependant upon outside influence in order to feel "complete". It's weakness.
deanhills wrote:
I sometimes think that people who take a position contra to religion, are also religious in a way. Through being opposite. Sort of a claim to being enlightened rather than from "the dark ages". That is also a conviction of sorts and can make that person strong as well. Except when he/she has doubts. I am convinced that faith in anything, and it does not necessarily have to be religion, strenghtens us, whereas doubt initially anyway, makes us weaker. If the doubt works its way to something better that we believe in, of course it can make us stronger too. I admire people like that as well. Those who struggle to figure things out away from religion. Always make for interesting people to communicate with.

To be clear, when I say "religion", I don't mean the philosophical belief system. I am talking about the structured organization of that system. As far as faith goes, I just can't subscribe to it, I'm not built that way. As a "child of science", I rely on emperical evidence to support any theory. Which makes the belief in any sort of metaphysical existence not possible for me at present. Not to say that I am not open to the idea, it just needs to be presented with more evidence for me to make that step in belief, otherwise it doesn't make sense. That's where I see the weakness in people; their fear of death leads to a belief in something beyond death, a belief which is irrational and contradicts logic at every turn. Those types of beliefs are built on fear(of death) and hope(for an afterlife).
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Having a belief or faith is not the same as religion. Mainly, I was talking about religion as an institution, not so much as a philosophy.

Darn! You're so much on the mark. I'm more of a philosopher than religious. I'm looking at religion philosophically. Now that is a nice insight for the day. Smile

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I don't think having a belief makes a person weak. I think that needing an institution, such as an organized religion, is a sign of weakness. Much like people who need to constantly be in a romantic relationship, no matter how adversely it affects them, it makes them very dependant upon outside influence in order to feel "complete". It's weakness.

Hmmm .... have to think about this one. I would say that those in charge of that institution would be strong, as they would be controlling those who would be weak, in other words are following a "creed".

Solon_Poledourus wrote:
To be clear, when I say "religion", I don't mean the philosophical belief system. I am talking about the structured organization of that system. As far as faith goes, I just can't subscribe to it, I'm not built that way. As a "child of science", I rely on emperical evidence to support any theory. Which makes the belief in any sort of metaphysical existence not possible for me at present. Not to say that I am not open to the idea, it just needs to be presented with more evidence for me to make that step in belief, otherwise it doesn't make sense. That's where I see the weakness in people; their fear of death leads to a belief in something beyond death, a belief which is irrational and contradicts logic at every turn. Those types of beliefs are built on fear(of death) and hope(for an afterlife).
I got it! This is a good insight for me too. Smile
5nota
I´m Seventh Day Adventist, i don´t agree with the way some members of my church act, but I believe in what my religion tell about GOD.
saadat
I am a Muslim and i am proud. Islam gives me peace of mind. It governs every action of my life so that i may not harm others. Its the best religion and its the religion of peace
farmerdave
I am a Christian... a follower of Jesus; a believer in the words of the Bible, trying to apply the words of the Bible, who has recognized that this is impossible without the God of the Bible, so am asking Him daily for His help; one who has searched and found nothing worthy in himself, but whose sins have been forgiven because of a merciful Savior to whom he is eternally indebted; Protestant (though I'm done protesting); Continuationist (God hasn't stopped working in the ways He worked in the early church); Reformed (most logical place to end up when one believes the very words of the Bible); humbled daily by my Savior's great sacrifice and the many benefits I have received from it.
samjog
Where is christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus...? Sad
paskifire
I'm a Catholic.
ProfessorY91
Why wasn't muslim included in the poll. We recently surpassed catholics in number...

MUSLIM.
Bannik
ProfessorY91 wrote:
Why wasn't Muslim included in the poll. We recently surpassed Catholics in number...

MUSLIM.


then break the muslin religion into all the sects it has....(like Christianity has different version too so does Islam) and you are not that big...

if you want statistics...

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Greatking
i am a christian and i am proud to be one. i believe in Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. the beginning and the end. for without him life is just a heap of misery! i love him so much.
BinahZ
Jewish
Vrythramax
Bannik wrote:
then break the muslin religion into all the sects it has....(like Christianity has different version too so does Islam) and you are not that big...

if you want statistics...

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion


Where I went to school 1.5 billion is a pretty big number no matter how you look at it.

As for my religion...I'm still open to suggestions.
Tuvitor
I seek truth in every philosophy or belief I come across, but I don't really follow any set belief system or creed. I think the closest fit to my outlook would be "agnostic" but I don't think even that fits because I believe there is something out there...

Sometimes I think I'm a secular humanist. Other times a Buddhist. Sometimes I cling to the teachings of Jesus, but not the teachings of his followers. I truly don't know, nor do I believe I have been given what I need to truly know...

And I'm happy with that. I love life, and I respect the living. I try to do my best to make the world a better place with my presence. That's all I can do.
el-bac
MUSLIM!!!!!!!!
D5DXAX
muslim
starkick
I am just a regular christian and i dont understand why people get offended over others religion its what you believe not what they believe that counts right?
Stanley9811
I see that Satanists and Luciferian’s really have no place here. Amusing, the number of religions I could list that people usually forget about is quite long. I however can safely state I have no Religion, I have Faith however in what I believe to be wrong and right within myself and that is all there is for me.
sigT
I was raised as Orthodox Christian.

I often think that now my religion should be Theoretical Computer Science since I seem to worship this stuff a bit too much.
Afaceinthematrix
Stanley9811 wrote:
I see that Satanists and Luciferian’s really have no place here. Amusing, the number of religions I could list that people usually forget about is quite long. I however can safely state I have no Religion, I have Faith however in what I believe to be wrong and right within myself and that is all there is for me.


Well I used to consider myself to be a Satanist. I did that because I wanted to be more of a rebel towards my family's strong Christian beliefs. Actually, many Satanists are atheists, like myself, who are simply against the church's dogmatic and ridiculous beliefs. This was also around the time that I began listening to Slayer, Behemoth, and many other heavy metal bands that promote Satanism.

I have since given up Satanism (although I do still find it quite fascinating and I still listen to and see in concert many bands like Slayer and Behemoth that promote Satanism). My reasoning is that I do not agree with many of the moral philosophies that Satanism promotes. After reading a lot of Satanism literature, I learned that Satanism promotes ideas such as "Love your friends, but hate your enemies." As much as I hate to admit it, I much prefer Jesus' philosophy of "Love your enemies." I find that Christianity often shares more of the morals that I agree with.

Although, that does not mean that I agree with what Christianity has to say, that I like Christianity, that I promote Christianity, or that we should get our morals from Christianity. That simply means that what I happen to believe in often overlaps with Christianity and often disagrees with what Satanism says.
Skweeky
Personally I am wiccan, a branch of paganism
pytrash
I'm a humanist, does that count as a 'religion'? By philosophy I am Christian, that is I admire and seek to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (but fail miserably Embarassed ) even though I do not believe the literal truth of the God stuff.
amorphius
pytrash wrote:
I'm a humanist, does that count as a 'religion'? By philosophy I am Christian, that is I admire and seek to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (but fail miserably Embarassed ) even though I do not believe the literal truth of the God stuff.

+1 Smile
yagnyavalkya
There is a sticky asking What Religion are You?

How can I be a religion for that matter can anybody be a religion?
Unfortunately I am not a native Eng speaker
Please some one correct me if I am rong!
Ophois
The question means "What religion do you follow or believe in?"
Sometimes English phrases like this do get confusing for non-native speakers, so I understand your confusion. Though your question really should have been posted in that particular thread, and will probably be moved there, or locked.
yagnyavalkya
Ophois wrote:
The question means "What religion do you follow or believe in?"
S

But I can believe in a religion and still not follow it and in fact I can believe in many religions cant I? and follow just one
Ophois
yagnyavalkya wrote:
But I can believe in a religion and still not follow it and in fact I can believe in many religions cant I? and follow just one
Absolutely. I think the sticky thread you mentioned was just asking a general question, because most people tend to follow one religion, and believe in only that. But yes, you can believe in as many as you want, and follow as many as you want, all at the same time.
Kopernikus
Ophois wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
But I can believe in a religion and still not follow it and in fact I can believe in many religions cant I? and follow just one
Absolutely. I think the sticky thread you mentioned was just asking a general question, because most people tend to follow one religion, and believe in only that. But yes, you can believe in as many as you want, and follow as many as you want, all at the same time.


emmm... strictly speaking that´s not true. If you are a christian, of any denomination, you definitely cant follow this religion and some other, too. look at the ten commandments. and btw, thats true for jews and muslims. there *are* some religions which are non-exclusive, so to speak, but not those...
Ophois
Kopernikus wrote:
emmm... strictly speaking that´s not true. If you are a christian, of any denomination, you definitely cant follow this religion and some other, too. look at the ten commandments. and btw, thats true for jews and muslims. there *are* some religions which are non-exclusive, so to speak, but not those...
You can't be a member of their church/synagogue/mosque, but you can believe in all three, and then some, if you so choose. As far as the ten commandments goes, you can discard the ones that prohibit you from praying to other Gods. Most Christians discard many other parts of the Bible anyway(even the commandments; many Christians work on the Sabbath). They don't take the entire thing literally, but metaphorically, so why not do the same with that commandment? Ditto for Judaism and Islam.

The church is exclusive, but anyone can believe in as little or as much of any religion they want. After all, there are even different kinds of Jews. The Hasidic Jews are very orthodox, having very strict codes of dress, prayer and behavior, etc. Then there are Jews like Jon Stewart, who is not orthodox at all, but he is no less a Jew, just because he doesn't follow each and every Jewish Law. Christians are the same, and Muslims as well. If any of these groups were totally exclusive, they would be uniform, but there are groups within groups that differ radically. If someone wants to be a Christian-Jew-Muslim, I say go for it. Just don't expect to go to any of their temples for worship any time soon.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
I say go for it. Just don't expect to go to any of their temples for worship any time soon.
Depends how seriously people are into their particular religion. The deeper they are into their religion, probably the less possible it would be to "diversify" into other religions simultaneously. It would be seen to be almost be the equivalent of fraternization.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
Depends how seriously people are into their particular religion. The deeper they are into their religion, probably the less possible it would be to "diversify" into other religions simultaneously. It would be seen to be almost be the equivalent of fraternization.
Christians do it all the time. There is a new Christian sect popping up every day, with a new name, and a new way to worship, and a new translation of the bible. Just in my city I can name probably 10 different denominations of Christianity. Which one is the right one? Does it matter? If not, then it doesn't matter if a person is also Muslim or Jewish.

As a very devout Atheist, the idea of God is silly to me.
But I have to say, if I were God, all these divisions would seem extremely petty to me. I would think God would actually show preference to a person for believing in many religions, as it shows more of a devotion to him, rather than a church, and more of an open mind.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Christians do it all the time. There is a new Christian sect popping up every day, with a new name, and a new way to worship, and a new translation of the bible. Just in my city I can name probably 10 different denominations of Christianity. Which one is the right one? Does it matter? If not, then it doesn't matter if a person is also Muslim or Jewish.

As a very devout Atheist, the idea of God is silly to me.
But I have to say, if I were God, all these divisions would seem extremely petty to me. I would think God would actually show preference to a person for believing in many religions, as it shows more of a devotion to him, rather than a church, and more of an open mind.
I thought we were talking about one person serving more than one religion at the same time. There may be 10 different denominations of Christianity in your town, but I would imagine that there are not that many incidences of one person serving all 10 at the same time.

How can one be a devout atheist? I thought that one of the unique traits of an atheist would be to be dispassionate about any belief systems. Could it be that instead of a "devout" atheist, you are a passionate anti-theist?
Quote:
Anti-theism means simply that one is against any form of religion as a concept and institution. It should be distinguished from agnosticism and atheism that are respectively undecided or indifferent. Those who are anti-religious are generally so because of being brought up in a relgion-free environment or because of a rejection of the abuses of religion.

Source: http://www.freebase.com/view/en/anti_theist
Bikerman
[MOD - I have merged another thread of the same title into this one.
Bikerman]
Jamestf347
I am deist, I prefer that religion, because I believe if you have to go to one place to talk to god, it's not all that believable, I believe everyone else has a right to their own religion and well ya, shouldnt push it on others. Smile
dalton
I have been a Christian all my life Angel
keppryy
athiest but wish i was born christian
Bikerman
keppryy wrote:
athiest but wish i was born christian
Why? You can always choose to become a Christian if that is what you want...
josifranaraujo
born again Christian
Schyllic
Raised a Christian, I honor many of the teachings. Cosmologically however, I am pure Atheist.
Greatking
I am a christian. its great to know God and to have this great joy that can be experienced only in Christ Jesus.
rodrigokg
Agnostical.
sudipbanerjee
I am Hindu.
zacky
I'm Christian...
visualconcepts
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]


This is a carp, you have mentioned names of religion, but havent included "ISLAM" which world's second largest religion.

Proud to say "I M A MUSLIM"
Bikerman
MODERATOR MESSAGE

I have been wondering what to do with this poll for sometime. I've now decided, and I'll explain my reasoning.
It was not satisfactory because it didn't include many major religions and therefore did not allow some posters to answer in a way which was meaningful.
I was aware that changing the poll would mean invalidating all the results to-date (I could not simply add some options and leave the counter running - that would have produced a bias result, and many voters would wish to change their original vote I think).

I've decided, on balance, better to change it and start again with a more valid poll. Obviously I cannot be comprehensive with the list of religions - far too many - but if I have missed an obvious one then please let me know
Bikerman
NeoDarkElf
I'm a Satanist. I really can't make that fit anywhere on the poll. Maybe I could go with Buddhist or agnostic, the obvious choice would be pagan but that would be misleading given my actual practices have nothing to do with multiple gods, or any god for that matter.

I'm seeing a few instances where others have had smiler posts, I'll read through and make useful retorts.
ahurius
muslim
born a muslim, and became really a muslim a couple of years ago
camperkid
Why would anyone believe in a religion?
anirudh
Another hindu from Bangalore(malayali though) here... Cool
Dementei
I am a radical Christian at heart.
I'm not a big fan of religion, for it separates the entire human body in divisions.
We divide ourselves so much it's ridiculous. There's race and language too.
Then there's plenty of smaller divisions such as being called a nerd, a gangster, a prep, plenty of other names that just divide us all. We all are given titles by someone else, and who are they to title us.

I say God is the only one to give us a title.
But this is another story, isn't it.
ghostfam
raised christian and still christian
timothymartin
I am a Jesusite.
epspk
Why isn't Tom Cruise's religion
"scientology" not on the list? hehehe
rjraaz
I am hindu
Navigator
Why isn't there an 'other' option?
nigam
I was born and raised as Christian....I am thankful that my parents raised me well and my faith/believe in God is my tie to HIM...our Saviour...When I am down...still my faith in God keeps stronger Smile because I know He is watching, listen, and answers all our prayers and needs.
wiriam3
I was baptized Catholic but I don't consider myself as a Catholic now because I am a Christian now. Catholic is Christian but it has beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. The only manual i have is the Bible, and I based my beliefs on it. Though there are many versions of the Bible, one thing that they agree is that Jesus, who was God, died for the sins of men so that people will no longer be punished for all their sins. It is a gift of God. It is free. Believing will not hurt you. Now if you believe, you need to be good and kind and loving because that is who Jesus is and we should know how to be grateful for what he has done. He is kind and loving because if he was not he would not die for us in the first place
pachinko
Normally in the science ospsychology religion makes human being filled spiritually. I jump on this occasion to talk about a religion that has been misunderstood up to the point it's a religion of killers. This is completely wrong because Quran " the bible of Islam" NEVER and NEVER said so in the opposite side, it says that real muslim must respect others' religion, be moderate, helpful,modest,generous well all good habits and manners.The people you see killing innocents have nothing to do with Islam. I HOPE I DIDN'T OFFENCE ANYBODY IF EVER IT'S THE CASE "I AM VERY SORRY"
Bikerman
Why do you think you might have offended people? There is nothing offensive in your posting. I don't necessarily agree, but that is a different matter.
The problem with saying that 'scripture says this' and 'scripture says that' is that both the Quran and the Bible say many things which are not just uncivilised, they are downright barbaric.
I'm afraid that whilst the Quran does mention respecting other religions in some parts, it has a very different message in others...for example...
Quote:
O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Of course, it is no different from the bible in that regard:
Quote:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
ankur209
Proud to be HINDU ...!!
and a INDIAN...!! Cool
LipoRev
Now and then I’ll stumble across a post like this and I’ll recall that there really are still interesting pages on the web. ^_^. Thanks. Lipozene
ratanegra
It bothers me that atheists and agnostics are always fitted in the same category. Atheism and religion are two different poles of the magnet and agnosticism is the absolute center. I consider myself to be an agnostic because I don't have enough information to say "certain god(s) exist(s)" or "no god exists". If I say I don't know and consequently don't belong to any religion, I do mind if you put me in the same category of an atheist, since atheism is not what I stand for and my opinions would be contradictory with those of an atheist.
Mrs_Robota
Christian, baptized in the catholic church... but I have simpathy for Buddhist, I just keep my mind open and I don't believe in the bible anymore, I only respect it as a good historic book
Indi
ratanegra wrote:
It bothers me that atheists and agnostics are always fitted in the same category. Atheism and religion are two different poles of the magnet and agnosticism is the absolute center. I consider myself to be an agnostic because I don't have enough information to say "certain god(s) exist(s)" or "no god exists". If I say I don't know and consequently don't belong to any religion, I do mind if you put me in the same category of an atheist, since atheism is not what I stand for and my opinions would be contradictory with those of an atheist.

This is a misconception that has been repeated so many times there is even a sticky for it. Agnosticism is not the midway point on some "scale" between "religious" and "atheist". Every part of that is wrong. Atheism and religion are not "opposite poles", for the obvious reason that there are atheist religions (Jainism, for example). And agnosticism is completely orthogonal to atheism and religion. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

You are an atheist. Unless your answer to the question "do you believe one or more gods exist?" is "yes", you are an atheist. That includes if your answer is "i don't know for sure" (and it even includes "i don't care"). You may not like it, you may not want to call yourself an atheist, but that's what you are. I'm aware that "atheist" is the new "n-word" many places in the world, and you may have been raised to believe it's a dirty word, but tough. The word means what it means whether you're comfortable wearing it or not. If you are not a theist (if you do not believe that does exist), then you're an atheist.

The only opinion you could have that would be "contradictory" with the opinions of atheists is "a god exists". There are no other opinions associated with atheism.

You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to redefine words that already have clear meanings. That only leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
johans
I am Christian.

I found the result interesting when i tried to vote to christian and show the results that 25% has no religion.

I have a friend German and he also admit they dont know religion when Hitler role there country.
LxGoodies
Indi wrote:
ratanegra wrote:
It bothers me that atheists and agnostics are always fitted in the same category. Atheism and religion are two different poles of the magnet and agnosticism is the absolute center. I consider myself to be an agnostic because I don't have enough information to say "certain god(s) exist(s)" or "no god exists". If I say I don't know and consequently don't belong to any religion, I do mind if you put me in the same category of an atheist, since atheism is not what I stand for and my opinions would be contradictory with those of an atheist.

This is a misconception that has been repeated so many times there is even a sticky for it. Agnosticism is not the midway point on some "scale" between "religious" and "atheist". Every part of that is wrong. Atheism and religion are not "opposite poles", for the obvious reason that there are atheist religions (Jainism, for example). And agnosticism is completely orthogonal to atheism and religion. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

You are an atheist. Unless your answer to the question "do you believe one or more gods exist?" is "yes", you are an atheist. That includes if your answer is "i don't know for sure" (and it even includes "i don't care"). You may not like it, you may not want to call yourself an atheist, but that's what you are. I'm aware that "atheist" is the new "n-word" many places in the world, and you may have been raised to believe it's a dirty word, but tough. The word means what it means whether you're comfortable wearing it or not. If you are not a theist (if you do not believe that does exist), then you're an atheist.

The only opinion you could have that would be "contradictory" with the opinions of atheists is "a god exists". There are no other opinions associated with atheism.

You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to redefine words that already have clear meanings. That only leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

Don't agree atheism and agnosticism can be defined equal. That is imposing a binary concience and imposing a choice that cannot be made, ccording to the agnost.. either one believes in god(s) or one denies their existence alltogether, with nothing in between. You forget one thing Indi, for agnosts the very focus: atheists appear to be certain about the none-existence of gods, but agnost are not so sure ! They even assume they can't know for certain and will never know. For an agnostic, any assumption about gods represents an unsupported belief, even a certain negation. Sceptics nor agnostics acknowledge ANY saying about entities the size of gods.

I voted the same option.. but I agree with ratanegra that there should have been two seperate options to choose from.
Bikerman
Quote:
Don't agree. That is imposing a binary concience on the reader.. either you believe in god(s) or you deny their existence alltogether. You forget one thing Indi, for agnosts the very focus: atheists appear to be certain about the none-existence of gods and agnost are not so sure.

Nope, this is confused.
To the question 'do you believe in God(s)' there are only two possible answers - yes or no. It is, therefore, a binary question and nobody is imposing anything. Level of certainty is a different question to whether one DOES believe. An atheist is not necessarily certain God does not exist. I am not 100% certain myself & many atheists I know are less certain than I am on the issue. That does not make them agnostic. What makes them atheist AND agnostic is a) Not believing in God(s) and b) Believing it is not possible to know for sure either way. It is perfectly possible to be a non-agnostic atheist - eg one who believes that we CAN AND DO know that God(s) doesn't exist. That is actually a faith position whereas agnostic atheism is not necessarily so - it is simply (in my case anyway) a commitment to an evidence-based way of thinking. I try to avoid 'believing' things for which their is either no evidence or where the balance of evidence is against. God is, I would submit, in the latter category.
johans
I a Roman Catholic - Christian. Very Happy
LxGoodies
Let's cite what your objection is about, Bikerman for we're on a new page,

Bikerman wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Indi wrote:
ratanegra wrote:
It bothers me that atheists and agnostics are always fitted in the same category. Atheism and religion are two different poles of the magnet and agnosticism is the absolute center. I consider myself to be an agnostic because I don't have enough information to say "certain god(s) exist(s)" or "no god exists". If I say I don't know and consequently don't belong to any religion, I do mind if you put me in the same category of an atheist, since atheism is not what I stand for and my opinions would be contradictory with those of an atheist.

This is a misconception that has been repeated so many times there is even a sticky for it. Agnosticism is not the midway point on some "scale" between "religious" and "atheist". Every part of that is wrong. Atheism and religion are not "opposite poles", for the obvious reason that there are atheist religions (Jainism, for example). And agnosticism is completely orthogonal to atheism and religion. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

You are an atheist. Unless your answer to the question "do you believe one or more gods exist?" is "yes", you are an atheist. That includes if your answer is "i don't know for sure" (and it even includes "i don't care"). You may not like it, you may not want to call yourself an atheist, but that's what you are. I'm aware that "atheist" is the new "n-word" many places in the world, and you may have been raised to believe it's a dirty word, but tough. The word means what it means whether you're comfortable wearing it or not. If you are not a theist (if you do not believe that does exist), then you're an atheist.

The only opinion you could have that would be "contradictory" with the opinions of atheists is "a god exists". There are no other opinions associated with atheism.

You are entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to redefine words that already have clear meanings. That only leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

Don't agree atheism and agnosticism can be defined equal. That is imposing a binary concience and imposing a choice that cannot be made, ccording to the agnost.. either one believes in god(s) or one denies their existence alltogether, with nothing in between. You forget one thing Indi, for agnosts the very focus: atheists appear to be certain about the none-existence of gods, but agnost are not so sure ! They even assume they can't know for certain and will never know. For an agnostic, any assumption about gods represents an unsupported belief, even a certain negation. Sceptics nor agnostics acknowledge ANY saying about entities the size of gods.

I voted the same option.. but I agree with ratanegra that there should have been two seperate options to choose from.

Nope, this is confused.
To the question 'do you believe in God(s)' there are only two possible answers - yes or no. It is, therefore, a binary question and nobody is imposing anything.

Yes I agree with you that question is binary indeed, but the point that was made by ratanegra had nothing to do with that question, but rather with the poll options,

ratanegra wrote:
I consider myself to be an agnostic because I don't have enough information to say "certain god(s) exist(s)" or "no god exists".

Thing is, the distinction between theists and atheists may be accurate and sufficient for believers and atheists indeed, but for agnosts (who refuse to choose between the two !) it is not. That has to do with refusing to make a choice: acknowledging lack of information as a fact. Agnosts do not accept proof or anti-proof, so agnosticism does represent a third flavour in all this. I do not agree with ratanegra it would reside in the middle, because agnosticism is not half a belief.. It is in fact more radical than atheism in its unbelief in the outspokeness of atheism itself.
Bikerman
But you CANNOT refuse to make the choice - you can only refuse to acknowledge the fact. You either do or do not believe in Gods. Most atheists acknowledge lack of information as a factor. Of course Agnostics accept proof - or, at least, there is nothing in agnosticism to say otherwise. A 'strong' agnostic may believe that on this particular issue no proof is possible, but that is not the same as not accepting proof. 'The outspokenness of atheism' is mostly meaningless and, to the extent it has meaning, it is misleading. There is nothing outspoken in the stance 'atheist' and many atheists are not at all outspoken. The notion that agnostics 'refuse to choose' is simply wrong. Some choose atheism and some theism (with the remainder being deists).
LxGoodies
According to the agnost, there is no fact and no proof, these are inapplicable to the subject. For the atheist, there are only unproven stories, interpretatation and hearsay. Therefore there would not be any real gods, because man invented gods. The agnost on the other hand also counts in experience of others. Apparently, believers are quite sure about it ! Now suppose you are blind and I'd tell you that the color green exists. Would you have any sound reason to believe me ? Or deny it, or call green another color, let's say "blue" ? For me, green exists because I am able to experience colors. A blind person (born blind) won't deny the fact green exists, nor will he be able to assert if "green" is actually "red", or "yellow". He will simply not grasp the concept. Let alone discuss it. He will only be able to measure geen, that is the wavelength of green is somewhere in the range of 560nm. But he can only accept "green" is a number.. a definition or word, for 560nm wavelength.. not a color experience. Now the atheist sais gods do not exist, because they cannot be measured in any way, their existence cannot be percieved. The sceptic (and agnosts) will say we don't have a measuring device for it, and we'll never have one (=strong agnosticism).

Quote:
The outspokenness of atheism' is mostly meaningless

Language differences again ? In Dutch, an "atheist" is a person that won't believe in gods and is always prepared to defend that.. as a fact.. he has a strong opinion on the subject. For an agnost, there is no opinion, because it makes no sense to have an opinion about something that cannot be understood.

Quote:
The notion that agnostics 'refuse to choose' is simply wrong.


"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are (currently) unknown. [1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. Technically, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Quote:
Some choose atheism and some theism (with the remainder being deists).

Q: whats the difference between a deist and a theist ?
Bikerman
LxGoodies wrote:
According to the agnost, there is no fact and no proof, these are inapplicable to the subject. For the atheist, there are only unproven stories, interpretatation and hearsay. Therefore there would not be any real gods, because man invented gods. The agnost on the other hand also counts in experience. Appearently believers are quite sure about it ! Now suppose you are blind and I'd tell you that the color green exists. Would you have any sound reason to believe me ? Or deny it, or call green another color, let's say "blue" ? For me, green exists because I am able to experience colors. A blind person (born blind) won't deny the fact green exists, nor will he be able to assert if "green" is actually "red", or "yellow". He will simply not grasp the concept. Let alone discuss it.
You are just making this up. None of that is implicit in the terms and much of it is garbage. To say that agnostics do not accept fact/proof is nonsense. The agnostic position (which is perfectly sensible and based on the limitations of induction, not some woo-woo nonsense) is that you cannot disprove the existence of an entity (true), so disproving God is out. Further, if God is determined not to be revealed then clearly it could manage things to ensure that outcome (cf solipsism scenarios).
So the agnostic doesn't think knowledge of God's existence or otherwise is sufficient to prove it one way or the other. 'Hard agnosticism' would extend that to 'will never be sufficient'. Agnostics don't necessarily take ANY position on what believers are 'sure' or 'not sure' about.

The analogy of colour is completely invalid (and quite insulting) because it supposes that the atheist is lacking something - a sense in this case. A theist cannot arrive at an understanding of 'colour' or 'God' which is NOT available to the atheist. Both have exactly the same tools available to them - perceptions, logic, reasoning.

If we imagine that theists are able to enter a mental state (and it MUST be that, since there is no external verifiable agency in operation) which is normally unavailable to those who rely on reasoning and logic. That I WILL accept as a valid hypothesis. So the theist has knowledge of 'perceptions' (which are internally generated rather than stimulation of senses by an external agent) and they might find it difficult to communicate this to an atheist. Sounds plausible, but it misses a couple of very important facts.
  • Most theists don't make any such claims - their claims are explicable in terms of 'personal revelation' which the atheist can well understand and experiences as well. The atheist knows, however, that such experience is not a reliable indicator of ANYTHING, let alone absolute truth, and is therefore inclined to minimise or even dismiss such 'revelations'.
  • Most atheists did not start out as atheists. Like me, a large number were once theists who had exactly the same experiences, revelations and other phenomena that can be associated with religion.
In short, we are not only able to see their colours, we HAVE seen them, and in the same detail and the same manner that the theist sees them. There is nothing that the theist knows about the colours that the atheist does not know. The only difference is that the atheist has accepted the DEMONSTRABLE FACT that all such 'personal' experiences are highly suspect, are almost certainly artefacts of the mind, are therefore internally generated mental states, and are extremely unlikely to convey useful information about the external universe and the rest of reality. We have accepted that the colours are actually generated by the mind and don't actually have any valid ontology outside the particular brain which is generating them. We arrive at this conclusion for a variety of evidential reasons - experience of exclusive competing 'colours', examples of colour 'seeing' which are diagnosable and demonstrably a result of 'bad wiring', a basic understanding of HOW the brain can produce such colours, and the inductive evidence that these colours contain NO information that can be externally verified. Something which is completely information free is basically not there - even an electron produces a mass of information. To use your analogy - if the colour WAS real then it has properties associated with it which, whilst not necessarily giving a 'vision' of the colour, are nonetheless detectable, even to a colour blind person. In this case that would be frequency of photonic energy - electromagnetic radiation. When the 'colour' seeing person describes 'green' we can observe photons vibrating in a particular range of frequencies. In fact colour is an interesting analogy because colour does NOT exist as an external objective phenomenon and is largely as illusory as the God of the theist - but that is another posting for another time.
The theist, on the other hand, takes the opposite position. In order to do this, they have to indulge in special pleading of such obvious and blatant proportions that it is almost incomprehensible to the non-theist. They have to convince themselves that their particular internal revelation is real and similar experiences, shared by billions of other people, who have a different 'source' for their 'truths' are all false. That is some heavy-duty irrationality right there.....

Atheists don't have to buy into any of this 'unproven stories, interpretation' stuff. Atheists don't HAVE to believe ANYTHING - they just don't believe in God(s) for WHATEVER reason and how they explain religion is not something which the label 'atheist' can possibly give information about.


A deist believes that God is the creator being, but that God does not play any role in the universe now. So a deist can take the position that God kicked-off the big bang and then went for a 13 billion year kip and let the universe do what it was planned to do, using natural laws. Deism is, therefore, impossible to refute for the same reason that all similar 'lite' positions are - it makes no real claims about anything that can conceivably be experienced and tested. That is the hallmark of pseudo-science, woo-woo and other irrational thought systems.
A theist believes in a 'personal' God in most cases - in any event they believe in God(s) who interact with the space-time universe that we inhabit. Theist is, therefore, a scientific hypothesis since it posits an entity which has an effect on spacetime and the contents of spacetime - ie it posits a being which is measurable.
LxGoodies
You were too quick, I elaborated further on the technical aspect, that is

Bikerman wrote:
since there is no external verifiable agency in operation

Measurement yields numbers. Physical proof. A blind person can measure green and accept that it exists. But god-detectors do not exist, you are right.. but are you sure they will never exist ? And suppose the highly improbable event would occur that someone would invent one, are you prepared to accept the result ?

Quote:
In short, we are not only able to see their colours, we HAVE seen them, and in the same detail and the same manner that the theist sees them. There is nothing that the theist knows about the colours that the atheist does not know. The only difference is that the atheist has accepted the DEMONSTRABLE FACT that all such 'personal' experiences are highly suspect, are almost certainly artefacts of the mind, are therefore internally generated mental states, and are extremely unlikely to convey useful information about the external universe and the rest of reality. The theist, on the other hand, takes the opposite position. In order to do this, they have to indulge in special pleading of such obvious and blatant proportions that it is almost incomprehensible to the non-theist. They have to convince themselves that their particular internal revelation is real and similar experiences, shared by billions of other people, who have a different 'source' for their 'truths' are all false. That is some heavy-duty irrationality right there.....

Oww on these things we do agree.. Any statement about the weirdness of believers and their mass hystery I do share, mr Bikerman.. However the "strong" atheist can never proove his assumptions about the mind of believers. A brain scanner just gives us activity, maybe it will provide the shape of the electric field involved. But as long as there exists no brain scanner that translates a brain into a text file, the notion of "external agencies" (or any agents) that could influence beliefs cannot even be researched properly.
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
Don't agree atheism and agnosticism can be defined equal.

I did not say they could be "defined equal". I said exactly the opposite. They are two totally different things, completely unrelated to each other.

(A)theism depends on an ONTOLOGICAL belief - a belief about whether something exists or not. (Specifically, whether gods exist or not)

Agnosticism depends on an EPISTEMOLOGICAL belief - a belief about whether you can know something or not. (Specifically, whether (you can know if) gods exist or not.)

(A)theism is a metaphysical position - a position about the nature of the universe.

Agnosticism is an epistemological position - a position about what we are capable of knowing.

(A)theism is determined by how you answer the question: "do any gods exist?" If you answer "yes", you're a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist.

Agnosticism is determined by how you answer the question: "do you believe it is possible to know whether gods exist (or not)?" If you answer "yes", you are not agnostic. Otherwise, you are agnostic.

The two terms are in entirely different domains. They have as much connection to each other as size and colour - that is, none at all. Where you are on one scale (atheism/theism) has absolutely no connection to where you are on the other scale (agnosticism). If i tell you i'm agnostic, you have no clue whether i'm atheist or not. If i tell you i'm atheist, you have no clue whether i'm agnostic or not. You need both pieces of information to get the full picture. (And technically you need even more than that, because both agnostic and (a)theist are broad terms that cover a number of beliefs.)

It is possible to be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. It is also possible to be a non-agnostic atheist, or a non-agnostic theist.
  • Agnostic atheist: "I don't think it is possible to know if gods do or don't exist" and "i don't believe any gods exist". (Note: "I don't believe gods exist" is not the same as "I believe gods don't exist".)
  • Agnostic theist: "I don't think it is possible to know if gods do or don't exist" and "i believe one or more gods exist".
  • Non-agnostic atheist: "I think it is possible to know if gods do or don't exist" and "i don't believe any gods exist".
  • Non-agnostic theist: "I think it is possible to know if gods do or don't exist" and "i believe one or more gods exist".
It is not possible to be an agnostic who is neither atheist or theist, because atheism is the logical complement of theism - if you're not one, you're the other automatically.

People who claim to be "agnostic but not atheist" are almost always atheists. They're just uncomfortable with the term either because they're ignorant of its proper meaning, or because they are afraid of (or share) popular bigotry against atheists.

LxGoodies wrote:
You forget one thing Indi, for agnosts the very focus: atheists appear to be certain about the none-existence of gods, but agnost are not so sure !

Atheists do NOT "appear to be certain". That is bullshit. Atheists are usually quite clear that they are NOT certain. It is just bias and prejudice - and lies spread by hostile theists - that create that false impression. Pick any atheist you know - hell, even pick the most outspoken atheist writers, like Richard Dawkins - and the odds are heavy that you will find that they will EXPLICITLY say they are not saying "gods do not exist", they are just saying "i don't see any evidence that they do exist".

This false appearance of certainty is a fiction created by people who don't understand atheism, and don't want to.

LxGoodies wrote:
They even assume they can't know for certain and will never know. For an agnostic, any assumption about gods represents an unsupported belief, even a certain negation. Sceptics nor agnostics acknowledge ANY saying about entities the size of gods.

What you are describing are probably agnostic atheists, except you are not clear enough to be sure. It is possible to doubt you can ever know for sure, yet believe anyway, which would make you an agnostic theist.

LxGoodies wrote:
I voted the same option.. but I agree with ratanegra that there should have been two seperate options to choose from.

The reason it makes no sense to have two separate options is because you can't be "just agnostic". You must be agnostic and something else - agnostic Christian, agnostic Hindu, agnostic atheist, whatever. "Just agnostic" is not a religious (or non-religious) belief - it is not a belief (or lack of) about the universe.

The only reason it's there at all, i imagine, is because most people misunderstand the terms (as you do). What most people call "agnostic" is really "agnostic atheist".
Bikerman
LxGoodies wrote:
You were too quick, I elaborated further on the technical aspect, that is

Bikerman wrote:
since there is no external verifiable agency in operation

Measurement yields numbers. Physical proof. A blind person can measure green and accept that it exists. But god-detectors do not exist, you are right.. but are you sure they will never exist ? And suppose the highly improbable event would occur that someone would invent one, are you prepared to accept the result ?
Absolutely - to do anything other would be to betray the principles which lead me to this position in the first place - go where the evidence goes, not where you would like to go. If someone manages to show convincing evidence of a God then I MUST accept it. There is a problem, however. I cannot imagine a person being able to produce such evidence. It would be simple for God to do it, but any evidence produced by a person is likely to be questionable methinks, and it will need MIGHTY convincing evidence before I could accept it as even worth considering. We are talking about the most unlikely, the most improbable, the most ridiculous (in a real sense) hypothesis that there has even been and that there ever COULD be. To posit an omniscience omnipotent deity contradicts not just empirical science, but the actual fundamentals of logic. In order to accept such a thing I am going to want driving license, address, and full CV for this God entity, not just a cloth with an interesting depiction of a body, or a pizza that someone thinks looks like the Virgin Mary.
Now God could produce this evidence in a trice. Simple manifest and do something which I know is contrary to fundamental science. That will persuade me he is, in one sense, omnipotent. It won't, of course, say ANYTHING about intent, history as a creator being, or any other characteristic which the religious seem so damn sure they know all about. It will, however, make me examine the notion of a deity with due respect and rigour. That, I think, is a pretty damn fair commitment on my part - WAY WAY more than you will get from any theist. In fact I have never been able to extract, from all the thousands of theists I've debated, ONE SINGLE falsification criterion which they would be prepared to accept. Not a one.

Quote:
However the "strong" atheist can never proove his assumptions about the mind of believers. A brain scanner just gives us activity, maybe it will provide the shape of the electric field involved. But as long as there exists no brain scanner that translates a brain into a text file, the notion of "external agencies" (or any agents) that could influence beliefs cannot even be researched properly.
That is coming. It is, in fact, pretty trivial compared to other challenges in neuroscience. Scientists can already transplant actual memories into insects, and we already have simple thought-controlled electronic interfaces which translate specific mental 'patterns of energy'* into specific instructions. I find no difficulty imagining a thought-to-text interface and I see no reason why we shouldn't have such a thing within a comparatively short period - a century or two perhaps, at a wild stab.....
but that is, in any case, not needed. OF COURSE we can research external agencies without being able to say exactly how the brain produces mind. We might not be able to give the fine detail of what stimulus produces what belief or what memory, but we can already say with pretty much certainty, that beliefs, of the sort manifest in religious faith, are internal phenomenon of mind and not mappings of some external agency. That is not to say that religious experiences cannot be triggered or even produced by external means - I'm damn sure they can. It IS to say that the experiences themselves are not some perception or interface or conversation, let alone a relationship, with an external agency. How certain is this ? I would say it is beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond conceivable probabilities - a standard much much higher than we would accept for finding people guilty of murder or for accepting that a particular aircraft part is not going to fail and cause a disaster - MUCH higher.

OK, if you want CERTAINTY then you are just playing games, because certainties are for deductive (and therefore closed) systems, not for the real universe. Children like certainties, adults learn to live with probabilities.

* If anyone uses this to start gibbering and dribbling about 'positive mental energy' or 'life forces', or 'channelling the chi', or any such similar bollox, new age woo-woo and general Deepak Chopra type garbage, then it will go very hard for them, I promise - so, people, DON'T, PLEASE.
I use 'mental energy' here in a specific and scientific way - I mean the electrical energy produced in the brain which can be detected by sensitive electrodes and interpreted to show locations and types of electrical activity taking place in the brain itself. That is ALL I mean.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Absolutely - to do anything other would be to betray the principles which lead me to this position in the first place - go where the evidence goes, not where you would like to go. If someone manages to show convincing evidence of a God then I MUST accept it.

I'm trying to avoid wording it that way. I'm trying to avoid "if i see the evidence, then i have to change my mind" or variations on that, because while it's technically correct, it makes it sound like it's something that we're choosing to do.

What we mean to say is "if i see the evidence, my mind will be changed". As in, there would be no choice on our part either way - if the evidence is shown to us, our belief will immediately and automatically match the evidence without any action or intention on our part. We couldn't "not believe" after seeing the evidence even if we wanted to. The evidence determines our belief, not our will.

(Of course, this all assumes the evidence itself isn't suspect, and the source of the evidence isn't suspect. But once those factors have been ruled out, changing belief is an automatic, reflexive process that we couldn't stop or avoid even if we wanted to.)

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
However the "strong" atheist can never proove his assumptions about the mind of believers. A brain scanner just gives us activity, maybe it will provide the shape of the electric field involved. But as long as there exists no brain scanner that translates a brain into a text file, the notion of "external agencies" (or any agents) that could influence beliefs cannot even be researched properly.
That is coming. It is, in fact, pretty trivial compared to other challenges in neuroscience. Scientists can already transplant actual memories into insects, and we already have simple thought-controlled electronic interfaces which translate specific mental 'patterns of energy'* into specific instructions. I find no difficulty imagining a thought-to-text interface and I see no reason why we shouldn't have such a thing within a comparatively short period - a century or two perhaps, at a wild stab.....

Actually, you're underestimating what we can already do. ^_^;

We can already extract images right out of human brains. Of course we can't extract text, because we don't think in text. And non-concrete concepts are still a ways away. But the fact that we can already extract images right out of human brains is pretty impressive.

We can already transplant memories into mice - not insects, mice! They had one mouse learn a maze, then transplanted that mouse's memories into another mouse... and that mouse knew how to run the maze first time, without ever seeing it before.

And not only have we already built many mind-controlled interfaces... we have even built a device where the brain of one human controlled the body of another human. Yes, seriously! They actually played a video game, where one guy could see the screen, and the other guy had the controller (but couldn't see the screen), and the first guy used the second guy's body to work the controller and play the game.

So i'll have to say your stab at a century or two isn't nearly as wild as you think it is. ^_^;
LxGoodies
Hmm transplant a maze.. intriguing

So if I understand you well we could e.g. transplant belief ? That would proove god (only) exists in a certain part (the transplanted part) of the brain Surprised
Bikerman
You are srtill not thinking carefully enough for this....
How would producing a religious phenomenon by natural means refute the religious version?
As we have explained, you CAN'T absolutely refute such a thing - the apologist will say thsa you have reproduced faith but the 'real' thing is different.

What this WOULD do is demonstrate that the notion of faith, as described by the religious as their 'relationship' with Jesus can be produced in the lab by entirely naturalistic non-miraculous means.

To most sensible people that would be enough for them to dismiss the supernatural explanation.
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
So if I understand you well we could e.g. transplant belief ? That would proove god (only) exists in a certain part (the transplanted part) of the brain Surprised

That's not true. If that were true, then that would mean the maze only existed in the mouse's imagination. Clearly it also existed in reality.

If you can transplant beliefs, that tells you nothing about whether the beliefs are true or false. The belief transplanted about the maze was true. Other experiments have transplanted false beliefs. For example, they put a mouse in a specific cage and tortured it with electric shocks. That made the mouse terrified of that cage. Then they transplanted memories of the cage being harmless, and the mouse was fooled - it was no longer afraid of the cage.

It may be possible in the future to fabricate, remove, or transplant the "god belief" in humans. That doesn't make the "god belief" true, or false. Changing what someone believes about a fact doesn't change the fact.
GuidanceReader
Up until recently I considered myself Kemetic Orthodox. I still believe in the deities that I did before, but I no longer consider myself part of the religion. Therefore, I clicked the "theist with no religion" option.

Ohh and I'm really enjoying the conversation... I consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe because I choose to believe. I do not think there is enough evidence to conclusively say there is one or more deities or conclusively say there is not, but I do not like the way my thoughts function when I begin to consider my other option of being an agnostic atheist. As such, yes, I am using my beliefs as a comfort blanket - but it's mine and I don't try to make others share it with me.
Bikerman
It isn't my intentention on (or my role) to criticize your choice here. What you chose to believe MUST be your choice - and I feel strongly enough about that to fight and bleed. What I think I AM justified in doing (and will so even if people think otherwise Smile) is critically analyse the belief and point out flaws, contradictions and irrationalities. What you then do is down to you.
It sounds in this case that you know, at heart, that you don't believe what your religion would suggest
, that you do....you choose to play a game - go along with the lie - because you get hard to control thoughts when you think about coming out as an atheist.
Is that a fair restatement?
If so, then can you elaborate on those thoughts? Are they to do with fear of death once you accept it is final ? Or maybe the problems you might suffer socially in your area? Or something else entirely?
We (atheists) have probably had some of the thoughts you meani, and between us we have probably had any thought you might be scared of.....
it might help, and in any case will cost nothing.
(My general advice to anyone is to try to avoid living a lie for long periods because it often has bad consequences as well as allowing conveniences. Obviously you must do what YOU think is appropriate....
codegeek
I was raised a Hindu, but have found all religious beliefs to be absurd, and have hence rejected all religions.
GuidanceReader
Bikerman wrote:
... you choose to play a game - go along with the lie - because you get hard to control thoughts when you think about coming out as an atheist.
Is that a fair restatement?
If so, then can you elaborate on those thoughts? Are they to do with fear of death once you accept it is final ? Or maybe the problems you might suffer socially in your area? Or something else entirely?
...


I've been trying to work that out in my head. Here's a blog post I wrote about it (just in August Gone)

Quote:
I hate feeling like this. It sucks.

For a long time I have wanted to have a religion. I think I was about 13 when I started to question where we really came from and was introduced to the concept. I was not brought up in a religious household, so the only information I got was seeped in from outside sources. Some from my Grandmother, some from my friends. My mother believed in God, but that was about the gist of it – she didn't do anything to really honour that belief.

Starting my religious journey has contributed greatly to who I am. I have explored and played with many ideas and beliefs, to finally settle down to one dogma in 2005. I have been Kemetic Orthodox for 8 years. I have dedicated myself to the same set of beliefs for this long. All because I heard the voice of my God – pretty condemning evidence, right?

So why am I so confused now? Is it because I just don’t ‘hear’ them anymore? I am now questioning my own evidence as imagination? That’s pretty much the crux of it. No matter how much I pray and ask for them to help me through this, they remain silent. They won’t show me what they once did before. And my faith is wavering. And I am crying. I still notice the little things, but logic now explains them. I want to believe – my God, do I want to believe. But I need more.

It’s quite scary though, when I start to realise what it will mean for me to give up my beliefs. To take on the ‘this is it’ approach to my life, I suddenly feel as though it’s not good enough. Which is probably a good kick starter to doing something with my life and making it good enough, but when I start to think about it my thoughts are not really what I want them to be. Because honestly, I don’t give a ****** about people – and that’s going to be my down fall. Even those who I love profusely – if this is all I've got, I don’t care enough to expend my energy making others happy. Their happiness is not good enough for me for a once off experience of life.

If there is an afterlife, then I can be happy in making those I love happy. I can expend a lot of energy in helping them help make me happy. I can lower my own expectations and goals to make the compromises that come with relationships of all sorts. I can be a sensible human being that fits into society, relationships, family etc…

If THIS is all I have, then no. I want to be off doing everything and anything I possibly can. I want to explore everything humans are capable of. I don’t want to be caught up in emotional attachments. I want to live in the spur of the moment without worrying about how my actions will be affecting others. Everything would purely be about me – I am damn selfish and will not hide that. It takes A LOT of energy to try and not be selfish. I am proud to have a family. I love them dearly and I do not want to lose them. I am proud to put in the effort to care about my family and friends. I am proud that I can live unselfishly. But really? I am selfish and I don’t know how to really change the core of that – only the surface (which appears to be all that is really needed). And if this is my only life, why am I sacrificing the core of who I am?

So I am scared. I don’t want to give up my beliefs, because it is so much easier to compromise on things that are not really that important to me – to help make me less selfish, when I can believe there will be something beyond, allowing me to try the next thing, next time. This life I can focus on learning how to be unselfish and the next life I can go and be a mass murderer or something just as selfish. When I get to the other side I’ll understand what it was all about and it’ll all be good – because I know there’s something there and can hold onto it.

But when everything I've ever held onto, to help me believe in the afterlife, is teetering in the wind, I begin to wonder what’s the point. What am I truly grasping onto? Why am I wanting a belief? Is my religion just another compromise to make others happy, even though they don’t believe in it either? Why am I here? Why am I living a life to make others happy? Why is love making me do this? Why am I sacrificing my inner desires for the sake of society? Why do I fear the retribution of others?

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

How can I make a compromise, that actually makes me feel as though I am still living MY life the way I want it? Why can’t I have EVERYTHING? Why do I need to be so selfish? How do I change that core element?



So yeah, most of it is because I am worried about who I'll become, because a lot of who I am is based on what I have believed. And to be honest, as much as I love my family, if I don't have a belief in the afterlife, I'm probably going to be out of here.

The funny thing is? My husband is a strong atheist, and it's discussions with him that make me question my faith (which is a good thing, I guess).
LxGoodies
Indi wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
So if I understand you well we could e.g. transplant belief ? That would proove god (only) exists in a certain part (the transplanted part) of the brain Surprised

That's not true. If that were true, then that would mean the maze only existed in the mouse's imagination. Clearly it also existed in reality.

Not quite.. if you say the mouse that gets the transplant is able to walk through the maze and find the exit.. the doctor has succeeded in transplanting not only an image, but apparently also the knowledge needed to solve the maze !

Quote:
If you can transplant beliefs, that tells you nothing about whether the beliefs are true or false.

Well believers state that their belief is not some belief, but actual fact.

I just wondered what would happen if such a brain fragment would be transplanted into me or you, or e.g. a person like euuhm Bikerman Very Happy
spinout
I am Pagan! Polytheist. only 2 right now in this poll...

I wonder who the other person is? Can you browse that?
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
Not quite.. if you say the mouse that gets the transplant is able to walk through the maze and find the exit.. the doctor has succeeded in transplanting not only an image, but apparently also the knowledge needed to solve the maze !

? That was what i said. I think you're getting confused between the different experiments. One involved reading images out of the brains of humans, the others involved implanting memories and knowledge into the brains of mice.

LxGoodies wrote:
Well believers state that their belief is not some belief, but actual fact.

I don't think you know what you're talking about, because what you're saying is gibberish. Believers do not think they have "actual facts" in their heads, they think they have beliefs which are true. That's why they're called "believers" and not "facters".

A fact cannot exist in someone's head - it is universal. The fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun will exist even if there were no intelligent creatures in the universe. You don't need minds to hold facts, and facts exist even if no minds do. Facts exist even if no one's aware of them.

Beliefs require minds. Beliefs exist only in minds. Without minds, there are no beliefs. What you (and believers) have in your mind are beliefs, not facts.

Beliefs can be true or false. When beliefs agree with facts, they're true. When they don't they're false. But even when a belief is true - when it corresponds with a fact - it's still just a belief. It just happens to be a true belief.

Every belief you (or anyone) has, you think is true. It might be, or it might not be, but you always think your beliefs are true.

The mouse experiments demonstrate that we can take beliefs from one mouse, and put them in another mouse. Those beliefs can be true or false. The maze experiment was transplanting a true belief, the cage experiment was transplanting a false belief.

So even if we could put a belief in god in someone's head, or take it out, that has no bearing on whether the belief is true or not. The fact that god is real or not real exists outside of anyone's head - it is a universal thing. Changing or transplanting beliefs about that fact has no relationship to the fact itself.

LxGoodies wrote:
I just wondered what would happen if such a brain fragment would be transplanted into me or you, or e.g. a person like euuhm Bikerman Very Happy

If the belief in God were transplanted into one of us, then we would believe in God.
LxGoodies
Ah ok, more clear now. Believing or non-believing sais nothing about the actual existance of gods. The difficulty was, I did not use the word "fact" in a strictly mathematical sense. A better word in English may be certainty.. Believers are certain, their holy book is truely referring to and originating from a separate entity they call "God".

And lots of atheists have shown here that knowledge about beliefs and holy books does not imply acknowledging a god of any kind.

Would the "knowledge" and the "acknowledging a separate entity" reside in the same brain area ? Or are multiple transplants needed to transfer belief AND the certainty of a God-being ? Does a brain section contain ALL about a subject, or just aspects of a subject ?
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
Ah ok, more clear now. Believing or non-believing sais nothing about the actual existance of gods. The difficulty was, I did not use the word "fact" in a strictly mathematical sense. A better word in English may be certainty.. Believers are certain, their holy book is truely referring to and originating from a separate entity they call "God".

Rule #1 when analyzing religious people: don't put too much stock in what they say, because it will probably be bullshit. They move their mouths and say things that have the veneer of profundity, but only if you don't think about it too much. When you take their claims seriously and look deeper into them, you will almost always find lies or gibberish, or both. They've never thought too hard about their religious beliefs - if they did, they wouldn't be believers anymore - so the feigned certainty act they put on is just bravado.

In this case: believers will wax on poetically for as long as you let them about how absolutely-positively-unquestionably CERTAIN they are about their religious beliefs, but that's just mouth noises. The reality is that these protestations of OMGABSOLUTECERTAINTY are really just made to overcompensate for the lack of certainty they actually have - if they were really, truly certain about their religious beliefs, their behaviour would be very, very different indeed. But even if you want to assume they are certain-certain-certain about their religious beliefs... the bottom line is that they'll never be more certain about their religious beliefs than they are about mundane facts like that they have two arms and one head, or that grass is green, or that to get to the kitchen from the bathroom you have to go out the left entrance, down the hall and it's the last door on the right, and so on.

There's nothing magical or special about religious beliefs. They're just beliefs, like any other beliefs. Never mind how much noise religious people make about them.

LxGoodies wrote:
And lots of atheists have shown here that knowledge about beliefs and holy books does not imply acknowledging a god of any kind.

Correct.

Everything in your head is a belief, including "knowledge". "Knowledge" is just "justified true belief" (Gettier notwithstanding, but his problems are with the "justified" and "true" parts, not the "belief" part).

There's nothing weird about believing a number of things about God to be true (like "God is omnipotent", "God appeared in a column of flame", and so on) while at the same time believing other things about God are false (like "God has a finite lifespan", "God exists", and so on).

For example, i believe Luke Skywalker is a Jedi Knight. I believe Luke Skywalker knows how to fly an X-Wing starfighter. I don't believe Luke Skywalker was born on the plant Vulcan. And i don't believe Luke Skywalker exists. There is nothing weird about all of that.

LxGoodies wrote:
Would the "knowledge" and the "acknowledging a separate entity" reside in the same brain area ? Or are multiple transplants needed to transfer belief AND the certainty of a God-being ? Does a brain section contain ALL about a subject, or just aspects of a subject ?

Everything in your mind is a belief. EVERYTHING. The things you are implying are different - "certainty", "knowledge" - those things are also beliefs. "Certainty" is just "a belief you have a lot of confidence in", and "knowledge" is just "a justified true belief".

It's not as complicated as you're trying to make it out to be. One mouse had a belief - knowledge or "a justified true belief" - about a maze and how to solve it... that belief was transplanted to another mouse, and now that mouse had the knowledge about the maze. Simple. In the other experiment: a mouse had a belief that a certain cage was dangerous... that belief was removed, so the mouse was left with the default belief that the cage was no different from any other cage. Again, simple. All this talk of "different brain areas", "multiple transplants", and different "kinds" of beliefs is just confusing you and masking the simple facts.
LxGoodies
Agreed believers tend to bother us with religious propaganda on forums and present beliefs as facts. And agree too that asking about their certainties - and show counter-example or consequence - is a way to penetrate through the reflex.. and talk about real life again.

But I think this is quite radical,

Indy wrote:
EVERYTHING

You advocate all facts except mathematical axioma require a belief of some kind ?

Rolling Eyes
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
But I think this is quite radical,

Indy wrote:
EVERYTHING

You advocate all facts except mathematical axioma require a belief of some kind ?

Rolling Eyes

If you're going to quote me, at least quote enough to get a sense of what i actually said.

What i actually said was:
Indi wrote:
Everything >>> in your mind <<< is a belief. EVERYTHING.

Mathematical axioms are not "in your mind", they are objective rules agreed on by everyone. You don't "believe" axioms, you state them as rules.
dmbi601
I am a Christian.
SonLight
Welcome, dmbi601. If you're an outspoken Christian, your conversations on this forum could get very interesting.
kaysch
SonLight wrote:
Welcome, dmbi601. If you're an outspoken Christian, your conversations on this forum could get very interesting.


Interesting and often tough as well. Christians are a minority on this forum. And defending one's own belief on this forum seems to be a difficult task.

Indi wrote:
Rule #1 when analyzing religious people: don't put too much stock in what they say, because it will probably be bullshit. They move their mouths and say things that have the veneer of profundity, but only if you don't think about it too much. When you take their claims seriously and look deeper into them, you will almost always find lies or gibberish, or both. They've never thought too hard about their religious beliefs - if they did, they wouldn't be believers anymore - so the feigned certainty act they put on is just bravado.


Take this as an example. You will find those views a lot on frihost. It's a pity that religious people are targeted that much. Just because I don't believe in religion does not mean that religious people are likely to lie when they talk about their views. Their views are simply different from mine.

I myself am atheist by the way.
Bikerman
Neither Indi nor myself are prone to wild exaggeration, crass generalisation, litotes, or other forms of distortion, exaggeration or over-statement. I sometimes indulge in irony, but such postings are, I believe, clearly and obviously identifiable and are meant to be humorous rather than insulting - even if the humour is sometimes of a dark shade.
If you doubt this then I would encourage you to spend some time looking through our postings here and/or in the science forums. I am not willing or able to speak for Indi, above that simple observation, but I do have some things to say about this issue.

Firstly, the observation that the religious posters tend to repeat/quote/state meaningless, contradictory or otherwise inaccurate assertions is not really even controversial - again simply read the postings in this forum and do a quick mental tally - count the number of unsupported or just plain ridiculous assertions made and score each either theist or non-theist. See what you get.

Now, as to lying - well, again I'm going to say that yes, the religious people I have debated or even exchanged just a posting or two are quite likely to lie, and do so almost unconsciously - certainly unapologetically. Now I will add that this is not a complete spread of religious folks - as a sample this would be very heavily skewed in favour of Christian fundamentalists, since they tend to be the people I end up debating in various forums and arenas. Nonetheless, I am confident that my assertion about lying is accurate and can be verified for that group. You can do a quick and dirty test of this assertion for yourself by simply trawling a few threads and doing your own tally - similar to the one already suggested, but this time recording assertions that are wrong and which the poster either knows to be wrong or avoids doing a minimum of checking which would show them to be so - wilful ignorance is, in my opinion, as much lying as deliberately misstating.

Is this surprising? No. In fact I do not think it is possible to explain or express a Christian fundamentalist belief system - ie creationist - honestly. I think the belief is fundamentally dishonest, even for people with little or no scientific knowledge. To assert that the planet it 6-10,000 yrs old, that we were created as homo sapiens sapiens rather than evolving - and all the rest of the nonsense - involves demonstrable untruths, whilst implicitly, sometimes overtly, asserting that most of the scientists in the world are dishonest or stupidly incompetent, as are most teachers and other 'ignorant' folk who accept the science of the last 2 centuries or so. When you start with such a belief and then try to defend it in a forum which values evidence, reasoning and logic, then the result is pretty predictable methinks.

At least the theists are NOT threatened with unimaginable torment, or, in fact, with anything at all. Nor is any wider generalisation about morality asserted - and if it is then I will usually spot and correct it. So saying that many creationists lie when discussing their beliefs is simply stating a fact. What I try to avoid, and insist others avoid, is saying that they are therefore dishonest individuals in general - which I do not actually believe to be a valid assertion. No reciprocal distinction would seem to be in play, as atheists are routinely assumed, and sometimes asserted to be, immoral, or less moral hedonists who pose a danger to right-thinking folks and are the main reason that the world is going to hell in a handcart.....

Christians used to be the majority - indeed if you really feel like doing some research then try digging back through the postings about 5 years plus - and you should see what I mean. Did the Theists maintain a nicer and friendlier atmosphere when in the majority - err, no. Atheists were frequently abused and insulted personally, sometimes before even making their point. This does not, by and large, happen now. Sure, postings are strongly criticised, even attacked - that is how it works. Personal abuse is, however, strongly discouraged and moderated where necessary. Again, you can check the veracity of this yourself - the postings in here form an archive which can be checked by any person so wishing and which can be analysed objectively to check such assertions.
kaysch
Thanks for the quick answer, Bikerman. Always happy to discuss with you.

Bikerman wrote:
Neither Indi nor myself are prone to wild exaggeration, crass generalisation, litotes, or other forms of distortion, exaggeration or over-statement.

OK, let's see.

Bikerman wrote:
religious posters tend to repeat/quote/state meaningless, contradictory or otherwise inaccurate assertions

That assessment will depend on personal opinions. And yours will probably differ from the one of the person who wrote the post. What you write is in my mind a generalisation, don't you agree?

Bikerman wrote:
count the number of unsupported or just plain ridiculous assertions made and score each either theist or non-theist.

Don't worry, I have my own opinion about whether an assertion makes sense or not, and more often than not I will share your opinion. But my point was: why target a religious person because we do not agree with his view?

Bikerman wrote:
religious people I have debated or even exchanged just a posting or two are quite likely to lie, and do so almost unconsciously - certainly unapologetically.

According to Wikipedia a lie is a false statement made by somebody who knows it is not the (whole) truth, intentionally. Intention necessitates consciousness. So lying unconsciously does not work.
I can imagine that your discussions with Christian fundamentalist are not very fruitful. And I am sorry to hear that you often have your doubts what they write. But I guess that you will be able to prove that somebody posts information of which they KNOW it is wrong only in a handful of cases. So in my mind what you write is a crass exaggeration.

Bikerman wrote:
wilful ignorance is, in my opinion, as much lying as deliberately misstating.

In my opinion there is a huge difference. I will give you an example. I can’t speak Mandarin. And I have no intention to learn it. That makes me wilfully ignorant. But I am honest to you about it. I am not lying to you.

Bikerman wrote:
try digging back through the postings about 5 years plus. (..)Atheists were frequently abused and insulted personally (..)

I am not in favour of intolerance, no matter whether it comes from a theist or a non-theist.
Bikerman
1....Arghh.....opinion?
No, that is my point really - it ISN'T opinion. It is verifiable fact. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and that is not my opinion - nor would it matter if it WAS. It is a fact - verifiable from multiple independent evidential sources, ranging from radiometric dating of terrestial samples, dating of solar debris and cometary materials, cosmological theory on galaxy formation, observations of solar spectra and the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram....and more.
When you call it opinion you imply, strongly, that there is some parity between this rigorously derived data and the opinion of a religious zealot based on a dodgy interpretation of an even dodgier text...
that is misleading, to put it mildly, and is part of the reason that religious believers feel jusfified in asserting their belief in the face of the scientific evidence.

2. A lie is indeed conscious. Wilfull ignorance is ALSO conscious. If you make an assertion when it is easy for you to check, when in fact you have been shown the error of the assertion several times, and chosen not to check and not to believe the refutation, then you consciously choose to adopt a false belief and, if you then repeat this as fact, then you lie. If you want examples, there are a huge number - ranging from repeating deliberately re-arranged quotes from Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins and more, through to 'there are no transition fossils', 'the eye is irreducibly complex', 'evolution is random', 'the bible has no errors...and on and on.

Your example of speaking Mandarin is fine - so let's use it in a comparable manner. Do you claim to be able to speak Mandarin? Do you assert that a particular inflection is correct and others are wrong? If not then I fail to see how it is analogous...Smile
LxGoodies
Bikerman wrote:
A lie is indeed conscious. Wilfull ignorance is ALSO conscious. If you make an assertion when it is easy for you to check, when in fact you have been shown the error of the assertion several times, and chosen not to check and not to believe the refutation, then you consciously choose to adopt a false belief and, if you then repeat this as fact, then you lie.

Lying is an accusation. And a heavy one.. I have to agree with kajsch on this.

If something (knowledge) is willfully ignored, the resulting statements are not neccesarily lies. They are untrue. The believer (really) does not know any better. He won't read your text with the intention to learn new things, instead he will attempt to discover holes and shortcomings in your explanation.. and cite a very small part, like e.g. Nick always does. And elaborate further on that. This is like political debating, it has nothing to do with philosophy nor with science, but you can't call it "lying". You read these incorrect statements over and over and you know they are wrong, because you did read the books on evolution, you did seriously study the results of the research involved. They did not, because this research contradicts belief. Religion is not based on verification and falsification, like science is. Religion is more like political ideology, where one sticks to a particular opinion, unwilling to leave the stand, no matter what the opponent brings in.

Of course, you can accuse believers of sticking their head into the sand, or putting their fingers in their ears and crying NO NO NO. Having a lot of experience (as a scepticist) discussing with believers, I'm under the impression that belief causes a state of mind that is incapable of considering alternatives. Fighting creationists is quite easy, because a creationist does not understand what is meant with evolution, because he will simply refuse to study the topic. Science is regarded wrong.
Bikerman
We will have to agree to differ. I think you set the bar so low you allow deliberate falsehood - which to me is simply lying. The whole point is that the believer DOES know better. I am not talking about cases where they genuinely don't get it.
Take one of my examples.....'There are no transition fossils'.
Err, yes there are - there are thousands, would you like to see some....
Now, if the creationist then repeats this the next day they are LYING.*

Likewise, if a creationist writes that Darwin wrote
Quote:
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered.
and I quickly point out that their quote is partial and misleading, and SHOULD read
Quote:
LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.
And yet the very next day they are once more using the first version, then they are LYING.*

They are not wrong from ignorance, they are not wrong from poor education, nor even from want of knowledge, they are WILFULLY, DELIBERATELY ignorant because it serves their purpose and I call it lying, for which I make no apology and feel no guilt.

Here, for instance, is an archetypal example of the kind of thing I am referring to. Is this woman simply mistaken or is she a brazen, unapologetic and possibly even pathological liar? I say the latter...

(Warning - you probably don't want to watch the whole thing - it has been known to cause internal bleeding, and there are reports of spontaneous combustion in people who have gone past 27 mins). Just sample the vid at various places - she repeats the same stuff over and over, so you can get the gist in about 5 mins

*These two examples are real and have happened on several occasions. Moreover they are quite typical of a general pattern of similar misrepresentation and deceit even after the original 'mistake' is pointed out and corrected'.
kaysch
Bikerman wrote:
....Arghh.....opinion? No, that is my point really - it ISN'T opinion. It is verifiable fact. The Earth is over 4 billion years old (…). It is a fact - verifiable from multiple independent evidential sources

Good example, Bikerman. I have serious difficulties in replying because it seems so mindless that creationists ignore all those facts. And I don’t want to defend them. It’s a shame that their children are forced to learn such crap. I think I am a very tolerant person, but they put my tolerance to a hard test to say the least.

Nevertheless allow me to try to spread some doubt in what you think.

Firstly, there is no absolute truth or certainty. That view distinguishes us atheists from theists who claim there is a divine truth. We will have to rely on probabilities instead. From all the evidence we hear the earth is 4,6 billion years old and there are various scientific theories how it came into being. But here comes the dilemma: we can never be sure about this. We can only assess the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of scientists from various disciplines who all came to the same conclusion independently from one another are right. In my mind that likelihood is very very close to 100% (let’s say it is 99,999% to avoid too many nines in the figure), but it can not be equal to 100% because an absolute truth does not exist. That very very small difference of 0,001% will be enough to make me say that I believe I know that the earth is 4,6 billion years old, not that I know for sure. It is a strong belief just because of all the evidence but it is not an absolute knowledge. In my opinion absolute knowledge does not exist, just like absolute truth does not exist.

Let’s apply that same logic to a creationist. First of all he can always claim absolute truth because that’s his belief. But if he uses likelihood to make up his mind I will have to accept that he believes in the remaining 0,001%. Why? Because it’s his personal assessment of the likelihood that all those scientists are wrong, just like my assessment leads me to believe they are right.

I am not saying we should keep quiet and accept everything creationists say. On the contrary, I enjoy arguing with them, just like I enjoy arguing with you. But what I am saying is that when we argue with others we should exercise caution and avoid heavy accusations like lying. There is a chance (albeit small) that we are wrong. And it's a sign of respect to others who do not share our opinion.

Here is a second point. I have never bothered to check the age of the earth myself, just like I don’t bother to learn Mandarin. I just don’t see much benefit in either for my life. I am honest to say I am a willful ignorant in those fields, there’s the analogy you were looking for. And that’s fine. Our civilization is based on relying on other people’s specific qualifications. If someday I need to communicate with somebody who only speaks Mandarin I will try to involve somebody to translate it for me into German. And if I want to know more details about the age of the earth I will pick a video in which a trustworthy journalist explains it to me in a language I can understand, possibly without too many mathematical formulae. Or I pick a good book to find out, with many photos and all that.

A creationist will probably do the same. The only difference is that he will pick a different video from what you and I think is a less trustworthy journalist. And he will certainly pick one book without photos. Afterwards he will be more convinced than before that the earth is 4.600 years old, not 4,6 billion years.

He is not lying when he says he believes he knows the earth is 4.600 years old. Just like I am not lying when I say I believe I know it is 4,6 billion years old. Despite having done our homework he and I will both remain willful ignorants but not liars.

By the way, I fully agree with you that quotes should be more or less accurate to prove one’s own point.
Bikerman
I think you are making a classic error here. Remember Popper - important stuff.
Sure we cannot induce a certainty - Hume knew that and nothing has changed. BUT we CAN induce a falsity - we can, using nothing but inductive logic, say that 'your theory is pants, doesn't work and needs chucking in the bin.'
No opinion is involved or needed - in the words of the late great RP Feynman, if your theory is contradicted by observation or experimental result then it is WRONG. No ifs, no buts, no court of last appeal - Bin the Bugger and move on.
THAT is what I am applying here.
So, sure it is remotely possible that the Earth is NOT 4,56 billion years old - though I would bet my house, life and entire stash on it and consider it a certainty - but it is NOT possible, even in the dreams of the most idiotic or negligent Divinity, that it is 10,000 yrs old or 1 million yrs old or even 500 million years old. This we KNOW. I would go much further and say that down to 4 billion or so then we KNOW that also, but I am willing to grant minuscule gaps for doubt, although we should NOT take that to mean that anything is possible, and that certainty is therefore impossible - that is an over-generalisation of a valid consideration. If something is so unlikely that it isn't going to occur in this universe in the proceeding 30 trillion or so years, then I am content to call it impossible, and any sensible person would do likewise. Too much fannying around with remote probabilities is bad for the soul, leads to lazy and inexact thinking, and acts as a cruel and heartless taunt to the creationists who think it allows them some wriggle-room to reinsert their deity when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort.

So, I understand your point, but I disagree with it in specifics and I think you are being too lenient and, in so doing, actually doing something damaging - redefining honesty in a way which is both unacceptable and dangerous. Absolute knowledge is a red-herring here, since it is picking up on levels of probability that are indistinguishable from fact and, even if the stated measurement IS out, the margins are such that it effectively makes no real odds. So, yes, on a huge improbability we could just about contemplate the Earth's age being 3 billion years. How this would happen is beyond not just my knowledge but even my imagination, since it would require many things which are pretty solid to suddenly turn Pete-Tongue and I don't think it is actually possible in the real universe, but let us grant it as a hypothetical. So, Does this alter the basic creationist-non-delusional debate? Nope. Not in any significant sense.

When you allow the creationist to take refuge in ignorance as defence against accusations of dishonesty, you KNOW that the creationist has NO valid evidence for a belief that the age is thousands of years, and this talk of 0.1% is just fannying around and distracting, since we are talking about margins of 450 THOUSAND times not the odd percent here or there.
The creationist idiocy has a margin of error that would, if applied to a measurement of the earth-lunar distance, produce an answer of about half a mile. Personal assessment be buggered, this is idiotic nonsense, and the fact that there is an infinitesimal chance that my own figure might be out a few percent does not change things. I don't demand the creationist accept a figure of 4.54 billion years - and it is a figure which is both easy to find, consistent across all reliable sources, and simple to remember, so lets have no talk of genuine mistakes and other such rot.
The reason this is so dangerous is that science itself demands the utmost integrity and honesty to function. Imagine an experimental physicist saying 'I genuinely believed that the atomic number for Thorium is 2456 million, not 90, so my experimental results are sincere and not lies, and my proposed new Thorium reactor will probably still work with 0,1 grams of thorium producing 20 trillion Gigawatt hours of electricity per week - no bother.
Now, I am NOT saying that anything falling short of scientific levels of accuracy is a lie, but I am saying that if you redefine a lie - and be clear - that what you are about here - I ACCEPT the generally understood definition and am working to it - a deliberate false statement meant to deceive. Choosing not to hear the correct answer is not an act of omission, it is an act of COMMISSION, it is a conscious and volitional act, and it defines the alternative belief as not a mistake, not a genuinely believed piece of nonsense, but as a damn lie. When creationists tell children that evolution is a conspiracy by scientists they are LYING, except for a few(ish) cases where the person is so closeted or so indoctrinated and inculcated into religious culture that they have no real access to real information, and obviously I am NOT going to use the word liar in such cases - I am a teacher and it would be a betrayal of my professional ethics, as well as wrong and horribly unjust.
As I said, I'm not talking about borderline issues here where there is genuine doubt and understandable ignorance. I am talking about :
a) Evolution and special creation
b) Age of Earth is 6-10,000 yrs not 4.54 billion years
c) There is no evidence for evolution
d) There is a large scientific controversy about evolution and the academic world is split or undecided or in serious doubt, or mildly concerned, or slightly dubious... _9 (OK, I'll consider allowing the last one, perhaps, but only with a disclaimer that it only applies to engineers, science graduates who never actually did any science, and that usual and ubiquitous group of the awkward squad who can be found in any discipline on any issue, no matter how lunatic, proposing something not just inexplicable but actually insane. Some are in it for filthy lucre, some for attention, some are just awkward bastards who disagree on principle, and some are mad. In any event the numbers are around the same for any lunacy in any field. So, physicists who belong to the flat-earth society, geologists who think the moon is volcanic, biologists who think evolution is wrong, mathematicians who think that infinity is an obscenity and that there IS a largest number, just we haven't found it yet*
The thing is, creationist idiocy is NOT harmless and it DOES matter, since they insist on passing on their ignorant garbage to all and sundry - fighting to get it into science lessons, and here in the UK actually succeeding in some cases. This makes me physically nauseous and blazing mad. I kid you not when I say that I am not a violent man, but creationists teaching 'science' to 11 and 12 yr olds is a thing which is so anti-everything I stand for, and so basically wrong, morally, educationally and at the simplest levels of humanity, that I would be sore pressed to keep my hands of any teacher I saw committing such an obscenity and gross breach of their professional duty to educate or be damned trying. I fear that I would be unable to prevent some physical chastisement of my fallen colleague....gross unprofessional conduct though it would be.....it is as evil an act as it is possible for this particular teacher to contemplate in the profession - deliberately lying to your students, and doing so in a deliberate act of proselytising ...

I know that capital punishment is out of the question for professional misconduct...., and yet......

* I kid you not - there really is such a thing....
LxGoodies
Quote:
Here, for instance, is an archetypal example of the kind of thing I am referring to. Is this woman simply mistaken or is she a brazen, unapologetic and possibly even pathological liar? I say the latter...

It could very well be the case, that lyars work for these "Christian science" organisations. Maybe she adheres to her nonsense because she wants to be payed at the end of the month. In that case - for her - you are right. On the other hand, I recognize her riddle from debates with non-professional believers. They have the same riddle.

I've listened to the first 6 minutes of it. This lady is stuck in a particular world view and refuses to acknowledge anything Dawkins sais. She does not even listen to him. It is a resistance mode, she is fighting the powers that be, without having a clue about the actual subject. Also, she mistrusts *all* of science, denying the broad acceptance of evolution, never read a text book. But does that indicate she is lying, that is, would she know any better ? Do you really think she takes Dawkins serious ?

Indeed, my standards are low. I dont expect much of creationists. For a believer, evolution has nothing to do with science as we attempt to study, in terms of proof and falsification: she considers it political debate. The style in which she speaks also indicates that. She sounds as determined as any professional politician, while Dawkins remains very calm.

But for me, bottom line is, a lyar not knowing he/she is a lyar.. is not a lyar. It's one way traffic. The bible is true and a hard core believer simply refuses to listen to anything else.
Bikerman
No, I think your idea is actually not bad - I agree that to lie you must be conscious of something, but I do not agree that you must KNOW you are lying.
Example
I ask you - is the A737 wide-bodied jet a safe plane to pilot - I am going up with a new pilot and need to know fast,
You say - yep, I happen to know it is safe as houses.
(You DON'T know, but neither do you know you are telling an untruth - are you lying?)
Damn right you are. You are misleading and deceiving me by pretending to know that which you don't. You MAY be right by coincidence, but that does not change the lie into something else.

I know that accusations of lying are treated as heavy-duty - much MORE so than they should be, given that we all lie pretty regularly - its similar to being called a wanker. The correct response would be, yes, well, so what if I am, are YOU not? But instead it seems to upset people more than the meaning of the actual insult should methinks...
Still, if creationists get upset by being called a liar, then the solution is within easy reach - STOP LYING!
LxGoodies
Bikerman wrote:
I ask you - is the A737 wide-bodied jet a safe plane to pilot - I am going up with a new pilot and need to know fast,
You say - yep, I happen to know it is safe as houses. (You DON'T know, but neither do you know you are telling an untruth - are you lying?)
Damn right you are.


Hehe indeed if I would say "yes" (or "no" for that matter) I would give you an arbitrary answer, true or untrue. If i'm ignorant on 737's, I'm just guessing.

I've a similar example to clarify my view on the distinction (between lying and ignorant false belief)

Example
"I ask you - will the F35 joint strike fighter cost the same in 2020 when it will be delivered - I am going to spend zillions of Euro's on that fighter jet, so I need to know fast..
You say - yep, I happen to know it will be the same price in 2020"

In this case, you are either

- a sales person representing Lockheed (in this case you are probably a lyar !) OR..
- a member of the Dutch conservative party, advocating the purchase of this fighter jet.

In the latter case, you're just an ignorant optimist (believer), or deceived by Lockheed.. not neccesarily a lyar. That would be the case, if you would be told in secret by Lockheed that the F35 will be twice the cost in 2020. In that case you ARE a lyar.

Analogy: the preachers are not told by the church they should hide or conceil the thruth about evolution. There is no bishop telling the priests they should argue against evolution in church because despite its obvious thruth, evolution cannot be teached to christians. Instead, most leading persons in the church desperately fight evolution themselves.. and in the rare event they don't, they won't interfere with the preaching saying "you should tell them a lie".
Ankhanu
LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I ask you - is the A737 wide-bodied jet a safe plane to pilot - I am going up with a new pilot and need to know fast,
You say - yep, I happen to know it is safe as houses. (You DON'T know, but neither do you know you are telling an untruth - are you lying?)
Damn right you are.


Hehe indeed if I would say "yes" (or "no" for that matter) I would give you an arbitrary answer, true or untrue. If i'm ignorant on 737's, I'm just guessing.

Ah, but the reply isn't stated as a guess, it's stated as knowledge. That is a lie.

It's absolutely fine to postulate, guess, or what have you... but it should always be prefaced with the fact that you are doing so, otherwise, you are being dishonest.
Perhaps it's my science training that makes me more aware than most appear to be of misrepresentation of truth/knowledge versus postulation... we tend to bend over backwards to be as honest as possible (perhaps detrimentally so in some cases), that we take discrepancies quite seriously. Make guesses, use what you know to speculate on what you don't... just be clear when you're doing so.

LxGoodies wrote:
I've a similar example to clarify my view on the distinction (between lying and ignorant false belief)

Example
"I ask you - will the F35 joint strike fighter cost the same in 2020 when it will be delivered - I am going to spend zillions of Euro's on that fighter jet, so I need to know fast..
You say - yep, I happen to know it will be the same price in 2020"

In this case, you are either

- a sales person representing Lockheed (in this case you are probably a lyar !) OR..
- a member of the Dutch conservative party, advocating the purchase of this fighter jet.

In the latter case, you're just an ignorant optimist (believer), or deceived by Lockheed.. not neccesarily a lyar. That would be the case, if you would be told in secret by Lockheed that the F35 will be twice the cost in 2020. In that case you ARE a lyar.

The only case in which "yep, I happen to know it will be the same price in 2020" wouldn't be a lie is if there is a signed contract stating that to be the case in no uncertain terms. Outside of that, there is only a hope or promise, and may be subject to change; stating certainty is passing along a false impression, a lie. "We believe..." or "It should be..." or similar would be acceptable phrasing to avoid lying, not presenting certainty where certainty doesn't exist.

LxGoodies wrote:
Analogy: the preachers are not told by the church they should hide or conceil the thruth about evolution. There is no bishop telling the priests they should argue against evolution in church because despite its obvious thruth, evolution cannot be teached to christians. Instead, most leading persons in the church desperately fight evolution themselves.. and in the rare event they don't, they won't interfere with the preaching saying "you should tell them a lie".

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be analogous of...
Bikerman
LxGoodies wrote:
Hehe indeed if I would say "yes" (or "no" for that matter) I would give you an arbitrary answer, true or untrue. If i'm ignorant on 737's, I'm just guessing.
And THAT is the correct answer - I don't know, or I don't know enough to help.
Quote:

Example
"I ask you - will the F35 joint strike fighter cost the same in 2020 when it will be delivered - I am going to spend zillions of Euro's on that fighter jet, so I need to know fast..
You say - yep, I happen to know it will be the same price in 2020"

Then I am lying my tits off because I have no idea.
Quote:

In this case, you are either

- a sales person representing Lockheed (in this case you are probably a lyar !) OR..
- a member of the Dutch conservative party, advocating the purchase of this fighter jet.
It matters not one tiny bit. I have made a statement that I know is likely to be untrue and it is clearly going to mislead. It is a lie in both cases, simple.
Quote:

In the case, you're just an ignorant optimist (believer), or deceived by Lockheed.. not neccesarily a lyar. That would be the case, if you would be told in secret by Lockheed that the F35 will be twice the cost in 2020. In that case you ARE a lyar.
NONONO. I either have good reason to think I know, or I don't, If I THINK I have info that is good then OK, but the politician KNOWS that he doesn't know and is therefore a liar, advocate or not.
Quote:

Analogy: the preachers are not told by the church they should hide or conceil the thruth about evolution. There is no bishop telling the priests they should argue against evolution in church because despite its obvious thruth, evolution cannot be teached to christians. Instead, most leading persons in the church desperately fight evolution.. and in the rare event they don't, they won't interfere with the preaching saying "you should tell them a lie".
I don't know how you think you know this and what clergy you mean. This is such a sweeping generalisation I think it has little actual information content or utility. The Catholic and Anglican clergy, for example, are signed up for evolution and therefore do not fit this picture. The evangelical and charismatics do what they want to and don't really answer to hierarchies and the ministers and church leaders who are the most vocally opposed tend to be leaders of their own ministry and answerable to no central church or higher clergy. In short, your summary is just about as wrong as I can imagine Sad Maybe it applies to your local churches, but not to the main sects or the most fundamentalist churches.
kaysch
Bikerman wrote:
Sure we cannot induce a certainty (..) BUT we CAN induce a falsity

No. Nobody can prove the “correct” age of the earth (around 4,6 billion years) without the slightest doubt. And nobody can prove it is not 4,6 billion years old without the slightest doubt. Again: there is no absolute certainty in an atheist world. This is what positively distinguishes you and me from theists.

Bikerman wrote:
It is NOT possible, even in the dreams of the most idiotic or negligent Divinity, that it is 10,000 yrs old

Sure it is. And the likelihood is marginal according to what you and I believe. Not according to what a creationist believes.

Bikerman wrote:
If something is so unlikely that it isn't going to occur in this universe in the proceeding 30 trillion or so years, then I am content to call it impossible

You are not being precise then. It is highly unlikely in your eyes but not impossible.

Bikerman wrote:
Too much fannying around with remote probabilities is bad for the soul

It is bad for WHAT? Laughing

Bikerman wrote:
Absolute knowledge is a red-herring here, since it is picking up on levels of probability that are indistinguishable from fact and, even if the stated measurement IS out, the margins are such that it effectively makes no real odds.

Again, the odds exist. And my whole point is that creationists assess them completely differently than you and I do. At the end of the day we are talking about opinions. You sent around the interview between Dawkins and Wright. I pretty much liked it because although I agreed with everything Dawkins said he did not score any point with Wright. Or, as a former boss of mine once put it: being right is not the same as being given right.

Bikerman wrote:
When you allow the creationist to take refuge in ignorance as defence against accusations of dishonesty, you KNOW that the creationist has NO valid evidence for a belief that the age is thousands of years, and this talk of 0.1% is just fannying around and distracting, since we are talking about margins of 450 THOUSAND times not the odd percent here or there.

Again: the whole point is that a creationist believes it is true what he believes. Just like you and I believe in the opposite.

Bikerman wrote:
The reason this is so dangerous is that science itself demands the utmost integrity and honesty to function.

Why can’t a creationist believe in something you and I consider as something highly unlikely? There is no danger in that. The danger starts when he forces his view on others.

Bikerman wrote:
Choosing not to hear the correct answer is not an act of omission, it is an act of COMMISSION.

There is no correct answer just as there is no black and white in life.

Bikerman wrote:
When creationists tell children that evolution is a conspiracy by scientists they are LYING, except for a few(ish) cases where the person is so closeted or so indoctrinated and inculcated into religious culture that they have no real access to real information, and obviously I am NOT going to use the word liar in such cases - I am a teacher and it would be a betrayal of my professional ethics, as well as wrong and horribly unjust.

I think all creationists are indoctrinated. And the doctrine is the bible.

Bikerman wrote:
The thing is, creationist idiocy is NOT harmless and it DOES matter, since they insist on passing on their ignorant garbage to all and sundry - fighting to get it into science lessons, and here in the UK actually succeeding in some cases. This makes me physically nauseous and blazing mad.

That is a heroic fight for science. But you won’t win it by insulting creationists or even all theists as liars, maniacs, ignorants or however you will want to call them. You’ll have to gain influence on the government’s schooling programmes to avoid that this nonsense is being taught. Get involved into politics, man, not into religious discussions on these boards.

Bikerman wrote:
I know that capital punishment is out of the question for professional misconduct...., and yet......

As much as I can understand your frustration, you should calm down a little, Bikerman. We will survive this dispute. Just like we survived the idea of the earth being flat or the universe centering around the earth.
Indi
kaysch wrote:
Indi wrote:
Rule #1 when analyzing religious people: don't put too much stock in what they say, because it will probably be bullshit. They move their mouths and say things that have the veneer of profundity, but only if you don't think about it too much. When you take their claims seriously and look deeper into them, you will almost always find lies or gibberish, or both. They've never thought too hard about their religious beliefs - if they did, they wouldn't be believers anymore - so the feigned certainty act they put on is just bravado.


Take this as an example. You will find those views a lot on frihost. It's a pity that religious people are targeted that much. Just because I don't believe in religion does not mean that religious people are likely to lie when they talk about their views.

I don't see the relation between whether you believe in religion and the honesty of religious people. Religious people don't get more honest just because you believe in religion. They don't get more dishonest just because you (or i) don't.

The lack of honesty of believers about their own religious beliefs is well documented - not just here, everywhere, even in scientific studies. I don't say it because i don't believe, i say it because it's true. (It's trivially easy to demonstrate, too, without even leaving these forums.) Even religious believers have to admit (and some occasionally do) that what most religious believers say about their religious beliefs is internally contradictory or just downright nonsensical. (Most believers, of course, won't admit that, and instead just repeat the claims that have already been shown to be wrong louder.)

The truth may be unpleasant, but it is the truth. It is not "targeting" people to tell the truth about them (not to mention that wasn't out of the blue - it was in specific response to a mistake another poster was making by taking the claims of religious people seriously, not merely "targeting" people for the hell of it). You haven't even made an attempt to dispute the claim, either - you've just made a smarmy insinuation that what i said is an insult i specifically "targeted" at religious people because i disagree with them. In other words, take that as an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
kaysch
Indi wrote:
I don't see the relation between whether you believe in religion and the honesty of religious people. Religious people don't get more honest just because you believe in religion. They don't get more dishonest just because you (or i) don't.

I guess that if you were a theist you would never say that religious people should not be taken serious, that they almost always come up with bullshit or lies. You’d be insulting yourself.

Indi wrote:
The truth may be unpleasant, but it is the truth. It is not "targeting" people to tell the truth about them

Insulting people for the sake of a supposedly higher truth? Sounds almost religious to me.

Indi wrote:
(not to mention that wasn't out of the blue - it was in specific response to a mistake another poster was making by taking the claims of religious people seriously, not merely "targeting" people for the hell of it). You haven't even made an attempt to dispute the claim, either - you've just made a smarmy insinuation that what i said is an insult i specifically "targeted" at religious people because i disagree with them. In other words, take that as an example of an ad hominem fallacy.

No, I have not taken anything out of context. I was referring to your
Indi wrote:
Rule #1 when analyzing religious people

There is no need to go back to the specific argument which made you reveal your maxim.

To sum up my whole point, and this is my rule #1 when dealing with others: There is no point in being verbally or even physically violent. You will never win people’s hearts by being violent. So being the good atheists that we are, let’s not make the same mistakes theists have done over centuries. I know am not free from that violence especially when I am in the middle of a heated discussion, but I think it’s wrong.

Tomorrow I will go on vacation for 2 weeks. I will travel to 2 countries where the majority of people is highly religious, at least according to the official statistics. And no, I will not do you any favour and carry any weapons with me to promote atheism. Laughing
Bikerman
kaysch wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
It is NOT possible, even in the dreams of the most idiotic or negligent Divinity, that it is 10,000 yrs old

Sure it is. And the likelihood is marginal according to what you and I believe. Not according to what a creationist believes.
I don't know what you believe and I don't think you have any mandate to assume MY beliefs. If we discount the extreme solipsistic view - something which it is not possible to attach a probability to in any case, then we can say that the probability of the earth being 10,000 years old is zero, given a universe that functions lawfully (ie in accordance with physical law). If the universe does NOT function lawfullly then the discussion is moot.
Quote:

Again, the odds exist. And my whole point is that creationists assess them completely differently than you and I do. At the end of the day we are talking about opinions. You sent around the interview between Dawkins and Wright. I pretty much liked it because although I agreed with everything Dawkins said he did not score any point with Wright. Or, as a former boss of mine once put it: being right is not the same as being given right.
Complete nonsense. Odds are not matters of opinion and the odds are so stupendously weighted against the creationist that I doubt that the 'possibility' of that view being correct is even measurable. You can never score a point with someone who does not listen to evidence and is prepared to lie when it serves their purpose. Wendy Wright lies repeatedly throughout the interview.
Quote:

Again: the whole point is that a creationist believes it is true what he believes. Just like you and I believe in the opposite.
The comparison is bogus and dishonest. I accept the scientific data. If the data pointed to a different age then I would accept that. The creationist is not interested in evidence and believes what they do because it is part of a religious world-view, not because of evidence.
Quote:
Why can’t a creationist believe in something you and I consider as something highly unlikely? There is no danger in that. The danger starts when he forces his view on others.
Which is exactly what creationists try to do. The belief is part of a world view which includes another belief - the necessity of spreading the world-view. Christian fundamentalists are constantly trying to spread their view to others and will use pretty much any methods, including deeply dishonest ones, to do so. If anyone doubts this then they should read the Judgement in the 'Dover' trial....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
Nyasro
HINDU Smile
Indi
kaysch wrote:
I guess that if you were a theist you would never say that religious people should not be taken serious, that they almost always come up with bullshit or lies. You’d be insulting yourself.

First of all, that's not what i said. You are taking my comment out of context and distorting it dishonestly. More on that below.

What i really said is that you cannot use take what religious people say about their beliefs seriously. And that is true. And even if i would never say it, it would still be true.

kaysch wrote:
Insulting people for the sake of a supposedly higher truth? Sounds almost religious to me.

I did not insult anybody. I stated a fact - an easily observable, and well-documented fact - that what religious believers say about the nature of their belief is almost never true. This fact is even one of the fundamental assumptions in the sociology of religion - no matter which school of thought you're working with. (For example, phenomenology (which i don't really agree with) says that believers believe for emotional comfort... not because they actually think the beliefs make any sense.)

Basically, what you are doing is no different than accusing me of "insulting" North Koreans if i pointed out that North Koreans are 3-8 cm shorter than South Koreans. It's not an insult, it's a fact - observed and recorded. If you don't like it, tough. If you're insulted by it, tough... but what would be insulting you in that case is reality, not Indi.

It's the same for religious believers. The fact that i quoted about analyzing religious belief is a fact. If it insults anyone, it's reality doing the "insulting", not me.

kaysch wrote:
No, I have not taken anything out of context. I was referring to your
Indi wrote:
Rule #1 when analyzing religious people

There is no need to go back to the specific argument which made you reveal your maxim.

Actually, you did take what i said out of context, and i can prove it with your very next sentence. ↓

kaysch wrote:
To sum up my whole point, and this is my rule #1 when dealing with others...

What you quoted is not my rule #1 "when dealing with others". It's not even my rule #1 when dealing with religious people. You have taken what i said out of context, and are now being dishonest about it.

What i said was - and you can see it clearly right there - that this is rule #1 when ANALYZING religious people. It was not a rule about dealing with people... it was about studying them. The context was a discussion about the nature of religious beliefs. LxGoodies had made an assumption about the nature of religious beliefs based on what religious people say about them. Specifically, it was the assumption that believers are "certain" about their religious beliefs because they insist they are. They're not, no matter what they say - religious believers are NOT certain about their religious beliefs. That's easy to demonstrate. Take any of the Abrahamic religions, for example - they all say that there's a glorious and wonderful afterlife of pure happiness waiting for you when you die... but if believers really believe that, why aren't they happy to die? Why do they work so hard to avoid death? Why are they so afraid when death approaches? The answer is obvious. There are other ways to demonstrate, too - for example, a couple years ago i did a thread here asking religious people if they would kill a random person for no other reason than that their god ordered it. Most tried to dodge the question, coming up with silly arguments like that their god would never order them to kill - pretty much no one straight up said they would. Yet if they really believed in a perfectly good, all-knowing god, they would be stupid not to kill if the god said they should. So, clearly they don't really believe with all that much certainty.

Bottom line is that you have misrepresented what i said, and taken it out of context. What i said is that you cannot trust what religious believers say about their beliefs - which is not only a well-known fact, it is a fundamental tenet of methodology when studying religious beliefs. I did not insult anyone, i did not advocate violence, and nothing i said has to do with how i actually deal with people - believers or not. Those are all misrepresentations you introduced.

kaysch wrote:
Tomorrow I will go on vacation for 2 weeks. I will travel to 2 countries where the majority of people is highly religious, at least according to the official statistics. And no, I will not do you any favour and carry any weapons with me to promote atheism. Laughing

I have no interest in "promoting" atheism, so you would not be doing me any favours by doing so. I don't actually care whether anyone is atheist or not - all i care about is that people use reason when interacting with each other, and the world. You can believe in Huitzilopochtli for all i care - it doesn't matter to me so long as you aren't cutting out people's hearts for a sacrifice.

However, if you think you need weapons to convert people to atheism, you are a sadly misguided person.
kaysch
Bikerman wrote:
You can never score a point with someone who does not listen to evidence and is prepared to lie when it serves their purpose.

I agree with you. So what does that mean? Will you stop the discussions with creationists altogether because they are pointless? Or which personal consequence do you take out of this insight?
Bikerman wrote:
The creationist is not interested in evidence and believes what they do because it is part of a religious world-view, not because of evidence.

That’s not line with what Wendy Wright said. She did not say she is not interested in evidence. What she did say was that she does not accept the evidence as being enough. Which, whether we may like it or not, is her personal point of view.

Anyway, I don’t like where this discussion with you is heading. I am far from being a creationist or even sharing their ideas, so there is actually no point in me defending them. The whole discussion started with my statement that in general religious people would face tough comments here. You have narrowed the discussion to creationist belief. And now as I am asking to be less harsh even with them I feel I start facing harsh comments myself ("dishonest", "nonsense", "bogus"). Which sort of proves my original point.
kaysch
Indi wrote:
What i really said is that you cannot use take what religious people say about their beliefs seriously.

Yes you can. And it’s a question of politeness and good education to do so. Just as I expect them to take serious what I think about my belief or rather non-belief.
Indi wrote:
I did not insult anybody.
(…) what religious believers say about the nature of their belief is almost never true.

To me it is a sign of disrespect not being able to take somebody serious who talks about his religious feelings. Call me over-sensitive, but I'd find that attitude pretty insulting.
Indi wrote:
it was the assumption that believers are "certain" about their religious beliefs because they insist they are. They're not, no matter what they say - religious believers are NOT certain about their religious beliefs.

I don’t get the point. What does it matter to what extent a believer is certain about his belief? Just let him have his doubt. Doubt distinguishes a fanatic from a normal person.
Indi wrote:
a couple years ago i did a thread here asking religious people if they would kill a random person for no other reason than that their god ordered it.

Well, in Christianity it’s “Thou shalt not kill”. Very simple to understand. I wonder why you could not accept that as an answer.
Indi wrote:
I did not insult anyone, i did not advocate violence, and nothing i said has to do with how i actually deal with people - believers or not. Those are all misrepresentations you introduced.

Thanks for the clarification. Happy to read that your intentions are not those.
Bikerman
Quote:
Well, in Christianity it’s “Thou shalt not kill”. Very simple to understand. I wonder why you could not accept that as an answer.
Only simple if you don't really understand it at all. The Commandments that Moses is given (all 20 of them) are meant ONLY for the Hebrew people. Killing a fellow Hebrew was forbidden. Killing Gentiles, however, was not only allowed, it was often mandatory and those who refused faced their own death. If you read the Old Testament you will find millions (literally, not hyperbole) of killings either committed by God or committed on his direct orders (and I'm not even including the Noachian Flood deaths in that). I'm in the middle of typesetting and rearranging a book which details each killing event and includes figures and best estimates for the number killed in each case. The total (not inc flood) is around 2.7 million. That compares to the number killed by Satan/Lucifer - 9.

If you want, therefore, to define killing as immoral then you have a fairly insurmountable problem to deal with.....how can a God that is held to be the ultimate source of morality and, therefore, only capable of maximally moral acts, order genocide? And if God IS maximally moral then it follows that Genocide must be a moral act, and killing on a smaller scale would obviously also be included.
Bluedoll
"I'm in the middle of typesetting and rearranging a book"
- For what purpose?

[Edited by Mod to cut-down on size by removing quote from previous message
Bikerman]
Bikerman
For inclusion on my website as part of the resource-bank.
nickfyoung
A small personal observation. It seems to me that atheism has grown out of science. Before the rise of science there seems to have been more theism and then science discovered evolution etc and debunked most of theism causing a general rise in atheism.

Within Christianity a small band of the faithful happened to be scientists and form groups such as the creation foundation etc.

Personally, I can't remember learning evolution at school although I flunked science classes not being scientifically minded and still am not inclined that way. So my first real confrontation with evolution, age of the earth etc was from a Christian perspective after conversion.

Being not scientifically minded, I have to rely on scientists for my information and of course go with scientists who are Christian first. You say that Christian scientists are mistaken at best and downright liars at worst while I get similar accusations from the Christian science viewpoint.

Now I have to make a judgement about who to believe and naturally I am going to go with Christians because that is what I am. You say I should think for myself, study the evidence etc, but why. I am quite comfortable with the decision I have made and my faith is unshaken by your continued assertions. Does that make me a liar by default. I guess it does in your eyes.
Bikerman
You SHOULD have learned evolution if you are around my age (mid 50s) or younger. In fact it should have been taught in Oz for the last 70 yrs or more *

Atheism has grown simply because it became possible to be an atheist and still live. I would probably agree that atheism has increased as knowledge has increased. Until the enlightenment knowledge increased barely at all over 1300 years. The Church was therefore secure - especially since it controlled politics, finance, the legal system and just about every other facet of life.

Post-enlightenment, science allowed knowledge to increase at a HUGELY accelerated pace. There was probably more progress from 1800-1900 that in the previous 2000 years. Since religion can be regarded, as Christopher Hitchens used to say, as our first, primitive, attempt to explain the universe, it is entirely to be expected that as our knowledge increases, religion will no longer be much use for explaining anything 'real' - it has been superseded and 'obsoleted' by a far more powerful explanatory system which can be objectively tested and doesn't rely on blind faith. Religion is now restricted to making vague statements which cannot be tested -either that or risk BEING tested and, as always, failing the tests.

Religion therefore has NOTHING to say about anything much in the real world of 'stuff', and this is why the notion of a 'Christian Scientist' is confusing.

If you mean scientists who are Christians then no problem with that. They will have similar views to the rest of the scientific community and most educated people - ie they will know that evolution is proven beyond any sane doubt. Their faith will be entirely separate from their work as scientists, since it cannot really inform it in any useful manner. There are a LOT of people in this category.
If, however, you mean people who call themselves 'Creation Scientists', or some similar term, then there is no confusion - they are not scientists, There IS NO science in creationism/ID and never has been. Yes, they are lying scumbags and yes they are 'mistaken'. I don't really care if they make similar accusations because their views have no scientific credibility and can be simply ignored in matters pertaining to science and science administration. If you really think they present an alternative to real science then your science education is pretty much zero. I would offer to help with that but I already wasted time doing that and you don't merit any more wasted hours.
It's basically up to you - stop pissing around and making fatuous and ignorant comments about something you know nothing about, and actually LEARN some science. That would be my advice. I am pretty sure, however, that you will continue as you currently do - posting crap and either unable or unwilling to apply the most basic scientific principles and, therefore, with nothing to say on the matter.

The thing that creationists don't seem to be able to understand is this - their opinion is not important and nobody really gives a crap if they believe nonsense. Science isn't a democracy and if you have no qualification/experience in a particular field of science then you are NOT entitled to have any opinion you may have taken seriously - or even listened to - because your opinion is based on ignorance and, in science, that is the same as saying it is completely worthless.

The only reason people like me spend a lot of time pointing out the stupidity and dishonesty of the creationist position is to try and limit the infection as much as possible. Creationists have been trying to get their nonsense taught as fact for a century and THAT must be strongly resisted, because children are 'programmed' to believe people in authority by evolution - that way they survive long enough to become stroppy teenagers, when they can rebel and still survive. Having a bunch of lying creationists fill their heads with garbage WOULD be a problem.

* If you didn't study evolution at school then it is likely that the religious had some hand in that. Evolution was on the syllabus here when I was in secondary school - 1970s - and it should have been the same in Ozz. So you can blame people like yourself for your ignorance.
nickfyoung
I am 65 now so that may have some bearing.

I was just checking your 'favorite site', Answers in Genesis, and they list some 150 scientists who are some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation.

Which of these scientists, if not all of them, should I disregard.

Then they list hundreds of old scientists that don't count because they were scientists before the age of enlightenment.

Then there are hundreds of 'scientific' articles on the site pertaining to every scientific area you can imagine.

Now you may be able to 'see through' these article because of your knowledge but I can't so I have to make a choice between them and you and your evidence. Can you see my dilemma.
Bikerman
LOL - I've just finished analysing that list.
A LOT of the people listed were VERY PISSED OFF to find themselves listed.
A quick answer is check those working in biology, but don't bother because I've already done some proper research on it. Working assumption ANY claim on AiG is likely to be wrong and is probably dishonest. I have pasted the relevant part of the article (written for my own site) below.
You don't need to be able to understand complex science - you need to do what I advised months ago. Use REPUTABLE sources - I even gave you a list of specially vetted sites which contained all you needed, and were authored by proper scientists and experts in that field - some Christian, some not.

Your insistence on seeking our your own sources is just arrogance, since you already admit you have no way to critically evaluate the results. Your pretense of a genuine dilemma is a sham - you know fine well that you have been offered help - by Ankhanu as well, and he IS a biologist - and spurned it. You are, as usual, trying to pass yourself off as an honest seeker for truth, We both know that is dishonest and that you only want to read science if you think you can use it to defend your crackpot beliefs. How gullible do you think I am?

Bikerman wrote:
Even if these were all working biologists, it would be a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the total - a pretty insignificant number to base claims of 'major doubts'' on. But, of course, these are NOT working biologists. I checked the list - anyone with a Science-related PhD is allowed on, and there are thirty-nine people who could be loosely classified as in 'biological science'. THIRTY-NINE....THAT IS IT. Even then, some of these names have never published a thing in science, and have never actually held a post in science since completing their PhD. Let me just say that again THIRTY BLEEDIN NINE dissenting biologists, worldwide. It would be funny if it were not so damn dishonest. So this is the 'major dissent' within the ranks of experts is it? Well, I next checked the literature (this is the name we give to the scientific papers which are the meat and drink of the scientist's professional life. Professional scientists and academic scientists do research into their specialist field, and this is presented to the rest of the biological community by being published in one of the specialist Journals which are there for the purpose. Other specialists in that particular field will first check the work - peer-review - to make sure it is valid and accurate, and that any experiments were done properly and reported impartially). So, I wondered, how many papers have our magnificent thirty-nine had published in the literature, and how many of these were critical of evolutionary theory? The first is still work in progress and I will update this when done. The second was much easier - NONE. Not a single paper critical or challenging evolutionary theory from any of them. Come to that, I only found 2 papers in total in the whole of the literature which were proposing an alternative to evolution. Both were from supporters of Intelligent Design and their publication ignited a huge row, because of their poor quality and the fact that they managed to slip past the peer-review process which should have thrown them out.2

Finally, I checked to see if anyone else had researched the list. I quickly found that yes indeed, someone had actually written to the thirty-nine people identified and asked them whether they reject common descent. He could not trace four and of the remaining thirty-five, nineteen did not respond, fourteen responded saying that they did NOT reject common descent, and two responded saying they DID reject common descent.


[/b]
nickfyoung
If I go to Answers in Genesis and search biology articles, the first one of 10 pages is written by the following guy.

Quote:
About the Author

Roger Patterson earned his B.S. Ed. degree in biology from Montana State University. Before joining the curriculum development team at Answers in Genesis, he taught for eight years in Wyoming’s public school system and assisted the Wyoming Department of Education in developing assessments and standards for children in public schools.


How do I know if he is a reputable scientist or not or one that meets your criteria.
johans
megastar wrote:
I AM HINDU

[mod-edit]007: titlefix + could you please turn off caps lock?[/mod-edit]


I am Roman Catholic and belongs to Christian.
Bikerman
As I said, I've wasted enough time trying to help you. You were offered free one-to-one tuition from experts, entirely pro-Bono and worth a fortune. You chucked it back and that is a one-time only offer - one I would personally have considered chopping-off an arm for, when struggling through it myself.
You clearly don't want to learn so I will confine myself to rebutting and refuting any nonsense assertions posted here.

For other readers: It doesn't need any special knowledge to see immediately that Patterson is, at best, a High School teacher of science, not a scientist, probably never worked as a scientist, and has no authority to speak as one. An undergrad degree in a science subject doesn't make you a scientist. You then need some postgrad study, some research experience and a publication record before you should even THINK about claiming the status of scientist. Patterson is a teacher - nothing wrong with that - so am I, but he is no sort of expert in science. Now, anyone really looking would see that, but Nick is not looking for info, he's looking for ammunition. Just more dishonesty, which is useful in illustrating my earlier points about creationists and the correlation with honesty (inverse) that I have observed over decades of debate.
nickfyoung
You are missing my point here. Why should I pay more attention to you than to Paterson. He writes to a level I can understand for a start. He pertains to be Christian which is a big plus of course so why should I take more notice of an atheist over a Christian. I only have your assertions that he is under educated and a basic liar.
Indi
kaysch wrote:
Yes you can. And it’s a question of politeness and good education to do so. Just as I expect them to take serious what I think about my belief or rather non-belief.

You're still taking what i wrote out of context. I've already explained that i was talking about cases when you are STUDYING religious belief, not simply cases when you're dealing with religious people in everyday life.* So is this a concept you are unable to grasp? Can you not understand the difference between studying some group of people - trying to understand something about them - versus just getting along and living with them - the difference between an anthropologist studying a group of people versus someone just living amongst them? Or are you just choosing to ignore the context so you can interpret what i said in the most negative way for the sake of argument?

Your concerns about "politeness" are ridiculous and irrelevant; when one is studying something, one does not ignore the facts merely out of concern for "politeness". If i were studying atheists (i am an atheist), i wouldn't take what atheists said at face value either. Hell, if i were trying to better understand my own motivations about something, i wouldn't accept my own opinions at first glance - i would look deeper to find out what was really driving me. That's what intellectual honesty looks like.

You have a funny definition of "good education" if you seriously believe that one should simply accept whatever people claim about themselves. But I already know you don't seriously believe that, because i know you don't really live that way in real life. No one does - you can't function in the world by just accepting what everyone claims about themselves as true uncritically. I know you wouldn't accept someone's claim that they would never lie because God said not to - i know that if someone grabbed your wallet and ran, and you chased them down and caught them, you wouldn't accept their claim they were merely going to check to see if your licence was expired and not steal anything because God said "thou shalt not steal". What i can't understand is why you're pretending otherwise.

(*If you were really curious about how i think religious people should be treated in daily life, or how i think religious beliefs should be respected in everyday society, the smart move would have been to ask me, rather than going with whatever assumptions popped into your head about what i think or believe. Ironically, your ignorant assumptions about what i believe say more about you than me or anyone else.)

kaysch wrote:
To me it is a sign of disrespect not being able to take somebody serious who talks about his religious feelings. Call me over-sensitive, but I'd find that attitude pretty insulting.

This is not a matter of oversensitivity, but rather of being deliberately obtuse. Actually more than that: to put it bluntly, you're lying. You don't really take what religious people say about their faith seriously. This post is full of examples showing why you can't - why no one can. The difference between you and me seems not to be a matter of sensitivity, but of honesty - and i find your dishonesty far more insulting. I don't consider any form of dishonestly to be sign of respect.

kaysch wrote:
I don’t get the point. What does it matter to what extent a believer is certain about his belief? Just let him have his doubt. Doubt distinguishes a fanatic from a normal person.

The reason you don't get the point is because you're unwilling or unable to understand the context the original statement was made in, and you've substituted your own context instead. The original context was a discussion about the differences between knowledge and belief, and how certainty is involved; the statement is obviously very much a salient point in that context. It may not be a salient point in the context you've made up after the fact - a context that my statement has nothing to do with - but that's a problem you've created, it's not a problem with my statement.

kaysch wrote:
Well, in Christianity it’s “Thou shalt not kill”. Very simple to understand. I wonder why you could not accept that as an answer.

I can't seriously believe you're that stupid or naïve. I really can't. I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse, or dishonest, but i can't imagine why. Nevertheless, i'll humour you for now.

Okay, so Christians say they believe that "thou shalt not kill", and that you should "turn the other cheek", and so on and so forth. So by your logic, we should just... accept that as true. Because it would "impolite" or "disrespectful" otherwise, and we don't want to hurt their darling little feelings. Now let's consider a real-world example: You have a friend who you know is a devout Christian - they go to church every week and they're active in the various church events, read the Bible everyday, and are always quick to help others and share the bounty they've received with the less fortunate. Of course, as part of their belief, they are staunchly anti-abortion - the believe that abortion violates the "thou shalt not kill" rule, naturally. One day you see your friend on his way to an abortion clinic with a high-powered rifle.

So, what do you do? Do you assume that since he says he believes "thou shalt not kill", there's nothing to be concerned about? Do you simply shrug, let him go on his way, and forget about it? Or do you NOT act like the ****** idiot you're pretending to be, doubt what he claims about his religious convictions, and call the damn police?

Or let's say you're on a jury, deliberating the case of a man accused of killing someone. Now, all the physical evidence points to his guilt... but he's a Christian. Not just a Christian, he's even a pastor. He has devoted his life to his religious beliefs, never wavering once from his faith - you've never seen anything that suggests the guy is not absolutely sincere in his faith. He swears blind - even on the stand under oath, where he's sworn to God to tell the truth - that he didn't do it because God says killing is wrong. So how do you decide, jury member? Do you assume what he really believes what he says he believes, and that no-one who really believed in God would ever swear in God's name then lie, and let him off the hook despite all the physical evidence?

Clearly despite your dishonest pretences to "politeness and good education", you must know there are contexts where you don't take what religious people say about their beliefs seriously. Everyone knows that. Even religious people know that - Christians don't run criminal trials of other Christians by simply assuming "thou shalt not lie" applies. Good grief, man, if Christians really believed "thou shalt not kill", then Christians shouldn't even accuse other Christians of murder! What passes for a "murder trial" among Christians would really just be a test to see if they're really Christian or not, and if they were really Christian, the case would closed, because they wouldn't kill. But that's ridiculous, and you know it. You're just not being honest.
Indi
nickfyoung wrote:
You are missing my point here. Why should I pay more attention to you than to Paterson. He writes to a level I can understand for a start. He pertains to be Christian which is a big plus of course so why should I take more notice of an atheist over a Christian. I only have your assertions that he is under educated and a basic liar.

That's actually a good question.

The answer is: you should never trust the authority of anyone who doesn't actually have the background to justify knowing what they claim to know.

That means you should never listen to a actor or actress talking about vaccinations. You should never listen to a sports communications major talking about ancient civilizations. You should never listen to a medical doctor talking about quantum physics. (Those are all real examples: respectively Jenny McCarthy, Giorgio Tsoukalos, and Deepak Chopra.)

In this case, you have two people - Bikerman and Roger Patterson - who are both unqualified to speak as authorities on evolutionary biology.

However!

There is a subtle difference between the two - not in their credentials, but in what they're actually saying:
  • Patterson - an unqualified person - is telling you to believe what he says... based on his own (unqualified) authority.
  • Bikerman - an unqualified person - is telling you to believe what he says... based on the authority of qualified authories.
Catch that?

Patterson is not qualified to speak as an expert on evolutionary biology, and neither is anyone else at AiG. Yet they insist that you should believe what they say... even though they're not qualified.

Bikerman, meanwhile, is also not qualified to speak as an expert on evolutionary biology... but he doesn't do that. What he does is point you to people who are. Bikerman does not say "trust what i say because i know what i'm talking about". He says "trust what i say because THESE EXPERTS (who are real experts - tried, tested, and vetted by other experts in the field) know what they're talking about".

Patterson makes claims, and then offers only his own authority (which he doesn't have) and links to other AiG cronies as evidence to back his claims up. In other words, he's got nothin'.

Bikerman makes claims, and then admits that he is not an authority... and offers links to real authorities that back his claims up. In other words, even though he's not an authority himself, he has real authoritative support for his claims.

The fact that Patterson is Christian and Bikerman is atheist is completely irrelevant. Neither being Christian nor atheist has anything to do with knowing evolutionary biology.

If Bikerman ever claimed to be an expert on evolutionary biology, I would step in and call bullshit on him. But he doesn't - he never has. He is always clear that what he knows comes from the word of experts (not cronies or fake experts) and not his own beliefs or "research". And he always (at least when asked) provides links to real expert sources to back up his claims.

To put it in the simplest terms, if two people are telling you two different things about evolutionary biology, it doesn't matter whether one is Christian and the other is atheist... it doesn't matter whether one is a man and the other is a woman... it doesn't matter whether one is black and one is white... but it DOES matter if one is actually pointing you toward real evolutionary biology science - professional sciences recognized via peer review - while the other is just pointing you toward other people working for the same organization (AiG) that doesn't even have anything to do with evolutionary biology.

That's the difference between the two. Bikerman does not ask you to believe what he says because he says so, while Patterson does. Both have no authority, but only one - Bikerman - is honest enough to admit it. And only one - Bikerman - actually directs you to real authorities to back up his word. That alone should be enough to tell you that you should listen to Bikerman and not Patterson, but if you still doubt then go ahead and check the word of real, professional evolutionary biologists and see what they say about Patterson's qualifications.
zimmer
I am a Christian!

A Christian is someone who has obeyed the gracious command of Jesus Christ, "Look to me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Is 45.22). As one believing into Jesus, the individual who was once a lost and wandering sinner is made a new creation in Christ and a true disciple of the Lord: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new (2Cor 5.17).

But how can you tell if you really are a Christian? How can you know if you have been born again? What are the definite marks of a new creation in Christ?

The apostle John addresses both the new birth and its evidences. He wrote his gospel so that we might know that Jesus is the Christ, believe, and be saved (Jn 20.31). Later, he wrote his first letter so that believers might "know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God" (1Jn 5.13). John's first letter will help us to answer the vital question: "What is a true Christian?"

There are many things which the world - and many outwardly religious people in the world - assumes are certain marks of true Christianity. These things fool many into imagining that they are true believers when they are not. Even many Christians build their assurance on these things, and find that they fail them when they need them, because they form no sure foundation. These are inconclusive indications.

An excellent book by Gardiner Spring called The Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character suggests seven things that are not, in themselves, conclusive marks that a professed work of grace is true or false.

Visible morality. An outwardly upright character is no sure indication of love to God. A fair appearance does not necessarily indicate true heart righteousness (1Sam 16.7). There are many people who can maintain the facade of morality without ever possessing eternal life and developing true conformity to Jesus Christ.

Head knowledge (mere speculative knowledge or intellectual perception) as opposed to spiritual understanding of the truth (Rom 1.21; 2.17-20; Jas 2.19; 1Cor 2.14). It is possible to know a great deal about Christ without truly knowing Christ; a man can know a lot of the Bible, without ever bowing to the God of the Bible.

A form of religion. Many have the appearance of religion without the reality, the form without the power (2Tim 3.5; Mt 25.1-12; Is 58.2-3). The Pharisees are the prime example of such people: a great reputation for religion, but a heart far from God.

Eminent gifts. Some have great natural abilities (and, perhaps, verbal dexterity - the gift of the gab - is something that is often taken to indicate a heart for God), which they employ even in religious contexts (again, the gift of ready speech is one that people often mistake as a sign of true godliness). Balaam and Saul both enjoyed eloquent prophetic experiences without entering the kingdom (Mt 7.22-23). John Bunyan was known as "a great talker in religion" before he became a true believer, and several of his characters in Pilgrim's Progress demonstrate the same problem.

Conviction for sin. We must be careful here. Conviction for sin is necessary for salvation but not necessarily joined with salvation (note also that many Christians feel conviction for sin far more acutely after they are saved than before, and that some who are brought up in godly homes and converted young may have relatively little clear and distinct sense of sin). Awareness of and a sense of guilt concerning sin do not mean that a man is saved or will be saved (Jude 14-15). Ask King Saul, King Ahab, or Judas.

Strong assurance. There is a difference between believing you are saved and believing in Christ and therefore being saved. It is possible for someone entirely persuaded that they are right with God to be wrongly persuaded (Mt 3.7-9).

Notable time or manner of one's professed conversion. Even unusual and distinctive experiences do not demonstrate that one's profession of faith is genuine. There are some who live and die trusting in the memory of a moment - perhaps some warm and fuzzy feeling, or raising a hand or walking an aisle or responding to a call - without ever having known true spiritual life.

There is almost nothing more dangerous than to imagine oneself saved and yet to remain unsaved. There is nothing more blessed than to know oneself a Christian grounded on a solid foundation, as the Spirit witnesses in the heart and to the work he is accomplishing in those whom he indwells. To recognise these inconclusive indications for what they are liberates the true believer from the tyranny of mere subjectivism, and strips away the flawed and rotten supports on which we - and others - too often build our hopes.

What, then, are the Scriptural indicators that a genuine work of grace has taken place in the heart of a sinner? When John writes his letter, he does so in carefully-planned circles. Like an aircraft circling the same territory, John notes the same heart-terrain repeatedly. At least four indispensable indications of true Christianity become plain as we circle through John's letter.

The first indication is a humble and wholehearted embrace of the divine diagnosis of and remedy for sin (1Jn 1.7 - 2.2; 2.12-14; 3.5, 6, 23; 4.2, 9-10, 13-16; 5.1, 5, 10-13, 20). A Christian man has an accurate view of himself as a sinning sinner. He acknowledges the just judgments of a holy God (Ps 51.4; Lk 15.18; 18.13). This Spirit-wrought conviction of sin leads to genuine repentance as his heart breaks over his godlessness: he becomes revolted by his sin and turns from it and forsakes it because it offends the Lord God (Jl 2.12-13). With repentance is joined faith in Jesus as the Lord Christ is presented in the gospel in his might and majesty, his meekness and mercy. Faith receives Jesus, looks to Jesus, comes to Jesus, flees to Jesus, leans upon Jesus, trusts in Jesus, holds to Jesus, and rests upon Jesus. Let us remember that this is the essential point and gives birth to all that follows: the dying thief never had an opportunity to manifest the other three marks of saving faith (though he would have done had he lived), but still the Lord assured him, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23.43). Whoever trusts in Jesus, though he believes one moment and dies the next, has his life hid with Christ in God.

The second indication is a humble reverence for and joyful devotion to God and his glory (1Jn 1.3-5; 2.12-15; 3.1-2; 4.12-13, 19; 5.1-2). A radical reversal of priority has occurred: the idol Self is toppled and God reigns in the heart. A change has occurred: a heart that by nature is enmity with God (Rom 8.7) has been replaced by one that loves God entirely (Lk 10.37). The man who lived for self now lives for God, offering himself as a living sacrifice (Rom 12.1-2). Gratitude for grace received and delight in God himself issues in joyful service of the Lord of glory. This is a man convinced of God's excellent glory, for its own sake: he would, if called upon, serve without reward for he recognises God's worthiness to be served: Romans 11.36 seems entirely pleasing and proper to him, for God in Christ is now at the pinnacle of his thinking and feeling and doing. The testimony of such a man's heart is "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart fail; but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever" (Ps 73.25-26). He believes it, knows it, pursues it, and repents afresh because he does not know and feel and prove it more. He is concerned for God's name and God's people and therefore his time, energies, graces, gifts, faculties and efforts are consecrated to God, whether in the apparently spectacular or the genuinely mundane (1Cor 10.31). His chief end and great delight is to glorify God and to enjoy him now and forever. God in Christ is all in all to him, and he longs to know and feel and prove it more.

The third indication is a principled pursuit of godliness with an increasing attainment in holiness (1Jn 2.3-8, 15-16, 19, 29; 3.3, 6, 10, 24; 4.13; 5.2-5, 21). The hypocrite likes the reputation of holiness, but the true child of God is satisfied only with the substance. He considers his ways, and turns his feet back to God's testimonies (Ps 119.59). The world no longer sparkles as it did - or, at least, his attraction to it and affection for it have been fundamentally altered - and now he lives for God, called to be holy as God himself is holy (1Pt 1.16). The bonds to sin have been broken, and the persistent habit of unmortified sinning has been shattered because of his union with Christ. The new root brings forth new fruit (Mt 7.20; 12.33-35). His obedience - though not yet perfect - is universal (throughout the whole man), habitual (a regular and consistent part of life), voluntary (he does it willingly, not because he is forced) and persevering (he continues to pursue obedience to the end). He has taken up his cross, and continues to do so daily, as a disciple of a crucified Christ (Mt 16.24-25). He pursues Christlikeness - it is the burden of his private and public prayers. He increasingly manifests the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5.22-23); he has no love for the world (Jas 4.4); the previous pattern of conformity to, company with and compromise for the sake of the world is over (2Tim 3.4; 1Cor 16.33). This is not sinless perfection, but laborious progress. It does not mean that a Christian faces no battles but rather than he fights great battles, opposed as he now is to a raging and committed enemy of malice and power (Rom 7.13-25). Sometimes he wanders; sometimes he is on the back foot; sometimes, grievously, he backslides. However, the tone and tenor of his life is one of advance. The trajectory of his life over time is upward. The points plotted on his spiritual graph are not a seamless upward curve, and there are painful plateaus, but the line of best fit indicates persevering progress over time as sin dies and godliness is cultivated.

A fourth mark that John identifies is affection for and attachment to God's redeemed people (1Jn 2.9-11; 3.10-18, 23; 4.7-11; 4.20 - 5.2). This is more than natural affection (just liking them), mercenary attachment (what you can get out if it), party spirit (a gang mentality), or mere presence (just turning up at the right place at the right time). The true Christian loves God's people because they are God's people, even though they may be unlovely in themselves. In that sense, he needs no other reason, and yet he has several. He loves them because of what they are to God, loved by him and saved by Jesus, and it is therefore Godlike to love them. He loves them because of what they are in themselves, marked out increasingly by the image of God, by likeness to the Jesus whom he loves. He loves them because of what they are to him, members together with him of the one body of which Jesus is the saving and sovereign head (1Cor 12.12-14, 26-27). He loves not in word only: it is manifest in his thoughts and deeds (Eph 4.1-6, 12-16, 25-32). He is a true churchman: he does not simply "do church" but views and responds to the saints individually and gathered together with affection, commitment, service and investment. He is not a spectator but a servant, concerned not just to get out but to put in.

These four marks will invariably be present in a true child of God. They will not be perfect until glory, but they will be present now.

We cannot afford to be fooled, imagining ourselves saved when we are not. This is a most desperately dangerous condition to be in, and a devastating conclusion to daw. We do not need to be confused, either always doubting or building on a wrong foundation. We can know whether or not we are saved. John writes so that we can be sure, knowing ourselves saved and enjoying eternal life.

If these indispensable indications, these marks of a true believer, are not in your heart and life, then you are not a Christian, whatever you claim or imagine, and you should not fool yourself nor dishonour Christ by claiming his name without walking in his ways. You blaspheme Jesus and expose him to scorn by taking the label of a true believer but living apart from his gracious power and saving wisdom. The hypocrite gives other unbelieving men a reason to scorn and deride true religion by pretending to what he does not have. We see this written on a large scale when those professing to be a true church depart from the truth, teach their own concoctions, live without godliness, and give occasion for men to blaspheme. "Call that Christianity?!" No! No, it is not Christianity - it is an empty masquerade that gives opportunity for sinners to deride or despair of Jesus, which leaves your hands with the blood of men upon them, and which will ultimately damn you if you are not saved from it. It is better to know yourself outside than falsely to imagine yourself inside: you must therefore flee to Jesus, and acknowledge your need, repent of your sin, and trust in the Saviour.

But if these things are present in you and true of you then you are a Christian, and you should not dishonour Christ by denying the source of grace in you. Some doubting and fearful saints are terrified that they will lay claim to God's grace in Christ without having it, and so walk in shadow if not in darkness, robbed of joy and neither being blessed nor blessing others as they might. But consider: these things simply do not grow in the soil of the unregenerate heart, and to possess them without a Christian testimony is to know the privileges of the kingdom without wearing its livery. It might give the impression to some that the fruits of grace can grow in natural soil, and imply that unconverted men can attain to true godliness and genuinely Christian morality, and so prompt a despising of the work of God's Spirit. Others might be profoundly discouraged, imagining that a man can show marks of true holiness but not really be saved, and so wonder if they can ever truly testify, "I am his, and he is mine." Friend, if you have these things in you, then honour the God who put them there by owning yourself saved of God, and live accordingly.

"Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" (Ps 139.23-24). If you need Jesus, go to him now and you will be saved. If you have Jesus - if he has you - then hold fast, love him, serve him, and rejoice in him, for you are a child of God, and he will keep you to the end, perfecting that which he has begun in you.
nickfyoung
Indi
Quote:
who are real experts - tried, tested, and vetted by other experts in the field) know what they're talking about".

Patterson makes claims, and then offers only his own authority (which he doesn't have) and links to other AiG cronies as evidence to back his claims up. In other words, he's got nothin'.


I did say when I gave Bikerman the article from Patterson, that I just did a search for biologists and he was on top of the list. I don't know him and have never heard of him.

So you are saying that real experts belong to science and all scientists in AIG are cronies with nothing.

If I do a search for peer reviewed biologists they appear also. I still only have you and Bikerman's word for it that there are no reputable scientists in AIG. Then I don't really know what to search for to determine who is real and who is fake.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
So you are saying that real experts belong to science and all scientists in AIG are cronies with nothing.
Re-read Indi's post. He states exactly why those at AiG are not experts in the field.
truespeed
Nick can I just ask,I know bikerman references it quite a lot,but I haven't seen you say it,so just to clarify,have you read the bible?
nickfyoung
Ankhanu
Quote:
Re-read Indi's post. He states exactly why those at AiG are not experts in the field.


Did re-read it a couple of times. There is the allusion to these experts in their field that Bikerman is supposed to be referring to while those at AIG do not. I suppose that is understandable because if someone is not going to agree with you then you wouldn't reference to them.

So what we have is the questions answered and all decisions made and these peer reviewed people basically gods of science. Everything else therefore is wrong, incorrect and no argument contemplated.

It is all done and dusted. There is only one snag. I just can't see it that way so that is I suppose one of the reasons Bikerman calls me a bigoted fool.

And I suppose that is how I come across with the wacky ideas of a Christian who tends to rely on the knowledge of God rather than the wisdom of man. That can get you into trouble on forums such as these.

I just did a search on AIG for experts in their field. They claim to have experts.

Quote:
Our creation scientists on staff as well as the ones who work with our ministry from time to time are experts in their fields and are accomplished in secular and creation science circles.


Not going to inflame things by adding a link to AIG. You know where it is if you want it.

They then go on to quote several of their staff and their peer reviewed articles etc.

We have conflicting reports now with two groups saying the complete opposite which means one group is lying or seriously misguided at the least.

Can you see my dilemma. As a very lay person I have to take science stuff on face value. I can understand there is animosity between the two groups but how do I sort out the claims and counter claims.

It is easy for you as scientists. The facts are concluded therefore AIG has to be wrong, no question. Likewise a Christian could say the same, and many probably do, that the facts are decided so science must be wrong, an absolute ridiculous position in the eyes of science understandably.
Bikerman
You claim to have difficulty sorting out the differences but that is just dishonesty. You have been shown that the AiG site routinely lies and yet you pretend that there is some issue in deciding whether the site is credible. You pretend to be some reasonable person with genuine doubts - more lies. You are a fundamentalist..and want to remain so....

[Post edited after a lie-down and some cool reflection - Bikerman]
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
You are simply a liar. You claim to have difficulty sorting out the differences but that is just more lies. You have been shown that the AiG site routinely lies and yet you pretend that there is some issue in deciding whether the site is credible. You pretend to be some reasonable person with genuine doubts - more lies. You are a fundamentalist bigot, and a nasty piece of work.


You are absolutely correct. It is very difficult to fool you, you are too smart.
watersoul
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You are simply a liar. You claim to have difficulty sorting out the differences but that is just more lies. You have been shown that the AiG site routinely lies and yet you pretend that there is some issue in deciding whether the site is credible. You pretend to be some reasonable person with genuine doubts - more lies. You are a fundamentalist bigot, and a nasty piece of work.


You are absolutely correct. It is very difficult to fool you, you are too smart.
No [/sarcasm] then Nick? ...or would you like the reader to imagine it?
nickfyoung
watersoul wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You are simply a liar. You claim to have difficulty sorting out the differences but that is just more lies. You have been shown that the AiG site routinely lies and yet you pretend that there is some issue in deciding whether the site is credible. You pretend to be some reasonable person with genuine doubts - more lies. You are a fundamentalist bigot, and a nasty piece of work.


You are absolutely correct. It is very difficult to fool you, you are too smart.
No [/sarcasm] then Nick? ...or would you like the reader to imagine it?


No, he is probably right. I have seen no argument for me to change my views except for these experts in their field and I can find just as many experts who are Christian. Not to sure about the nasty piece of work bit but that may just be frustration.
nickfyoung
Truespeed.
Quote:
Nick can I just ask,I know bikerman references it quite a lot,but I haven't seen you say it,so just to clarify,have you read the bible?


Yes, and studied it but only from a Christian perspective. The nature of the Bible allows one to use it to define practically anything one wants and of course many people do. Bikerman uses it a lot to define his interpretation of all sorts of things mainly now from an atheist point of view You can see that there is going to be a huge difference in those interpretations. It is only from the Christian point of view that one can appreciate Christianity and when Bikerman views it from his atheist view he is missing so much of what Christianity is all about hence the confusion and debate and argument.
Indi
nickfyoung wrote:
If I do a search for peer reviewed biologists they appear also. I still only have you and Bikerman's word for it that there are no reputable scientists in AIG. Then I don't really know what to search for to determine who is real and who is fake.

Your search results suggesting that AiG's scientsts are credible all seem to be from... AiG. Do you seriously believe that's a legitimgate way to determine AiG's credibility?

Why don't you go to a real science organization, like the US's National Academy of Sciences - THE science organization for the US - and see what they have to say about AiG? (In fact, to get the broadest review possible, you should check with as many major science organizations as possible. Helpfully, National Centre for Science Education has put together a list of what dozens of major science organizations have to say about groups like AiG. Hint: it ain't positive.)

Or you can try it another way. Try to find out how many science organizations endorse AiG. You probably won't be surprised to discover that no noteworthy science organization does, but it turns out that AiG is considered a loony bin even by other creationist organizations.
nickfyoung
Indi
Quote:
AiG is considered a loony bin even by other creationist organizations.


Yes that debate is young earth/old earth creationists.

I understand your point but it does still leave a dilemma. The argument is still religion/science and so one would expect all science to reject any AIG claims. There is no independent body so to speak to give a ruling. It has to be one or the other. Like the old earth creationists above, they have managed to combine some of science with some of creation which is usually unacceptable to either side.

So without an independent body I can only go by what AIG says. They claim to have members who are peer reviewed, usually by false or maiden name as many scientific journals wont accept articles from recognized creationists even if they are not creation related, or so they say.
Ankhanu
nickfyoung wrote:
... one would expect all science to reject any AIG claims. There is no independent body so to speak to give a ruling.
Not to be glib, but, this comes from not understanding science. If you understand what science is/does, it's not so simple as accept/reject one side or the other whole cloth...

Science as a practice is designed to be the independent body... well, I suppose reality is the independent body, but science is designed to objectively explain and explore it. Science is designed to reduce bias to a minimum and strive towards truth.
Yes, there are subjects for which science does not have a tonne of data, or is not designed to address... but "science" is generally silent on these issues, so it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion.

nickfyoung wrote:
So without an independent body I can only go by what AIG says. They claim to have members who are peer reviewed, usually by false or maiden name as many scientific journals wont accept articles from recognized creationists even if they are not creation related, or so they say.

"I can only go by what AIG says," no, that's a choice, and a choice you make despite being informed of the folly of doing so.
With what you know of AiG, I see no reason why you should accept anything that "they say" or claim... Of course they could be published in reputable peer reviewed journals using their actual names. The only stipulation, of course, is that they must do real science... what they tend to do doesn't qualify.
nickfyoung
Ankhanu
Quote:
being informed of the folly of doing so
.

Yes, but I am still just getting the science viewpoint which is naturally going to be negative.

Quote:
is that they must do real science


They claim that they are doing real science. I can't tell real science from unreal science so I have only their word or yours which are going to be opposites of course.
Nyasro
Hindu Smile
Bikerman
nickfyoung wrote:
No, he is probably right. I have seen no argument for me to change my views except for these experts in their field and I can find just as many experts who are Christian. Not to sure about the nasty piece of work bit but that may just be frustration.

That was born of frustration but it was also gratuitous and I withdraw it. From my POV your position is wantonly dishonest in that you are not looking for information, you are looking for confirmation, That is alien to me and in science it is a cardinal sin and only done either unwittingly or by dishonest scientists who disgrace their profession.
You are not interested in truth, as we both know, which is why ir is futile and a waste of effort to feed you good information to counter the bad that is your normal diet.
That being said, you probably don't see the basic dishonesty of this position and I should not have extrapolated my responses onto you to presume you were being malicious (as any science literate person would HAVE to be to adopt your position).

It is a waste, which is the most frustrating thing. You think you have answers and a coherent belief system when you actually have an incoherent belief system which is not even self-consistent, let alone approximating something true. Part of the virus of religion is this huge ability to make the patient apparently incapable of processing their belief system in the way that they routinely process every other piece of information, decision, and truth statement.

Believers, when they DO see the problem, tend to be stunned and unable to imagine how they could have actually believed what they did. Unfortunately there is no sovereign method to nudge believers towards this realization and it seems that it must be a personal epiphany in each case. Most reach it, some do not, and some who do lapse.....time will tell which group you are in. If you want to see examples of people who were undoubtedly 'born again' and have since become atheists then check YouTube - there are a growing number, including ex-ministers who were passionate proselytizers in their 'faith'....In fact Dan Dennett setup an organisation to help Christian clerics who no longer believe - there are a surprisingly large number.....

You protect your 'virus' against this information using a meme which is relatively recent - the notion that once a person is truly born-again then they never fall into non-belief - so people who say they used to believe are simply wrong or lying. It is trivial to show, with numerous examples, that this meme is simply wrong, but religion has a way of combining memes which is hugely effective at defending the central memeplex - to the extent that those not affected cannot actually imagine how a person who is can actually believe what they claim and apparently demonstrate no major psychoses.....

PS - despite what you think, I really DID believe in Christianity once upon a time - between the ages of 14 and 16 or so....I was an altar-boy, mass every day, school run by Monks (Jesuits and Salesians) and devout Irish Catholic on my fathers side of the family. I had no real chance of avoiding infection but my 'epiphany' was probably hastened by the intensity of the religious indoctrination and the completely unavoidable nature of the faith I was submerged in.....
By 17 I was a seriously confused believer and a year later I was an ex-believer.
In those two years I did the first proper learning in my life - real self-directed research, going to Latin sources where necessary and spending hundreds of hours studying first Catholic then Protestant dogma......THAT is why I still know more theology and more religious background than most theists - not natural brilliance, simply hard graft and lots and lots of reading and struggling through texts. There is NO shortcut to any kind of knowledge - even religious knowledge involves graft...the notion of a divine inspiration is horse-poo and accounts for the huge and startling ignorance of those who hold to that position.......most of them know almost nothing about their supposed faith...Again the memeplex protects them from realizing this somehow.....
I used to do a little experiment when someone claimed to be a devout Christian - simply ask then at some point whether the book of Eli is old nor new testament. EVERY DAMN ONE said Old Testament. In reality there IS NO such book of course....which shows just how completely and unconsciously they could fool themselves.... Can't use that now because someone made a damn film called the Book of Eli and spoiled the setup,, However, it is trivially easy to show that the huge majority of Christians have no real idea what is in the bible - including you Nick....again the religious memeplex manages to make this seem normal to the believer....amazing piece of evolution, it really is....huge power built into the defence parts of the memeplex and still sufficiently attractive to be a viable transmission subject....amazing example of the evolution of complexity from simple rules.....
nickfyoung
Bikerman
Got you in a pensive mood, truly refreshing.

Quote:
You protect your 'virus' against this information using a meme which is relatively recent - the notion that once a person is truly born-again then they never fall into non-belief - so people who say they used to believe are simply wrong or lying.


That could come from Calvinism, 'once saved, always saved' and if you walk away from that salvation then you were not saved in the first place. The P of Tulip, Preservation of the saints.

It is interesting that Scripture says that in the end times there will be many false profits and even the elect will be deceived if that were possible.

I know* it is possible to be born again and slip back into the world so to speak, stop attending church and doing worldly, non Christian stuff like drinking, smoking, adulterous sex etc. Born again Christians are able to do this and still retain their believe that they are a believer with some sort of relationship with God and justify their positions in various ways. This is probably another of those memes of yours in action. The theory is of course, that they will return to the fold eventually which takes us back to the P of Tulip.

Quote:
Part of the virus of religion is this huge ability to make the patient apparently incapable of processing their belief system in the way that they routinely process every other piece of information, decision, and truth statement.


Psychology should have conclusive results by now of this phenomenon. It seems to be such a big issue in modern society.

Quote:
undoubtedly 'born again' and have since become atheists then check YouTube


Do you have this outside of youtube as I can't get youtube on this old computer. Had a quick look at Dan Dennett on Wiki but not what we want.

Quote:
amazing piece of evolution, it really is....huge power built into the defence parts of the memeplex and still sufficiently attractive to be a viable transmission subject....amazing example of the evolution of complexity from simple rules...
..

I suppose it would seem amazing from an evolutionary point of view.


*Been there and done that.
Indi
nickfyoung wrote:
Quote:
AiG is considered a loony bin even by other creationist organizations.


Yes that debate is young earth/old earth creationists.

No, it isn't. There are several young Earth creationist organizations that have called AiG a crackpot asylum. There was a widely publicized dispute between them and Creation Science Evangelism (a YEC "science" organization, like AiG) a couple years back where CSE called AiG "misguided". Before that there was an even nastier public dispute between AiG and Creation Ministries International (another YEC "science" organization) that ended up in court with claims of fraud. More recently, Great Homeschool Conventions (a YEC organization that focuses on homeschooling) completely banned AiG from their conventions. Even among YEC groups, AiG is fringe.

nickfyoung wrote:
I understand your point but it does still leave a dilemma. The argument is still religion/science and so one would expect all science to reject any AIG claims.

No, the debate is not "religion/science", it is "reality/delusion", because most religious people around the world do not consider AiG to be a legitimate "research" institution. In point of fact, most of the people who originally figured out that the Earth is old were actually deeply religious - many of them were Christians, too (which is why we have a half-dozen different flavours of old Earth creationism, along with things like theistic evolution). You are misrepresenting the "dilemma" - it is not that everyone who isn't religious (or even just Christian) disagrees with AiG while everyone who is agrees with them, it is that everyone who isn't religious disagrees with AiG and so do the vast majority of those who are, while only a small minority agree with them. They are a fringe group, they are most certainly not on equal footing with "the science side".

In reality, science would NOT reject any AiG claims... provided they backed those claims up with proper research. Indeed, if AiG actually did anything even resembling due diligence in their "research", science would welcome AiG's findings with open arms - scientists are always hungry for new ideas and new breakthroughs. The reason none of AiG's claims are taken seriously be science is not because science has some sort of hate on for AiG, it's because they've already inspected AiG's claims and found them to be garbage. Normal people, getting that kind of feedback, would try to improve the research so it will have a better chance of being accepted next time. Not AiG. They just keep repeating the same old discredited crap, only adding whining about imaginary persecution.

nickfyoung wrote:
There is no independent body so to speak to give a ruling. It has to be one or the other.

Even if that were true - which, as Ankhanu has pointed out, it isn't - it is not true that just because there are two sides to the debate that means that both sides are on equal footing. Imagine you had two people standing on either side of you right now, and one said that your internal organs were all made of jello while the other disagreed... by your logic, both those viewpoints have equal merit, just because they're there. But that's obviously nonsense.

Just because you've got the gumption to fleece enough donations to slap together an "institute" and stock it with your buddies does not magically make your opinions equal to the combined scientific knowledge of the rest of the damn world.

But let's put all that aside. Let's ignore AiG itself and focus just on the legitimacy of the claims - are AiG's "scientific" claims on equal footing with the claims of actual scientists? On the one hand you have the scientists who have not only produced knowledge, they have used that knowledge to produce actual, working technologies that we use every day. That is the evidence that their claims are correct - the fact that your smoke detector works, the fact that solar panels work, the fact that satellite telecommunications work; these are all things that depend on the same science that proves a very old universe. You can't have one without the other - you can't deny radiometric dating on the one hand, while accepting radiometric oceanography on the other. (Yet, Ham does - he wants to use measurements of ocean salinity (in some silly and convoluted argument for why the sea is too salty or not salty enough for its age) while rejecting that same technology when applied for dating.) So there's one side of the argument - not just claims, but results and actual working technologies to back them up.

And what of AiG? What have they produced? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Jack... shit. They can't even keep their goddamn theme parks up and running (in fact, they're in the process of creating an "Ark Encounter" theme park that's probably just going to kill a lot of animals)! Not one single thing they have ever produced has ever been of use to anyone, and there are no technologies that are based on their theories.

There it is. Even if AiG weren't a loony bin full of kooks with fake diplomas they bought, publishing "studies" in their in-house magazine that were "peer reviewed" by each other, the plain fact is that you have one side of the "debate" not only making arguments but proving those arguments must be right by actually creating working technologies based on them... and nothing but hot air on the other side. It's pretty clear who wins. Science is not just an opinion you can choose to respectfully disagree with. In all likelihood, it's keeping you alive right now. Denying it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of rank stupidity.

But frankly, making even that comparison is ultimately unnecessary. Clearly AiG is a fringe organization with no respect either in the academic world or, really, even in most of the religious world. (They don't even have much respect in the young Earth creationism world.) Putting them on the same level as EVERY... SINGLE... GODDAM... SCIENCE ORGANIZATION... IN THE WORLD... is not just ridiculous, it is calculated, dishonest stupidity.

nickfyoung wrote:
Like the old earth creationists above, they have managed to combine some of science with some of creation which is usually unacceptable to either side.

That is a dishonest characterization. It is not true that science is "unacceptable" to creationists. Quite the opposite - creationists' heads may be so far up their asses they can lick the backs of their own teeth, but even they realize how important and valuable science is. That's why they try so damn hard to look like scientists. That's why they struggle so furiously to get their craptastic papers published in legitimate science journals. (Do you really think real scientists are struggling to get their papers published in creationist journals? Even as a last resort?)

The only time creationists have any problem with science is when it contradicts their religious beliefs - the rest of the time they're all on board with science. Hilariously, there are many cases where they're often quite keen on science that actually contradicts their religious beliefs, but they're just too clueless to realize it.

And it is also not true that creationism is "unacceptable" to scientists. Scientists, being generally honest people in a generally honest field, have clear standards for how something gets accepted into their canon, and stand by them rigorously. Those standards were developed by numerous philosophers with the goal of creating a method of study that produces the best knowledge humanly possible. And the evidence is quite clear that it works damn well. Despite your pretensions, creationism is not rejected because scientists are "godless", "irreligious", or any other such nonsense. It is rejected because the way it's being done does not meet the standards of science. If creationists were to actually do proper science, they would be published in a jiffy (most journals would fall over themselves rushing to publish something that was pro-religious, and there have been recent cases where they have done just that - publishing garbage just because it was pro-religious - because they're tired of the "culture war" bullshit). But creationists don't do proper science... they can't do proper science - they know full well that their crap just won't hold up.

This is not a situation where you have "two sides". This is a situation where you have only one sane option, then a bunch of loonies. If you want an analogy, take food preparation - after generations of research and trial-and-error, we have learned very well what works and what doesn't work when preparing food to eat: washing and heating good, rotting and e. coli bad. You are trying to pretend this "debate" is between two opposing schools of food preparation. It's not. It's between normal, sane people who know what works - stuff that has been proven by generations of research and trial-and-error - and a group of nuts who want to shit all over the salad. (And no, i'm not being unfair. AiG, along with other YEC groups, has been exposed in the past saying outright that their goal is to discredit and destroy the foundations of science.)

nickfyoung wrote:
So without an independent body I can only go by what AIG says.

Really? Why can't you instead go by what virtually every single other organization on the face of the planet - both science and religious - says instead?

You're trying to pretend to be reasonable, but it's not fooling anyone.

nickfyoung wrote:
They claim to have members who are peer reviewed, usually by false or maiden name as many scientific journals wont accept articles from recognized creationists even if they are not creation related, or so they say.

So they say indeed, and so like-minded fellows said in court in 1981. They were lying (surprise, surprise). The court found there had never been a single case of a scientific article that had not been published because of discrimination against creationism... EVER. Not once... EVER. Every single creationist article that was rejected was rejected because it sucked (the experiment was done badly or the conclusions didn't follow from the data), and this was proven in a court of law.

As AiG will loudly boast themselves, some creationists do publish scientific articles. So long as they do legitimate science, they can get their stuff published in legitimate science journals, and many of them do this to build up credibility. Hell, they could even get science that supports creationism published in legitimate science journals... if and only if they actually do proper science - proper, controlled experiments, and conclusions that actually follow from the data. The fact that they haven't managed to do so is not because there's some blacklist, it's because they can't manage to find any scientific evidence for creationism. At all. No matter how hard they try. These lies about being blacklisted for being creationists are rank bullshit, invented to create a persecution narrative.

In real science, the conclusions follow from the evidence - you have to find the evidence first, and then figure out what it means. This is the opposite of creation "science", where they start with the conclusions, then cherry-pick or fabricate the evidence to suit the conclusions. That just won't fly if you want to get your work published in a real scientific journal. The door is always open to creationists if they actually find any real evidence, or have anything even resembling a coherent theory to put forward - and, in fact, some of their claims actually were taken seriously and studied (such as the variable speed of light theory). But nothing gets published in proper, peer-reviewed science journals unless it's proper, peer-reviewed scientific work, and nothing associated with creationism has passed that bar.

nickfyoung wrote:
They claim that they are doing real science. I can't tell real science from unreal science so I have only their word or yours which are going to be opposites of course.

Again, you're pretending to be reasonable, but you're really not fooling anyone.

We're not idiots, dude. We can plainly see that you're only even remotely interested in taking groups like AiG seriously because they're on the same team you are, not because there's actually anything worthwhile about them or their claims. Hey, if you want to do that, that's fine, but don't insult us with this pretence of not understanding the difference between "real science and unreal science".

You don't need to understand "real science" to recognize that AiG is a sham, anymore than you need to understand "real medicine" to recognize that magic pyramid healing power is a sham. You may want to try to pretend to be open-minded about these things, but no one's fooled - if you are really sick, you are not going to call a pyramid guru, you are going to call a doctor. Similarly, if scientists issue a warning about a radiation leak in your area while AiG tells you the radiation is harmless but if you leave you will miss Jesus... dude, you're going to evacuate. We all know this, and you're just disrespecting us by pretending you'd seriously weigh the options.
nickfyoung
I have just read through the Wiki site again on AIG and really can't find anything detrimental to AIG. Maybe I am biased. Ken ham was required lectures when I attended Bible collage and I enjoyed his style. I have a set of 10 of his videos covering many topics which I enjoy also.

They have had there controversies over the years particularly with divisions and splits of the organization and of course have been criticized by most science organizations but that is to be expected. They even get criticized from within the church but only because they are pushing the bible as it is written. They claim that the dropping of genesis from the teaching of most churches is removing the foundation and making them unstable, and of course they object to that.

I still struggled with some of the scientific stuff in the Wiki report but it didn't seem to be outlandishly bad, just different but I may have got lost there. I understand your criticism from a scientific point of view but that is to be expected too. What they teach is way out beyond any scientific basics. The circle of churches that I attend mostly seem to support young earth creationism as the Bible teaches. I did come across a couple once who believed in evolution but they were an exception rather than the rule.
Bikerman
I think it would be good if you just stop. I don't know if you really believe that bollox or not, but it doesn't matter to anyone except you in any case. Nobody gives a flying f*** what you think of the science because you are almost entirely ignorant of even basic science, and don't really have a sensible contribution to make.

As already explained, a view based on ignorance is OK for voting, OK in several situations and it is absolutely your right to be as ignorant as you like. In science, however, you don't get a view - you are not asked to comment and nobody cares what you think - you have no input and can expect no audience, and no opportunity to present your view - it is entirely without significance. Science is not a democracy, and it doesn't have to grant time, or even attention, to people who are ignorant of the basics. This is another strength of the system - loonies and zealots don't generally get to contribute much and therefore much less revision and correction is generally required later.

Ken Ham is in the same category - no scientific bona-fides and therefore nothing to say on science that anyone in science should be interested in. In science it is publish or be damned. ID and other creationist dishonesty is not science, is not published, and is roundly and vehemently damned, by the Courts in the country where it was dreamed up as the latest attempt to get creationist nonsense into science curriculum in schools. The courts in the US castigated the spokesmen for ID as dishonest religious zealots bent on deception. They had it exactly right.

The entire judgement of the Supreme Court cab be read HERE in an article I wrote some while ago on the matter - I commend it to all who have even the slightest feeling that ID/creationism is in any way science and is not simple lies. It should convince you.

You can whine on about what you do and so not believe, but it is totally irrelevant, and for that reason, and because it is boring, disingenuous and clearly bollox, I think you should confine future observations on this to other forums which do not place a premium on rational and supported assertions and claims, and I will move any such which I believe are obviously contrary to those basic requirements.
loremar
Indi wrote:
But let's put all that aside. Let's ignore AiG itself and focus just on the legitimacy of the claims - are AiG's "scientific" claims on equal footing with the claims of actual scientists? On the one hand you have the scientists who have not only produced knowledge, they have used that knowledge to produce actual, working technologies that we use every day. That is the evidence that their claims are correct

Yeah like vaccines.
I don't know if I remember it right but I read that the science behind tracing evolutionary ancestries like which evolve from which is used in tracking which person infected another person with HIV. You and the person who infected you would have a more similar virus than another infected person.
We have technologies because we come to understand how nature behaves. So if we have technologies by applying these principles like natural selection that means we understood it right.
mengshi200
100% buddalist。
ninimalka
A little jewish boy @ here Smile

wishing everyone to find their truth !
Bikerman
'Their truth'? I hate that damn phrase. Innocent sounding, it actually asserts (or strongly implies) a universe which is entirely subjective - in which one persons view is as valid and as 'true' as another, with no objective difference between viewpoints and, therefore, no objective 'truth'.
I say, philosophically speaking, you can shove that up your orifice of choice. Smile I'll stick to hoping people find THE truth in whatever field they are searching - but since I am also scientifically minded I know they won't, so I will amend it to hoping they manage to develop a model which approximates reality sufficiently well to be useful.
supercoded
I am a Muslim and proud of it.
pravojednostavno
I am a Christian
Nony85
I am a Muslim Smile
sudipbanerjee
I am Hindu.
kaysch
Bikerman wrote:

Here, for instance, is an archetypal example of the kind of thing I am referring to. Is this woman simply mistaken or is she a brazen, unapologetic and possibly even pathological liar? I say the latter...


I have to say I really enjoyed watching the interview and thanks to Bikerman I have become a fan of Richard Dawkins.
Related topics
Ausse Minister Brendan Nelson to Tony Blair:
Religion ??
islam is...
science vs. religion
What Punk Rock realy is?
religion issues
God a superstition?
Support Danish
Bad Religion
religion vs. morals
The Whole "GOD" Thing
Praise the Lord...whoever they may be...
Theory of religion and science
Evolution, the religion
A debate of religion, science, and more
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.