RE: religion question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Racquelle -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 6:42:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

For the most part I am congregationalist and have been for most of my life.


I am too.  I am proud to be a member of the sect that first openly ordained Gays and Lesbians.  I like that my church challenges me to use my mind, not check it at the door.  I hope that is how your church experience has been as well.

How can you not love a church where you can go to the nude beach with one of the trustees and discuss polyamory?



fadedshadow -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 7:31:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o



you're a george carlin fan? awesome!



lronitulstahp -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 7:38:39 PM)

i am a Christian, with a humanistic bent...
i like the idea of Jesus as He was....not as many of Jesus' followers make Him out to be.
i guess you could say i am a "Judge not lest ye be judged..." type of Christian.



fadedshadow -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 7:40:23 PM)

thank you, irontulstahp



NihilusZero -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 7:47:43 PM)

I have no religion. Since people are volunteering general philosophical views, though: existential nihilist.

Pure forms of religion seem to be slowly dying in favor of the chic, a la carte religiousness so prevalent these days.



maybemaybenot -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 7:48:40 PM)

I call myself a Free Thinking Evangelical Christian.

                                  mbmbn



DemonKia -> RE: religion question (7/27/2009 8:55:08 PM)

FR, after read thru

Firstly, I don't believe in either / or boxes for much of anything . .. . I think that the spirit versus matter divide has way more to do with the human observational instrument & it's bilateral nature than it does with the 'true nature of reality' . . . ..

So that understanding might help others digest my following label for my spiritual stuff: I am a hard-materialist secular-humanist atheist-buddhist-taoist with streaks of animism . . ... .

The history of that evolving label:

I have always had deeply spiritual feelings, tho' I didn't really recognize that that's what they were for quite a long time. My first spiritual feelings were animist, when I was quite a young child.

I have had a deep passion for science just as long, & in early adolescence I chose to identify as atheist; over time that understanding has resulted in the specific label 'hard-materialist secular-humanist atheist' . . . . . I believe in the universe, & that the universe (or multiverse, as the case may be) is all there is . . .. But I also believe that there is more to the universe than what we can know & observe at this point in time . ... .

At 18 I adopted buddhism, attracted by the way that stuff in buddhism converges with stuff in physics. In the last decade or so I have been drawn to taoistic understandings; I started reading the Tao as poetry & found strong resonance with my understanding of the world in it's text . .. . .

(The lower-casing of the buddhist & taoist parts are my way of signifying that I am an unorthodox & not terribly doctrinaire buddhist-taoist . .. . ..)

For those not up on it, neither Buddhism nor Taoism incorporates belief in deity as a necessary part of it's structure. In many ways they are as much philosophies or world-views as they are religions. There are branches of Buddhism (particularly Tibetan Buddhism) that do feature supernatural beings, but basic / old skool / fundamentalist Buddhism does not, & to some degree actively rejects the notion of the supernatural. In Asia Buddhists are seen as atheists by the Hindus, Moslems, & other divinity-believing religionists . . . . .



fadedshadow -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 2:47:54 AM)

thank you, demonkia



Hillwilliam -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 10:38:10 AM)

Id call Myself an agnostic naturist. 
I just feel a lot closer to nature (and any applicable creator) standing thigh deep in a trout stream.  Watching the sun rise over the mountains and drive the fog away.  Hearing the ducks and songbirds.  If Im lucky seeing a beaver, otter or mink along the shoreline.  A deer or turkey on the hill and that first rise of the day as a trout takes the fly.

Than I would

Sitting in a stuffy room with a coupla hundred people that were drunk off their ass about 7 hours ago, listening to someone that I know damn well is fucking the organist telling ME that Im a bad person.




autoRelease -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 5:03:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever


Religion has been and continues to be slavery, a tool to control and usurp followers. A world without religion would be a much better place and many years closer towards enlightenment. Religion and politics are the primary tools to keep humanity at war with itself.




Agreed.




NYLass -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 5:26:30 PM)

Wiccan for 20 years.






GoddessKismet -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 5:30:02 PM)

Wiccan/Pagan for over half My life (I'm 42). Usually I dislike boxes and labels; just saw someone else say the W word and had to throw My nickel in. Blessed Be, Y/y'all..

(No, I'm not really vanilla. But ice cream is the food of the Gods, and so..)



fadedshadow -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 6:30:05 PM)

thank you everyone



dragonchild -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 8:27:27 PM)

Wiccan with influences of Druidism, Hindu, and Tao.



Esinn -> RE: religion question (7/28/2009 9:30:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

I've had this conversation here before that people really need to recognise the difference between the terms agnostic and atheist since being atheist means you wouldn’t even consider to be true the existence of any supernatural being as told of by religion or through individual spirituality.


I do not consider supernatural beings because the definition of supernatural which is non-ambiguous :Above(Super) Natural(Nature/Natural Law). A being which is above natural law is forever beyond human comprehension.  Agnostics in one sense are right saying the do not know, but they fail to mention such knowing is impossible, they say it for the wrong reasons I believe.

I also do not believe in supernatural gods as described in religious text because there is not one shred of evidence to suggest they exist.  I would assume this is also why agnostics claim not to know.

The only evidence any theist have ever called upon, I am sure agnostics relate here as well:

  • Personal revelation
  • Circular reasoning / logic - the book says it is true therefore it is
  • Authority claims of those who interpret the book
  • Hodge PodGe miracles
  • BandWagon Fallacy - well everyone I know thinks all women are worthless pigs therefore all women are worthless pigs(how could so many believe a lie)
  • Argument from Ignorance(God in the Gaps) I do not see how X could have happened therefore my god did it
  • Or my favorite argument:  You can not disprove I have 20 invisible DD hookers tied up in my basement - therefore I do                                                                 - The one is what I like the argument from total idiocy used by almost       every theist I have met

The majority of religions rest in ancient graveyards near the times when they were first thought up by man. I am sure agnostics agree here too. . . .

Agnostics are just confused, hanging weakly on to Pascals Wager so they can barter with gods(well I never said either way - so please do not punish me as much as Esinn) or in reality are weak atheists.

We are all born atheist until religion is forced upon us.



fadedshadow -> RE: religion question (7/29/2009 2:15:33 AM)

thanks, i appreciate all the comments everyone



FullCircle -> RE: religion question (7/29/2009 7:54:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Agnostics are just confused, hanging weakly on to Pascals Wager so they can barter with gods(well I never said either way - so please do not punish me as much as Esinn) or in reality are weak atheists.

Oh you brave atheist[:D]

There is no bartering going on here. There is no reason to believe a god is benevolent. There just simply isn't the ability to say with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist. There is no reason to believe that if a god does exist that this entity has any kind of awareness of your existence. There is no more comfort in being agnostic than atheist. Perhaps atheists gain comfort from their certainty of not being judged in an afterlife? There is more uncertainty in being agnostic; so how you theorise that it's a sitting on the fence to not piss off god tactic is beyond me, especially when such a god may prefer someone with a definite position even if their position was wrong rather than someone who refused to take up a position. There is no comfort in the unknown there is far more comfort when you are sure about something one way or another.
quote:


We are all born atheist until religion is forced upon us.

Religion and spirituality are two different things, you don't need any religious influence to wonder about such things because wondering is human nature. Only someone with a totally closed mind would think themselves capable of answering such a question in such a definitive way when there is no evidence one way or another.



Esinn -> RE: religion question (7/29/2009 10:49:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fadedshadow

thanks, i appreciate all the comments everyone


Stop thanking everyone



willbeurdaddy -> RE: religion question (7/29/2009 10:51:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

There just simply isn't the ability to say with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist.



There isnt the ability to say with 100% certainty that ANYTHING doesn't exist. You should hold no more willingness to acknowledge that there may be a god than that there may be a flying spaghetti monster...or faeries.

I disagree with FullCircle...lack of evidence IS evidence in and of itself, especially when billions of people over centuries have sought that evidence, and there isn't any.

"He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be "surprised to meet many people in category 7." Dawkins calls himself "about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."








Esinn -> RE: religion question (7/29/2009 10:54:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
Agnostics are just confused, hanging weakly on to Pascals Wager so they can barter with gods(well I never said either way - so please do not punish me as much as Esinn) or in reality are weak atheists.

Oh you brave atheist[:D]

There just simply isn't the ability to say with 100% certainty that a god doesn't exist.
quote:


We are all born atheist until religion is forced upon us.





I just commented about this.  I called it the argument from complete idiocy. 

Imagine your friend tells you, "I have 35 invisible DD hookers in my basement who only interact with me and no one else ever!"

You ask, "Do you have evidence?"

Friend "No"

Friend "But can you disprove they are not there?"

You "No"

Friend "AAHHHAA!"  "Therefore they exist"

I suggest nothing can be proved with an absolute.  This is meaningless though.  The fact something we can not disprove something 'to the absolute' does not mean it is on equal footing of existence.
  - If you disagree consider your friend who knows his hookers exist.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875