# What religion/faith/belief do you follow?



## vampiregenocide

This isn't a thread for bashing any religions, I am just interested in what faiths we have here on SS.org. It's always good to see what other people believe and learn about other ways of thinking.

Personally, I think I'm an agnostic theist. I believe there is something, a deity or force at work but that it is beyond our comprehension. I think that maybe God is not the creator, but the very act of creation itself; a basic equation underlying everything, driving life and existence in ways so infinitely complex and seemingly intelligent that in order to understand it, we must become God-like ourselves. I was a Christian when I was younger, partly because I went to a Christian-ish school and because I was young I assumed that God was real, and that there was an afterlife. As a kid, it's scary to assume otherwise. Then I thought I was an athiest, but I grew disgusted with the behaviour of atheists and their militance. Because I believe in a degree of spirituality and a high-level of things, but am equally behind science, I think agnostic theism fits best for me. It's non-committal which is good when a lot of people expect you to take sides.

So lets hear what you have to say, what do you follow and what do you believe? I don't want comments on other people's faiths unless you're genuinely interested in learning more.


----------



## Mordacain

I'm an atheist. I considered myself agnostic for a number of years. The basis of why I consider myself an atheist now is answered by a fairly simple question: "Where does the preponderance of evidence lead us?" Does it suggest that there is a creative force at work or not. The evidence points to a total lack of design in the universe.

I absolutely have no faith... I like empirical evidence when I can get it and using reason to draw conclusions from that evidence.


----------



## Varcolac

What religion, faith or belief do I follow? I don't. 

Agnostic atheist. I see no evidence for anything, and I don't think that there is anything. My personal morality is a quasi-logical extension of the tried-and-tested golden rule, modified by social mores and legal restrictions. 

I was lazily raised to be a Catholic, by a Catholic lapsed into agnosticism and a Catholic lapsed into laziness. Church for my mother was a social activity; seeing her friends once a week on a Sunday morning. Church for my father was a chore. My appetite for knowledge killed what little faith I had, aided in large part by the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Karl Marx, and Carl Sagan. "A mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam." Far more poetic than any holy book. Put things in perspective. One life to live, for brief decades on a fraction of a dot. Makes me value my existence, and want to improve this mote of dust in some way for future generations, before the electrochemical signals that make me "me" lapse into their constituent atoms.


----------



## Razzy

I am a devout Atheist.


----------



## Konfyouzd

None... I listen to what they all have to say. If I agree with it then good for me. If I don't agree then I agree to disagree. If life is a gift then it appears I already have it. You don't tell ppl what to do with any other gift. Once it changes possession it is up to recipient to decide its fate. Likewise I think that my life should be given up to no one and lived for no one but myself so long as I don't *deliberately* fuck that up for anyone else.


----------



## thesimo

Athiest - because all relgiions are a load of top shelf codswallop.


----------



## ROAR

Apatheist.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Uh oh.

I'll go with Atheist with values that could be seen as parallel with Buddhism, if I have to put a name on it.

The thing I like about Buddhism is that they place no attachment on the religion itself, they only wish to be as wise as they can muster at any given time.


----------



## Konfyouzd

ROAR said:


> Apatheist.


 
Awesome...


----------



## Matt-Hatchett

I'm a christian, but I try and back my beliefs with science. I feel like society tries to separate the two. I spend my time trying to figure out how they work together. For instance, I am probably one of the few Christians who believes in evolution and the big bang theory. I feel like we all have different pieces of a puzzle and if we would just work together, we would see more clearly than ever.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Matt-Hatchett said:


> I'm a christian, but I try and back my beliefs with science. I feel like society tries to separate the two. I spend my time trying to figure out how they work together. For instance, I am probably one of the few Christians who believes in evolution and the big bang theory. I feel like we all have different pieces of a puzzle and if we would just work together, we would see more clearly than ever.


 
Respectable... There's plenty of speculation still as to what exactly caused said "bang"


----------



## Daggorath

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens


----------



## TXDeathMetal

I'm not exactly sure what faith I am or what I believe but I can say that it's taken me giving going to church a chance to realize how much I don't like it and disagree with it. I do go to church every Sunday but it's not for "the word" it's because I'm the sound guy and I run the sound board for the band and make them sound a little less like shit and I've told the pastor of this church what my beliefs and standpoints are and he's said it's fine and that they still want me to continue doing what I'm doing for them. He teaches/preaches the belief that our lives are not ours and that God is the master of our destiny which I highly disagree with because God has not yet gone out and got a job for me or decided what my career path is or etc... I HAVE. I also don't like how church is run like a business and how when they take up offering is that they say "you're giving to God", ok that may be true but how come after the offering is taken up is that I see the ushers take a log book and go into a different room and come back several minutes later? and how come I see you walk out of the place with a bank deposit bag sticking out of your back pocket every Sun?

tl;dr... I do not agree with how church/religion is run like a business and how the leaders of these churches are capitalizing on people's beliefs and fear to fatten their pockets.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Yeah unfortunately organised religion generally ends up with a few peoples realising they can use it for their own benefit, and end up tainting what might have been a pure faith.

I believe in facts, science etc, but I'm also aware theres a lot we do not know. I figure the best way to be is to keep an open mind, something which I try to do. I don't like the fact people are so desperate to disprove God, because it's such an ambiguous concept. God can mean many things to many people. It can be a purely psychological thing, a manifestation of emotions that help focus ourselves. It could be a real spiritual being, as many faiths do believe. Or as I believe, it could be a complex force like gravity that underlines all nature.

Either way, I think to completely dismiss a higher power and say 'God doesn't exist' you have to first ask yourself 'What is God? And _how_ might it exist?' To accept the improbability of something you first have to look at the possibilities, and with a concept like this that is very hard to pin down.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Scar Symmetry said:


> The thing I like about Buddhism is that they place no attachment on the religion itself, they only wish to be as wise as they can muster at any given time.


 
Apparently I like this too.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I just do my own thing, with a side of a little bit of what I like taken from everywhere else. There are some religions that I don't agree with at all, and some that I can really relate to, at least to some degree. Even the ones that I do agree with in some respects, such as Buddhism, pose some problems for me, so I just try to be happy in my own way, with my own brand of faith. It's been working pretty well so far, so I'll just keep running with it.


----------



## synrgy

JeffFromMtl said:


> I just do my own thing, with a side of a little bit of what I like taken from everywhere else. There are some religions that I don't agree with at all, and some that I can really relate to, at least to some degree. Even the ones that I do agree with in some respects, such as Buddhism, pose some problems for me, so I just try to be happy in my own way, with my own brand of faith. It's been working pretty so far, so I'll just keep running with it.



What he said.


----------



## TXDeathMetal

vampiregenocide said:


> Yeah unfortunately organised religion generally ends up with a few peoples realising they can use it for their own benefit, and end up tainting what might have been a pure faith.
> 
> I believe in facts, science etc, but I'm also aware theres a lot we do not know. I figure the best way to be is to keep an open mind, something which I try to do. I don't like the fact people are so desperate to disprove God, because it's such an ambiguous concept. God can mean many things to many people. It can be a purely psychological thing, a manifestation of emotions that help focus ourselves. It could be a real spiritual being, as many faiths do believe. Or as I believe, it could be a complex force like gravity that underlines all nature.
> 
> Either way, I think to completely dismiss a higher power and say 'God doesn't exist' you have to first ask yourself 'What is God? And _how_ might it exist?' To accept the improbability of something you first have to look at the possibilities, and with a concept like this that is very hard to pin down.



I like this idea you have here and as crazy as it may sound is that I do/have found a spiritual connection through music, either by listening to playing, I can't really describe it but it's that feeling you get when you're listening to something and it hits you and makes you feel something inside, the same for playing. Is that God?... I don't know, maybe but who is anyone to tell me it's not you know?


----------



## daemon barbeque

I am an Atheist. I accept facts as facts. I am not a guy who just believes. 
I studied a lot of Religions many moons ago, from the big 3 to Shinto, from Tibet to Hatti.
I clearly can see the roots of every religion either in Egypt or in India. After reading many books and scripts about Hinduism, or better said ancient Hindu religions, there where no reasons anymore to believe in any Religious stories.


----------



## Mordacain

daemon barbeque said:


> I am an Atheist. I accept facts as facts. I am not a guy who just believes.
> I studied a lot of Religions many moons ago, from the big 3 to Shinto, from Tibet to Hatti.
> I clearly can see the roots of every religion either in Egypt or in India. After reading many books and scripts about Hinduism, or better said ancient Hindu religions, there where no reasons anymore to believe in any Religious stories.



 was similar for me. I studied lots, I thought more and I kept hitting a brick wall with this quesiton: "Who created god then?" Following the train of thought just continues out until you reach a recursive loop error, much like the babblefish


----------



## S-O

ROAR said:


> Apatheist.



Haha, I thought I was the only one out there!

Truly sums up my religious views. It just doesn't matter to me.

Though, I do carry around the book of Tao in my coat, and while Taoism is a religion, and I find it parallels a lot of my thoughts, it does not completely. Really great book, with a lot of universal themes that transcend cultures and times.

These universal truths are evident in practically every religion (I can not think of any that have NONE), but there are some big parts of each that just don't resonate with me, or I am completely repelled by.

I suppose my apathy is possible an extension of nihilism, that all these subjective human concepts are just our own invention, and thus are fabricated tools.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Sikh. I like it because unlike most other religions it says all faiths are merely a path to the same end. Our holy book is filled with poems from hindu, islamic, jain, etc... authors.


----------



## Deadnightshade

Yes i consider myself THAT confused..


----------



## Explorer

Currently atheist on assertions regarding the existence of a supreme being, unicorns and Santa's workshop at the North Pole. I'll believe when there is more than someone's assertion to support such things.

Some might argue that I'm agnostic, in that I'm always willing to consider evidence; that would probably be more accurate. However, sometimes people then try to extend it, saying that I just haven't looked closely enough at what evidence is available. I'll just say that I did enough Biblical research to find out how sausage was made, and I know that there is too much error in it for it to have come from a supernatural source which should theoretically be capable of making it come out correctly.


----------



## Xaios

I guess if I had to label it, I'd call myself a Pragmatic Christian.


----------



## ROAR

Taoism is great!
Anyone else read the Tao Te Ching?!


----------



## vampiregenocide

People seem to be clinging more here to the fact that religion is wrong and therefore God doesn't exist, not maybe religion's interpretation of what God is could be wrong.



Explorer said:


> Currently atheist on assertions regarding the existence of a *supreme being, unicorns and Santa's workshop at the North Pole*. I'll believe when there is more than someone's assertion.
> 
> Some might argue that I'm agnostic, so I'll just say that I did enough Biblical research to find out how sausage was made, and I know that there is too much error in it for it to have come from a supernatural source which should theoretically be capable of making it come out correctly.


 
Likening someone's belief in a God to that of unicorns and Santa could be kinda offensive to some, and I wanna keep that out of this thread. 

One thing I will say though, is your referencing the traditional form of a God, an active creator. Thats one facet of what a God could be. We're being more broad here, looking at all the possibilities of what God could imply. Who is to say it is 
proud of its creation? The very existence of imperfection may be a sign of disregard from a higher being. Playing Devil's Advocate here.


----------



## Mordacain

Explorer said:


> Some might argue that I'm agnostic, so I'll just say that I did enough Biblical research to find out how sausage was made, and I know that there is too much error in it for it to have come from a supernatural source which should theoretically be capable of making it come out correctly.



Its interesting you mentioned the part about arguing for agnosticism. I had a discussion with a physicist friend wherein he asked how I could come to the conclusion of being an Atheist when there was not proof-positive of the existence either way. 

Basically I outlined my logical course of thought as follows:

A) is there evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being. Answer: no
B) is there evidence supporting the creation of the universe from a state of utter nonexistence. Answer: yes
C) is there evidence showing a master architect. Answer: no
D) does the universe appear the way it should if there was no inherit design. Answer: yes
E) discarding the religious teachings of my youth, would I have any reason to believe a mythological being created the universe and planted the seeds of life, based on what knowledge is currently available to us. Answer: no

Please note that I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, it was just an interesting story when discussing Agnosticism vs Atheism (which actually differ far more then most people realize).


----------



## S-O

ROAR said:


> Taoism is great!
> Anyone else read the Tao Te Ching?!



Ah, should have used the real name, haha, when I mention it around my friends/peers, they are like 'wha?', so I have resorted to calling it the Book of Tao.

Also, finding a decent translation can prove tricky, I was fortunate enough to find one that was done incredibly well.


----------



## groph

I guess I'm an atheist, not that I can prove that God doesn't exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, I just don't see why there ever would be a God in the first place and I don't like that I have to call myself something because of this whole fiasco. 

I'm not opposed at all to "spirituality" whatsoever and I don't look down on people who meditate and feel whatever sorts of connections to nature or whatever it is that they feel. Who am I to say that it is completely irrational to see the world in a certain way and behave towards it based on a series of principles. That's a good thing, if anything. I am, however, totally 1000% opposed to religion being used as social control, as a weapon, as a means of oppression, or as a means of creating difference somehow. Personally, I think human beings are very bad at being Christian, but Christianity isn't necessarily bad.

Humans are biological beings with (as we would like to believe) complicated brains that are aware of themselves. We are capable of abstract thought and we can envision a future reality. It isn't surprising to me that religions have been created and I don't think that it's a bad thing across the board. If you look at a flower and see it as a beautiful creation of nature, you are not "wrong" (scientifically) in believing that. You don't have to look at a flower and see it as a mass of cells which converts solar energy into chemical energy and engages in reproduction (of course it does do these things); my point is that appreciating a value that you give to something (through some sense of aesthetics) isn't stupid.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

When it comes to gods and supernatural stuff, I'm an atheist.

I follow the moral philosophies of Buddhism and study its history and teachings thoroughly. I consider myself an atheistic Buddhist. Buddhism just makes sense. It can teach you ways to see into yourself that you probably wont figure out on your own.


----------



## espman

I most definatly agree with what TXDeathMetal said (Church's being run like a buisness), and for that reason, I strongly dislike religious institutions (and go out of my way to avoid them). Now don't get me wrong, I am not one of those annoying as fuck militant atheist types that claim to "know" that there isn't a God, nor am I on the religious side that claims beyond question that there is a God. All said, I really just do my own thing, and as time progresses, I create my own philosophy and set of moral values/ethics based on my experiences, because I can't know if there is God or not until I die, and either meet him, or don't.


----------



## Chickenhawk

thesimo said:


> Athiest - because all relgiions are a load of top shelf codswallop.



Atheism is a religion, the grand sense of things. It's a group of like minded people. 

Just messing with you, I know what you're saying, and 'top shelf codswallop' is possibly the greatest thing I've heard...ever.



ROAR said:


> Apatheist.



Fantastic 


Myself? Nothing. Not atheist, not agnostic, not pastafarian, not purple, etc. I just don't care.

I don't bash other people, except extremists and so-called fundamentalists. If your faith brings you happiness, what place do I have in saying your wrong? 

My pseudo-nihilistic view on the subject brings me happiness, and that's all that matters in the end.


----------



## pink freud

Atheist: I lack belief in any deities.
Agnostic: I believe that the existence of deities is unprovable/undisprovable with the current evidence.
Nihilist: I do not believe in absolute morality, at societal, individual or situational levels.


----------



## Chickenhawk

pink freud said:


> Atheist: I lack belief in any deities.
> Agnostic: I believe that the existence of deities is unprovable/undisprovable with the current evidence.
> Nihilist: I do not believe in absolute morality, at societal, individual or situational levels.



Atheist: Belief that a higher power doesn't exist. 

And I might have improperly used nihilist. Got the point across though.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

I'm sort of Nihilistic.

I have my own views on things, but I'm aware that mine and everyone elses are merely wafer thin morals that change constantly throughout our lives.

Actually scratch that, I'm very Nihilistic.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Scar Symmetry said:


> I have my own views on things, but I'm aware that *mine and everyone elses are merely wafer thin morals that change constantly throughout our lives*.


 
As usual you raise a fine point. As we age and learn more our constant education alters the way we view things, and so our beliefs are constantly shifting.


----------



## metal_sam14

Atheist.

the fact that 2 people can kill each other based on who's imaginary friend is better simply astounds me.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Agnostic atheist reporting in. I call myself an atheist because agnostic atheist makes people look dumbfounded. Basically, I do not believe in a god or gods or a higher power, but I also know there's no way to currently prove the existence or nonexistence of such beings. However, the evidence is in favour of nonexistence and eventually I do believe that we will find out.

I think that all current religions are utter bollocks that offer no real _anything_ except false hope in a fallacious existence and afterlife based on absolutely no evidence except a book (in most cases). The only 'religion' I can be cool with is deism. If no one knows what that is, it's basically a higher power set in motion the universe and everything, but does not actively get implicated in life itself. It sort of makes sense and can be imaginable. But the god in the bible and the qu'ran and all that stuff is just too fallacious to exist in the contexts of the respective religions. If the word of god is real, there should be one religion. If we as a species can't agree which imaginary being to bow down to, something must be fishy. It's not even an interpretation, don't give me that, it's utter fiction.

That being said, I don't outright say I HATE YOU CHRISTIANS DON'T LOOK IN MY DIRECTION! I accept people for who they are and what they believe until they try to shove their shit down my throat. I don't accept that. People who believe that atheists are easiest to convert to their respective religions are fighting an uphill battle.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

The problem I have with agnostic atheism is that it's slightly contradictory. What's to be unsure about? If you are an atheist, but you're putting your hands up and saying "you know what, I don't know!" but really, you think you do because you would class yourself primarily as an atheist, which is why I just refer to myself as an atheist. 

Agnostic atheism and agnostic Christianity are nice ideas but I believe they are just people conceding their beliefs for the sake of social harmony.

All this shit is just a reference to express to other people what you are in that point in your life anyway, as discussed earlier it changes throughout your life.


----------



## Varcolac

Scar Symmetry said:


> The problem I have with agnostic atheism is that it's slightly contradictory. What's to be unsure about? If you are an atheist, but you're putting your hands up and saying "you know what, I don't know!" but really, you think you do because you would class yourself primarily as an atheist, which is why I just refer to myself as an atheist.
> 
> Agnostic atheism and agnostic Christianity are nice ideas but I believe they are just people conceding their beliefs for the sake of social harmony.
> 
> All this shit is just a reference to express to other people what you are in that point in your life anyway, as discussed earlier it changes throughout your life.



Hey, stop attacking my religion man. 

The way I reason it is a difference of degree, largely a semantic difference. Atheism is "there is/are definitely no god(s)." Agnostic atheism is "there is/are probably no god(s)." Likewise, theism is "there's definitely a god," whereas agnostic theism is "there's probably a god."


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Read what I said again, then we'll talk.


----------



## daemon barbeque

My main reason of my lack of Belief is the Lack of evidence and need.
If any kind of god happen to be proven of it's existence, I might accept it.But then, it wouldn't be a belief, but knowledge.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Varcolac said:


> Hey, stop attacking my religion man.
> 
> The way I reason it is a difference of degree, largely a semantic difference. Atheism is "there is/are definitely no god(s)." Agnostic atheism is "there is/are probably no god(s)." Likewise, theism is "there's definitely a god," whereas agnostic theism is "there's probably a god."


 
Agnosticism theism isn't that there is probably a god, it's that there could be a God, but we don't know for sure and may never. I don't think Scar was attacking your belief at all, just the definition.


----------



## pink freud

Scar Symmetry said:


> The problem I have with agnostic atheism is that it's slightly contradictory. What's to be unsure about? If you are an atheist, but you're putting your hands up and saying "you know what, I don't know!" but really, you think you do because you would class yourself primarily as an atheist, which is why I just refer to myself as an atheist.
> 
> Agnostic atheism and agnostic Christianity are nice ideas but I believe they are just people conceding their beliefs for the sake of social harmony.
> 
> All this shit is just a reference to express to other people what you are in that point in your life anyway, as discussed earlier it changes throughout your life.



Agnostic Atheism is the scientific view of deities.

There is no evidence that proves or disproves deities, so one cannot know about the existence of deities, and it is most logical to not believe something unless there is positive evidence for it.

I cannot in good faith say that I _know_ that god does not exist, but I can in good faith say that I lack belief in god because that is my interpretation of the available data.

I used to think that agnosticism and atheism were incompatible until I realized that the form has to do with knowledge while the latter has to do with belief. Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment of the unknowable, while theism/atheism represents the belief regardless of the evidence.


----------



## setsuna7

i'm Muslim.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Why is everyone listing their definitions of what shades of *insert belief* here are?

I know what they all are, I'm saying what I don't agree with.

Evidence is what I need to believe something. When I look at the evidence for God and not for God, I'm left not with sway towards Atheism, but wondering why I'm bothering to pretend that I even entertain the thought of God.

It's great that people are having the humility to say that they don't know, but I PERSONALLY don't think that Atheism and Agnosticism work together. I used to think they didn't work together, then I did for a while and considered myself an 'Agnostic Atheist' (oxymoron if you ask me) and now I'm back to thinking they can't go hand in hand again. 

You can value religions and their believers without ever acknowledging legitimacy in their core beliefs.


----------



## daemon barbeque

pink freud said:


> Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment of the unknowable, while theism/atheism represents the belief regardless of the evidence.



Atheism is not a belief. It's lack there of. It doesn't regard evidence. Contrary, it chooses not to acknowledge it till it's proven with hard evidence

definition of atheist from Oxford Dictionaries Online



For agnostic read definition of agnostic from Oxford Dictionaries Online


----------



## pink freud

daemon barbeque said:


> Atheism is not a belief. It's lack there of. It doesn't regard evidence. Contrary, it chooses not to acknowledge it till it's proven with hard evidence
> 
> definition of atheist from Oxford Dictionaries Online
> 
> 
> 
> For agnostic read definition of agnostic from Oxford Dictionaries Online



I meant "the topic of belief" as opposed to Agnosticism's "topic of knowledge."


----------



## daemon barbeque

pink freud said:


> I meant "the topic of belief" as opposed to Agnosticism's "topic of knowledge."



Oh thanx!


----------



## vampiregenocide

daemon barbeque said:


> Atheism is not a belief. It's lack there of. It doesn't regard evidence. Contrary, it chooses not to acknowledge it till it's proven with hard evidence


 
Non-belief in a God is still a belief. You can't not believe in something.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

You guys are arguing over the stupidest shit 

What happened to the discussion?


----------



## vampiregenocide

Just clearing shit up.  A lot of people try to tear atheism away from being a belief, but it is one.


----------



## MikeH

Pastafarian. Don't judge my religion.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Scar Symmetry said:


> Why is everyone listing their definitions of what shades of *insert belief* here are?
> 
> I know what they all are, I'm saying what I don't agree with.
> 
> Evidence is what I need to believe something. When I look at the evidence for God and not for God, I'm left not with sway towards Atheism, but wondering why I'm bothering to pretend that I even entertain the thought of God.
> 
> It's great that people are having the humility to say that they don't know, but I PERSONALLY don't think that Atheism and Agnosticism work together. I used to think they didn't work together, then I did for a while and considered myself an 'Agnostic Atheist' (oxymoron if you ask me) and now I'm back to thinking they can't go hand in hand again.
> 
> You can value religions and their believers without ever acknowledging legitimacy in their core beliefs.



Hard line theism and hard line atheism are pretty stupid. Because you _know_ that what you believe is true. You _know_ there is a God or you _know_ there isn't one. I'm asserting that I don't _know _if there is a God or if there isn't one, because as a simple human being in the 21st century, still bound to this planet and with little knowledge of what is outside, I can't say for sure that I know or don't know something. Anything is possible.

But I am an atheist in the fact that I do not believe in a God. Agnostic atheism is not an oxymoron. I am a very science driven person and yadda yadda yadda, and I personally don't believe in a God because of all the evidence against a god's existence, but I also have the balls to admit that I cannot know for certain. Certainty is a very fickle entity.


----------



## Randy

Prediction: This probably doesn't end well.

That said, I'd consider myself a non-denominational Christian.

EDIT: Also, for those who seem so surprised at the direction the thread took, it came from making direct criticisms or analysis of other religions or beliefs that are held by members here. Thread stays open if we can proactively discuss things.


----------



## AySay




----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> Non-belief in a God is still a belief. You can't not believe in something.



How so? I don't accept a god without any hard evidence. There is no room for belief in Atheism. Either it exists and it is proven, or not. "do not believe" is the opposite of belief. So it is not a belief.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

My main "beliefs" are that nothing happens without cause, and by extension free will does not exist. I suppose neither of those preclude the existence of a God, now that I think about it...

Of course, neither of those beliefs really has any bearing whatsoever on how I live my life, so I can't really say I "follow them."


----------



## renzoip

I consider myself agnostic. I don't know whether there is a God or not. Some people choose to believe in it and some chose not to. I'm totally fine with that as to me they are just beliefs; most of us do believe in things we cannot perceive but only experience one way or another.


----------



## Ckackley

Pagan here .. The divine is in all of us, along with every other thing on the planet. Some may even say the planet itself. We are all part of an interconnected grid of energy. When one thing dies another life emerges and uses that same energy since energy cannot be created or destroyed simply transferred. All gods are but one face of divinity, so I'll never call a belief wrong though the things done in that beliefs name may be reprehensible. Gods to me are representations of attributes. Therefore all pantheons and systems of belief are open to be used and explored depending on what I find needs work in my life. I've participated in Greek ceremonies and Native American rites. I was raised Pentacostal and have been to Catholic services. All of these rites had their own "power" with none feeling more right than the other.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Ckackley said:


> Pagan here .. The divine is in all of us, along with every other thing on the planet. Some may even say the planet itself. We are all part of an interconnected grid of energy. When one thing dies another life emerges and uses that same energy since energy cannot be created or destroyed simply transferred. All gods are but one face of divinity, so I'll never call a belief wrong though the things done in that beliefs name may be reprehensible. Gods to me are representations of attributes. Therefore all pantheons and systems of belief are open to be used and explored depending on what I find needs work in my life. I've participated in Greek ceremonies and Native American rites. I was raised Pentacostal and have been to Catholic services. All of these rites had their own "power" with none feeling more right than the other.


 
That's pretty cool.


----------



## Randy

daemon barbeque said:


> How so? I don't accept a god without any hard evidence. There is no room for belief in Atheism. Either it exists and it is proven, or not. "do not believe" is the opposite of belief. So it is not a belief.



*We're not getting into the debate of whether atheism is a "belief" or not. I've seen more threads go south on the semantics of this than I care to recollect. I know it was somebody else that invoked it, but this stops at you so everyone else can consider this your warning. It's a never ending, circular conundrum and it won't conclusively be answered here.*

Back to the original discussion, none of us know with certainty 1.) how/why the universe was created 2.) what happens to "you" when your body dies. The decision as to where we align ourselves on those core issues fundamentally decide which direction we go... the specifics of what God we pray to, what things we find ridiculous, etc. just "come with the territory" after that. 

I mention this because it's really silly how heated and how angry people get on the subject of religion, to the point of all the wars, etc. that've been waged to this day. Threads like this are exceptional because the bulk of the arguments revolve around overstatements that people take personally or semantics... I'm referring specifically to the "what I think is right and what you think is wrong". 

No. I'm Christian and I believe in a God and even *I'll* admit that my beliefs are 100% shaped by the world the way I've experienced it, my upbringing, etc and how I've digested it. I wouldn't say that conclusively decides whether what I think is any more or less accurate than what you believe.


----------



## Explorer

+1 to the apparently complicated idea that *not* believing in something doesn't mean that one therefore is a member of a different set of "believers." 

I meant no disrespect to members of any religion earlier. I was clarifying how my not believing in the deity (Santa Claus, specifically) of millions of children, as well as my not believing the deity of millions of practicing deists, is based on a lack of evidence, not on my choosing a different belief structure. 

The fact that more than one person has tried to assert that not believing without evidence is something to be expected. I've found that a lot of people cannot understand certain viewpoints without being able to liken those viewpoints to their own; in other words, it's too alien for them to accept as valid on its own merits.

----

Sorry, Randy, I was still writing this up when you posted that. I'll not say more about it.

However, I would love to hear more about what religion/faith/belief any and all of our members here follow, without any judgments on others from here out.

Cheers!


----------



## troyguitar

Hallowed are the Ori.


----------



## Daemoniac

I follow the path of awesomeness.


----------



## Xiphos68

I'm a Christian.


----------



## Xaios

troyguitar said:


> Hallowed are the Ori.









Now that's a deity I can get behind.


----------



## Randy

God.Damn.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> God.Damn.


 
Morena Baccarin IS divine hotness. 

Should there be any nonbelievers, I offer irrefutable proof to repudiate your doubts!







Amen.


----------



## Mordacain

daemon barbeque said:


> Atheism is not a belief. It's lack there of.



Thank you for stating that. Its a distinction that is often missed when people (mistakingly) think that atheism is some kind of unifying force or a belief structure of its own. Its not, pure and simple. Its a lack of something...belief. 

Agnostics posit that there can be no determination between the existence of a deity or not because there is no conclusive evidence either way. Its the happy medium stopover from theism to a lack of theism (IMO).

Atheists don't make that leap of judgement. Atheists think something like this: "there is no evidence to support a deity, so there is no reason to consider it as a possibility. Conversely, there is evidence (conclusive or not) that the universe and everything in it was created without the guiding hand of a creative force. Unless more evidence is discovered that supports an alternate theory then the theory that matches the evidence we have is considered truth.


----------



## Xaios

Careful there, lad. A decree has come down from on high, and by continuing that particular argument, you risk getting smitten.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

I come close to LaVey Satanism, I like the ideals, but there is also doctrine and rituals involved in that, which I find silly (in any religion). I guess I'm an agnostic atheist, as in I won't discount 100% the possibility that there is a supreme being since I have no proof, but I'm very skeptical. If I was shown scientific evidence and irrefutable proof that a certain deity existed, I would believe in it as a rational human being. If I believed in the Christian god, I'd probably be a Luciferian.


----------



## johnythehero

I kind of live by Hellenism (Zues, Hera, Apollo, etc. etc. ) though itss kind of in the same terms of JJ


----------



## josh pelican

I don't touch religion. People have called me atheist, but I don't believe in atheism either. It's a word that's still related to religious discussions.


----------



## Randy

johnythehero said:


> I kind of live by Hellenism (Zues, Hera, Apollo, etc. etc. )



Dude, that's badass.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Randy said:


> Dude, that's badass.



Not nearly as badass as your display picture thing. What the fuck is that anyways?


----------



## Randy

Turn your attention to the links in my signature and it will all become clear. 

EDIT: You have to copy pasta the URLs on the second two, though, because funnyjunk sucks ass.


----------



## johnythehero

Randy said:


> Dude, that's badass.


strange enough I either get that response or a "That stuff so stupid" bullcrap  but I feel more at peace with myself when I tried out living by their said rules though it was kind of weird at first lol


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Mind = blown.


----------



## Randy

13point9 was the one who originally came across that one. I still insist, best forum users on the interwebz. 



johnythehero said:


> strange enough I either get that response or a "That stuff so stupid" bullcrap  but I feel more at peace with myself when I tried out living by their said rules though it was kind of weird at first lol



Yeah, dude. It's all about whatever works for you. It's no crazier than anything else out there.


----------



## Meatbucket

Kinda hard to categorize where I stand religiously/spiritually. Kinda like music. I like a little bit of everything and a lot of some stuff but it's kinda hard to nail something down into one definitive genre.

I'm not a believer in "god(s)" but I do believe in a higher power similar to Agnostic views, however the approach I take is more narrowed and spiritual in aspect. Call me crazy, but I believe there is a massive, connecting consciousness that we are all appendages and extensions of. Like the body we are controlling is not who we are, we are all just part of the linking soul having the experience as our body. I'll try and word that differently:

I'm not Meatbucket. I'm a piece of conscience having the experience of Meatbucket.

I also believe when we die, our conscience just returns back from whence it came. The body maybe dead but the conscience simply left. The existential view of "When you die, nothing else happens." doesn't seem very imaginative or optimistic to me.

I also align myself with some Buddhist ideals like the Four Noble Truths. "Life is suffering." When you add that to the famous saying "Life is just a game," you can finally start to see past all the nonsensical, trivial problems in our lifespans. When one can see that life is suffering and a game, one can play it like one. Like a puzzle or more specifically an RPG. If you're girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband is extremely upset with you and you're arguing, it could be like a complex boss fight to solve and it can turn a shitty time, into a fun experience. "Shit, I'm stranded far from home. Let's see what it takes to get back!"

Again, call me crazy, but that's just how I feel about the whole religious/spiritual aspect of life. Organized religion was created for controlling the flock, it's always best to look within yourself to find your own spiritual cultivation. Don't rely on anyone else' word or beliefs to find your own since your spirituality is all about you. Just because your parents are Christian doesn't mean you have to be. Just because you follow the Quran doesn't mean it's fact. Just because your best friend is Jewish doesn't mean you have to be. It's different for every person and if it's forced and imposed then it's not really a great spiritual release, since it's a belief. "Believe this or you're EVIL!" I also think it has a lot to do with the self segregation topic that was in another thread. My belief was in there too about how we're all similar (from mentioned above about the shared consciousness.)


----------



## groph

Ibz_rg said:


> Pastafarian. Don't judge my religion.



I want to be touched by his noodley appendage


----------



## johnythehero

Randy said:


> 13point9 was the one who originally came across that one. I still insist, best forum users on the interwebz.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dude. It's all about whatever works for you. It's no crazier than anything else out there.


though I get looked at funny when I do a drink offering  thats an akward moment for the books my friend


----------



## Randy

0:18


----------



## johnythehero

Randy said:


> 0:18



haha I wish I had someone who could pour choclate icing on me... you up for it Randy


----------



## 13point9

I'm a Jenova's Witness...




































(geek pun)


----------



## Thep

Buddhist, as you will notice in my profile picture. Parents were Buddhist but in South Texas, there weren't really any temples that we could go to so I grew up as spiritual-less and would always believe that any form of faith, including Buddhism, was stupid. I was pretty misanthropic at the time. 

I still remain a vehement Atheist, I matured and went back to my roots. Using my own logic and judgement, I adopted Buddhism as a faith in college. I also developed a compassion and have a genuine curiosity in most other religions.


----------



## White Cluster

I'm a Bacon Donutist..The only dogma that matters


----------



## pink freud

vampiregenocide said:


> Non-belief in a God is still a belief. You can't not believe in something.


_

EDIT: Nevermind.

_I totally posted that before reading further into the thread.


----------



## Randy

*WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE*


----------



## 13point9

SERIOUS post now

I was Christened etc, became very against the whole dogma etc, so I would have said Atheist at this point, I also researched into Modern Satanism, but some of the belief system didn't fit with me personally (I can't view myself in the way they speak about). But after various debates with people from all kinds of religion and back ground, I now feel that it seems pig headed in my mind to completely rule out the possibility of a higher power. So I'd now call myself an 'Agnostic Atheist'. I've received a lot of flak from this over time as people don't seem to get it so here's a basic example...

'I believe in 'god' in the same way I believe in Pixies, I don't personally think they're there/ believe in them, but that doesn't rule out their existence'


----------



## S-O

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I come close to LaVey Satanism, I like the ideals, but there is also doctrine and rituals involved in that, which I find silly (in any religion). I guess I'm an agnostic atheist, as in I won't discount 100% the possibility that there is a supreme being since I have no proof, but I'm very skeptical. If I was shown scientific evidence and irrefutable proof that a certain deity existed, I would believe in it as a rational human being. If I believed in the Christian god, I'd probably be a Luciferian.



The Satanic Bible is actually a fantastic read, he has many great ideas.


----------



## Randy

13point9 said:


> 'I believe in 'god' in the same way I believe in Pixies, I don't personally think they're there/ believe in them, but that doesn't rule out their existence'



That's honestly how I was most of my life. Despite being Christian now it's, in my opinion, what you describe is probably the most practical perspective on reality.  "I don't know, so I don't know" Hard to deny that one. 

To be completely honest, most of what led me to religion was a need (meaning personal desire) to commit to something and the bit of it that I knew at the time fit with my personal values, despite not growing up in a traditionally "Christian" household. I had a few experiences in my life that felt "other worldly" and it all kinda came together for me.


----------



## Sofos

13point9 said:


> I'm a Jenova's Witness...
> 
> (geek pun)



dammit i was gonna say that one >.>


----------



## Grank

I believe I'm going to play my guitar now....


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

S-O said:


> The Satanic Bible is actually a fantastic read, he has many great ideas.



I read it. I like most of what he says. I definitely identify with a lot of it, but I'd rather do my own thing


----------



## Prydogga

Atheism and/or Metalocalipse-ism.


----------



## KingAenarion

13point9 said:


> I'm a Jenova's Witness...
> 
> (geek pun)



You want to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as your vessel?


----------



## CrushingAnvil

I think Buddhism is a Religion, Christianity is a belief.

I've had a scientific mind since I was a child, Mythology is cool but Christianity is just fucking horrific.


----------



## CrushingAnvil

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I read it. I like most of what he says. I definitely identify with a lot of it, but I'd rather do my own thing



...And being labelled a Satanist blows big time. You either have retarded people assuming you are, or people freaking out when you tell them.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

CrushingAnvil said:


> I've had a scientific mind since I was a child, Mythology is cool but Christianity is just fucking horrific.



I think the bible is a great story. I love old school shit like The Ten Commandments (Charleton Heston was the man) and stuff. Awesome stories, it's just hard to believe that anyone takes it literally


----------



## CrushingAnvil

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I think the bible is a great story. I love old school shit like The Ten Commandments (Charleton Heston was the man) and stuff. Awesome stories, it's just hard to believe that anyone takes it literally



Bro, THE OZONE LAYER IS ICE, YOU SEE THAT'S WHAT CREATED THE GREAT FLOOD.



Angry Black Uncle said:


> Put that on yo' fuckin' wall.





But I digress, I didn't mean to come in here and belittle anyone's beliefs but I'm sure Xaios agrees with what JJ said about people taking things literally.


----------



## Varcolac

KingAenarion said:


> You want to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as your vessel?



Reunion....


----------



## Scar Symmetry

ArkaneDemon said:


> Hard line theism and hard line atheism are pretty stupid. Because you _know_ that what you believe is true. You _know_ there is a God or you _know_ there isn't one. I'm asserting that I don't _know _if there is a God or if there isn't one, because as a simple human being in the 21st century, still bound to this planet and with little knowledge of what is outside, I can't say for sure that I know or don't know something. Anything is possible.
> 
> But I am an atheist in the fact that I do not believe in a God. Agnostic atheism is not an oxymoron. I am a very science driven person and yadda yadda yadda, and I personally don't believe in a God because of all the evidence against a god's existence, but I also have the balls to admit that I cannot know for certain. Certainty is a very fickle entity.



It's cool that you think that. I used to think that too, and found myself back at square one. This particular discussion may be better off in the "Truth is relative" thread...

I consider myself amongst the most humble of my friend group, but I also consider myself amongst the most honest of my friend group, including with myself, and that's how I came back to the conclusion that to me, God does not exist. I felt like when I was saying "I am an atheist, but I'm open to the existence of God" that I was just being socially compliant and not truly honest with myself. I understand that this won't be the case for everyone, but if you look at my case you can easily see how I got back to the condition of certainty about God and certainty about why I think it's an oxymoron.

One of my favourite quotes is:

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" - Voltaire

However, when it comes to the belief of a big man in the sky, for me that goes out the window. 

Values are much more important than deities and I'd like to see a lot more focus on what we can learn from each other rather than "OMFG y dnt u beleev in wat i beleev" or "OMFG y rnt u an atheist r u dumb". It really is a damn shame that people are way more occupied with what they don't like about each other and their differences rather than what they do like about each other and how they can learn from each other to become respectively better people.

We've come a long way in the past hundred years, but in my eyes, not far enough.


----------



## 13point9

KingAenarion said:


> You want to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this planet as your vessel?



I also wish to spread the word of Mother to the masses via Geo Stigma...


----------



## Sofos

CrushingAnvil said:


> ...And being labelled a Satanist blows big time. You either have retarded people assuming you are, or people freaking out when you tell them.



he had great ideas, but i HATE that he had to use the name Satanism, bcuz everyone automatically assumes you are evil, worship the devil, and are not worth their timee.


----------



## jymellis

huxley-your brain is god

no not really. i dont follow any religion/belief system.


----------



## daemon barbeque

I think Confucius and his different views of human behavior led me to rethink my view of religions. The human mind and perception is capable to create it's own truths and miracles. The human mind is also pretty much very lazy about letting things stay "uncertain". We prefer to settle things as fast as possible to end the uncertain status. We also mostly are "not" interested if our perception is factual or not.

I am an Atheist but I don't care if people have a special bond with their higher being or not. I don't care as long as they not try to lecture me or push it on me. Of course I laugh at silly customs and ungrounded tradition sometimes (nobody is perfect), or criticize Organizations like churches for their hypocrisy. But I am more than happy to let people believe in anything as long as it makes them happy.


----------



## XEN

I abhor all forms of religion and hold nothing as true which is not self evident. Religions serve only to reinforce people's misconceived presumptions of significance and manipulate their fear of the unknown while imposing ritual and form on what at its origins might have simply been an epiphanic philosophical paradigm shift.


----------



## chimp_spanner

Man of science over here! Not to say I know a lot about it  I just believe everything has an explanation, given enough time.

Well, apart from the origins of the Universe - but I just try not to think about it, as it gives me a headache. Science hits a dead end. Religion tells me to just accept it. Neither work for me 

But yeah, that's not to say I don't find wonder in those explanations. The Universe is a weird ass place. It's plenty interesting enough with or without a creator behind it.


----------



## heavy7-665

SoldiersOfFilth said:


> he had great ideas, but i HATE that he had to use the name Satanism, bcuz everyone automatically assumes you are evil, worship the devil, and are not worth their timee.



I had to explain to people that its not that way. Its more of way to express opposition.

A far as myself goes, I dislike religion but I sometimes believe in a god. Its strange.


----------



## Sofos

heavy7-665 said:


> I had to explain to people that its not that way. Its more of way to express opposition.
> 
> A far as myself goes, I dislike religion but I sometimes believe in a god. Its strange.



i feel the same way sometimes. A god, not THE God though. I am totally against organized religion. I can't stand when people tell other people what to believe, not let them have their own ideas. I understand giving a child a bible to help them decide to be a Christian, but I am against giving the child a bible, making him read it EVERY NIGHT, force him to go to church, do church charities, and such things. These are the exact reasons so many children are turning from God and joining such 'religions' as faux-satanism, Wiccanism, Paganism, etc. I think it should be socially acceptable to make up your own mind about your religion. Mine is a conglomerate of bits and pieces of different religions ideas and ways to live by.


----------



## heavy7-665

SoldiersOfFilth said:


> i feel the same way sometimes. A god, not THE God though. I am totally against organized religion. I can't stand when people tell other people what to believe, not let them have their own ideas. I understand giving a child a bible to help them decide to be a Christian, but I am against giving the child a bible, making him read it EVERY NIGHT, force him to go to church, do church charities, and such things. These are the exact reasons so many children are turning from God and joining such 'religions' as faux-satanism, Wiccanism, Paganism, etc. I think it should be socially acceptable to make up your own mind about your religion. Mine is a conglomerate of bits and pieces of different religions ideas and ways to live by.



I wish more people would draw inspiration from several sources instead of being so closed off.

MULTI-CLASS MO'FUCKA!


----------



## tacotiklah

I'm christian, although I've become very disenchanted with the modern christian church. I think it's become little more than what the pharisees and sadduces were when Jesus was around. I try to tithe in a way that helps people (like instead of putting cash in a useless "building fund" that is just really another way for the pastor to make an extra income) like finding someone that's hungry and feeding 'em a bacon guacamole six dollar burger combo (because I hate people that "help" by buying 1 cheap ass $1 burger for someone else and then acting like their mother theresa) or putting them up in my home/a motel room for a night when they've got no place to sleep.

To me things like that are a much more "worthy" tithe than the money grubbing I see in churches. I apologize if I'm offending anyone here. It's just that I've been studying the bible for many, many years and during all those years I read about what a christian is supposed to do, yet I see a great many doing something COMPLETELY opposite and it makes me wonder wtf the point was to converting to christianity in the first place if nobody was gonna actually follow the same set of rules....

For that reason, you'd be hard pressed to find me in a church. I do read the bible, but having read it from front to back so many times, I just feel a little burnt out on it at times.

I too also consider myself to be a person that thinks that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Who's to say that God didn't create the most basic form of life and then let things go from there?


----------



## heavy7-665

ghstofperdition said:


> I'm christian, although I've become very disenchanted with the modern christian church. I think it's become little more than what the pharisees and sadduces were when Jesus was around. I try to tithe in a way that helps people (like instead of putting cash in a useless "building fund" that is just really another way for the pastor to make an extra income) like finding someone that's hungry and feeding 'em a bacon guacamole six dollar burger combo (because I hate people that "help" by buying 1 cheap ass $1 burger for someone else and then acting like their mother theresa) or putting them up in my home/a motel room for a night when they've got no place to sleep.
> 
> To me things like that are a much more "worthy" tithe than the money grubbing I see in churches. I apologize if I'm offending anyone here. It's just that I've been studying the bible for many, many years and during all those years I read about what a christian is supposed to do, yet I see a great many doing something COMPLETELY opposite and it makes me wonder wtf the point was to converting to christianity in the first place if nobody was gonna actually follow the same set of rules....
> 
> For that reason, you'd be hard pressed to find me in a church. I do read the bible, but having read it from front to back so many times, I just feel a little burnt out on it at times.
> 
> I too also consider myself to be a person that thinks that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Who's to say that God didn't create the most basic form of life and then let things go from there?



QFT


----------



## Waelstrum

In theory agnostic, in practice an atheist. I strongly doubt the existence of God/god/gods but if presented with significant evidence I'd certainly rethink my position. The main problem is if there is a god, why hide? Why give any doubt at all to the existence of oneself?


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Waelstrum said:


> The main problem is if there is a god, why hide? Why give any doubt at all to the existence of oneself?



Master troll.


----------



## Guitarman700

ghstofperdition said:


> I'm christian, although I've become very disenchanted with the modern christian church. I think it's become little more than what the pharisees and sadduces were when Jesus was around. I try to tithe in a way that helps people (like instead of putting cash in a useless "building fund" that is just really another way for the pastor to make an extra income) like finding someone that's hungry and feeding 'em a bacon guacamole six dollar burger combo (because I hate people that "help" by buying 1 cheap ass $1 burger for someone else and then acting like their mother theresa) or putting them up in my home/a motel room for a night when they've got no place to sleep.
> 
> To me things like that are a much more "worthy" tithe than the money grubbing I see in churches. I apologize if I'm offending anyone here. It's just that I've been studying the bible for many, many years and during all those years I read about what a christian is supposed to do, yet I see a great many doing something COMPLETELY opposite and it makes me wonder wtf the point was to converting to christianity in the first place if nobody was gonna actually follow the same set of rules....
> 
> For that reason, you'd be hard pressed to find me in a church. I do read the bible, but having read it from front to back so many times, I just feel a little burnt out on it at times.
> 
> I too also consider myself to be a person that thinks that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Who's to say that God didn't create the most basic form of life and then let things go from there?


If there were a Million more of you the world would be a better place.


----------



## Guitarman700

ArkaneDemon said:


> Master troll.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Waelstrum said:


> In theory agnostic, in practice an atheist. I strongly doubt the existence of God/god/gods but if presented with significant evidence I'd certainly rethink my position. The main problem is if there is a god, why hide? Why give any doubt at all to the existence of oneself?


 
This is it, we assume if God were real he'd want to rule over us and make his presence known, but the fact is he/she/it could have any motive. Maybe we're just a seed planted and left to grow by our own means, with no interaction between the creation and the creator. Also, he might want us to learn our own way, not to try and please him constantly. The fact his existence is unknown means people make their own choices, do their own things.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

I'm a Satanist. LaVeyan Satanist to be exact. I don't mind the label..I am what I am and I don't make excuses or apologies for it...then again that's the whole point of Satanism..ah well.


----------



## espman

Gonna add a bit of history to my last post, when I was at the age where I started to ask questions about God, religion etc. My parents, having mostly stayed away from the topic their whole lives, actually told me to go figure it out for myself, and I have to say, that is without a doubt the greatest thing that has ever happened to me. 

I do support the idea of re-incarnation because at the end of the day, any life is nothing but energy, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, it's gotta go somewhere. To add to that, I also am a believer in ghosts and the like, for the same reasons, coupled with personal experience.


----------



## tacotiklah

ArkaneDemon said:


> Master troll.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature." - Carl Sagan


----------



## C2Aye

I was brought up and raised a Theravada Buddhist and I've seen no reason to change so yeah, still a Theravada Buddhist. Been a monk and everything, if only for a week.


----------



## Mr Violence

I'm late to the party. I couldn't care less about religion. I don't know the absolute truth and I'm okay with that. I will believe something when there's tangible proof. I do not appreciate people's elitist views on it. I do not appreciate when someone thinks they know more than another and takes pride in it. I question everything and I get discouraged when others fail to do the same.

If I can paraphrase George Carlin: I believe in individual love, and love for one another. I believe in the universe and it's vastness.

In the meantime, I'm going to spend my life enjoying life, regardless of why we're living it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Mr Violence said:


> I'm late to the party. I couldn't care less about religion. I don't know the absolute truth and I'm okay with that. I will believe something when there's tangible proof. I do not appreciate people's elitist views on it. I do not appreciate when someone thinks they know more than another and takes pride in it. I question everything and I get discouraged when others fail to do the same.
> 
> If I can paraphrase George Carlin: I believe in individual love, and love for one another. I believe in the universe and it's vastness.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm going to spend my life enjoying life, regardless of why we're living it.



This post afforded you some reputation.


----------



## pink freud

Here's a question that I'd like to see input on:

Is it possible to truly be an Atheist and not be a Nihilist (as defined by not believing in absolute morality)?

I personally don't think it is.


----------



## Randy

Impossible, no. A challenging existance, yes.


----------



## daemon barbeque

Morality does not come from religion. Although almost all religions try to "force" more or less the same basic stuff, the common moral is far older than that. To go "around" these "basic" rules, people got use of "exceptions" . 
For instance, Moses says you shall not kill a human. Well, non jews are presented as non human in some sources, so it is okay to kill.
Rome, you could do everything to a "non Roman". Only Romans had the right not to be killed on a whim.
Islam. You shall not kill, but if you go to djihad, you can etc.
Same goes for theft.
Check Hammurabi, the Sumerian culture for instance.

So, an atheist can be more morally reliable and correct, since there is no need for excuses, there is no "god" that forces you to be a good person. You are alone with yourself, you can't run away from your actions and beg for mercy to a god. Again, in the U.S, only the %2 of the prisoners are Atheists. Either the Nihilists are better in getting not caught, or the Believers are more nihilistic/hypocrite in their beliefs and existence.


----------



## pink freud

daemon barbeque said:


> Morality does not come from religion. Although almost all religions try to "force" more or less the same basic stuff, the common moral is far older than that. To go "around" these "basic" rules, people got use of "exceptions" .
> For instance, Moses says you shall not kill a human. Well, non jews are presented as non human in some sources, so it is okay to kill.
> Rome, you could do everything to a "non Roman". Only Romans had the right not to be killed on a whim.
> Islam. You shall not kill, but if you go to djihad, you can etc.
> Same goes for theft.
> Check Hammurabi, the Sumerian culture for instance.
> 
> So, an atheist can be more morally reliable and correct, since there is no need for excuses, there is no "god" that forces you to be a good person. You are alone with yourself, you can't run away from your actions and beg for mercy to a god. Again, in the U.S, only the %2 of the prisoners are Atheists. Either the Nihilists are better in getting not caught, or the Believers are more nihilistic/hypocrite in their beliefs and existence.



Nihilism (at least in this context) is the belief that there is no such thing as an absolute morality. Theoretically a Nihilist could have the exact same moral code as a Bible-adhering Christian, with the sole distinction being the reason behind the morality. Nihilism is _amoral,_ not _immoral _(at the societal level). At the individual level Nihilists still have a moral code, but one that is acknowledged to be his or her own, and nobody else's except by coincidence. For one to believe in an absolute morality it seems in my mind that one would have to believe in an absolute never-changing authority, which would _have_ to be a deity.


----------



## daemon barbeque

pink freud said:


> Nihilism (at least in this context) is the belief that there is no such thing as an absolute morality. Theoretically a Nihilist could have the exact same moral code as a Bible-adhering Christian, with the sole distinction being the reason behind the morality. Nihilism is _amoral,_ not _immoral _(at the societal level). At the individual level Nihilists still have a moral code, but one that is acknowledged to be his or her own, and nobody else's except by coincidence. For one to believe in an absolute morality it seems in my mind that one would have to believe in an absolute never-changing authority, which would _have_ to be a deity.



My point was, that an absolute morality is already build by many thousand s of years with a strong social code. Morality is mostly not even a conscious choice, more or less a pre-programmed, sub-conscious reaction/control mechanism.
A Nihilist might think there is not a code of moral he has to follow, but he follows it anyway. So, as many animals do automatically, we might have the "basic" morality without knowing it, and actually accepting.
Although,your definition changes my mind about Atheistic Nihilism, it doesn't change the fact that following sub-conscious code can't be stopped by Nihilism. And it doesn't have to be a Deity. We believe in gravity, why not basic moral ground for a Human survival?


----------



## Guitarman700

pink freud said:


> Nihilism (at least in this context) is the belief that there is no such thing as an absolute morality. Theoretically a Nihilist could have the exact same moral code as a Bible-adhering Christian, with the sole distinction being the reason behind the morality. Nihilism is _amoral,_ not _immoral _(at the societal level). At the individual level Nihilists still have a moral code, but one that is acknowledged to be his or her own, and nobody else's except by coincidence. For one to believe in an absolute morality it seems in my mind that one would have to believe in an absolute never-changing authority, which would _have_ to be a deity.


----------



## Randy

pink freud said:


> For one to believe in an absolute morality it seems in my mind that one would have to believe in an absolute never-changing authority, which would _have_ to be a deity.



Not necessarily. I was atheist/agnostic and still held a very strict code of morality and conduct. Admittedly, I was more prone to giving into some of my urges but I still had a set understanding of "right and wrong" when I was doing something or considering doing something. I actually turned to Christianity, eventually, because it was in line with the rules I had already set forth for myself.


----------



## pink freud

Randy said:


> Not necessarily. I was atheist/agnostic and still held a very strict code of morality and conduct. Admittedly, I was more prone to giving into some of my urges but I still had a set understanding of "right and wrong" when I was doing something or considering doing something. I actually turned to Christianity, eventually, because it was in line with the rules I had already set forth for myself.



A strict moral code isn't the same as an absolute morality. Absolute morality means that there isn't any opinion on morality. If the authority claims that interracial marriage is immoral then it is immoral and anybody who disagrees is immoral.

Take the Commandments. Would you say that Hindus praying to Krishna is immoral? The Commandments do. If a person was to follow the Commandments as an absolute basis for morality he or she would have to see all other religions as immoral. A Relative Moralist (which is a more PC term than Nihilist) would view the other views as equally moral, or morality not quantifiable altogether.


----------



## Randy

That's fair. In a less religious context, that would imply "My mindset is right and all others that contradict it are wrong", in which case, belief in a deity isn't essential. Where the deity comes in is WHERE to gather your view of "absolute morality" and possibly what the implied "consequences" are for not adhering to it.


----------



## nojyeloot

vampiregenocide said:


> ...So lets hear what you have to say, what do you follow and what do you believe? I don't want comments on other people's faiths unless you're genuinely interested in learning more.



Hey Bro,

Since you asked, here's my synopsis:

I'm a follower of Christ Jesus, the Messiah, and believe He is the way, the truth, and the life. I also believe that only through Him can we come to the Father (God) and have everlasting life, and be spared from eternal separation from God. I also believe that he is a good, just, patient, perfect, graceful, wise, FIERCE and mighty God. That he makes perfect in our mistakes, and that anything can be used to His glory. And that no matter what we have done, we can come to him if we only believe in His son, Jesus. He sets my paths straight (though I don't always follow them as I should). 

I'd love for you all to come to know and love Him one day. He yearns for it. 

If anyone has any questions on how to come to Him and have eternal life, pls PM me.


> Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.



INB4: Not bashing anyone else's beliefs  This is _my _belief, and I respect each of your choices/beliefs regardless if I agree or not.


----------



## JPhoenix19

how did I miss this thread? 

Apostle's Creed:



> I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.


This essentially sums up where I stand. It should be noted that my interpretations of "holy catholic Church" and "the communion of saints" differs from that of the Roman Catholic Church, and can expound if needed. I'm also in the process of constructing my 'theology' bit by bit through studying the scriptures in their original language.


----------



## Varcolac

pink freud said:


> Here's a question that I'd like to see input on:
> 
> Is it possible to truly be an Atheist and not be a Nihilist (as defined by not believing in absolute morality)?
> 
> I personally don't think it is.



I think it's possible. However, there are very few morals that I hold as absolute. Actually, there's only really one. Everything else is just a derivation. The "golden rule," usually paraphrased as "do unto others," is in my mind the moral absolute from which all else flows. Of course, while any sane individual should be able to agree with this first principle , the extrapolations of this out into other situations can leave one with some tortuous mental gymnastics to go through. Still, it's a simple moral absolute that allows for all the freedoms (free love!) and restrictions (_consensual_ love!) which I value.

You could argue it's not an absolute as it's informed by context and you need at least two people for it to make sense, but I'll gladly pick apart any other "absolute" moral code and remain confident that it'll crumble in a similar fashion if I'm pedantic enough about it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Randy said:


> Impossible, no. A challenging existance, yes.



Initially, yes very challenging.

Beyond that, it gets much easier, or at least it did for me.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Varcolac said:


> I think it's possible. However, there are very few morals that I hold as absolute. Actually, there's only really one. Everything else is just a derivation. The "golden rule," usually paraphrased as "do unto others," is in my mind the moral absolute from which all else flows. Of course, while any sane individual should be able to agree with this first principle , the extrapolations of this out into other situations can leave one with some tortuous mental gymnastics to go through. Still, it's a simple moral absolute that allows for all the freedoms (free love!) and restrictions (_consensual_ love!) which I value.
> 
> You could argue it's not an absolute as it's informed by context and you need at least two people for it to make sense, but I'll gladly pick apart any other "absolute" moral code and remain confident that it'll crumble in a similar fashion if I'm pedantic enough about it.



Basically how I operate 

"Free people need no ball and chain of religious superstition. If you find it comforting, though - wear it." - Robert Curry


----------



## pink freud

Varcolac said:


> I think it's possible. However, there are very few morals that I hold as absolute. Actually, there's only really one. Everything else is just a derivation. The "golden rule," usually paraphrased as "do unto others," is in my mind the moral absolute from which all else flows. Of course, while any sane individual should be able to agree with this first principle , the extrapolations of this out into other situations can leave one with some tortuous mental gymnastics to go through. Still, it's a simple moral absolute that allows for all the freedoms (free love!) and restrictions (_consensual_ love!) which I value.
> 
> You could argue it's not an absolute as it's informed by context and you need at least two people for it to make sense, but I'll gladly pick apart any other "absolute" moral code and remain confident that it'll crumble in a similar fashion if I'm pedantic enough about it.



Just a point: "Do unto others" has a bit of an antithetical implication as "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me." 

I think what it really boils down to is whether you base your morals on an internal decision or an external control. Truly following a religion would be an external control (hence absolute) while any internal decision would be subjective, no matter how strict one is about it.


----------



## Varcolac

pink freud said:


> Just a point: "Do unto others" has a bit of an antithetical implication as "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me."
> 
> I think what it really boils down to is whether you base your morals on an internal decision or an external control. Truly following a religion would be an external control (hence absolute) while any internal decision would be subjective, no matter how strict one is about it.



"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is what I was referring to with "do unto others." I thought those three words were a common shorthand for the entire maxim. I'm not sure what you mean by "antithetical implication." The "silver rule" - "don't treat people in ways you wouldn't want to be treated" - is of course implied by the golden one, but it's more a different perspective than an antithesis.

Society is a fairly good external control. Anyone's morality is subject to outside influences and internal reasoning, so that dichotomy isn't so rigid. Of course, I think I'm using a different definition of "absolute" to you. To me, absolute doesn't mean "set in stone by Moses on the mountain," but more "undeniably true, _a priori_." The golden rule meets that definition for me. 

...well, just about. You could argue about bodily integrity and group cohesion but then you'd be trying to go to zero'th principles and you'll just annoy me.


----------



## aslsmm

nojyeloot said:


> Hey Bro,
> 
> Since you asked, here's my synopsis:
> 
> I'm a follower of Christ Jesus, the Messiah, and believe He is the way, the truth, and the life. I also believe that only through Him can we come to the Father (God) and have everlasting life, and be spared from eternal separation from God. I also believe that he is a good, just, patient, perfect, graceful, wise, FIERCE and mighty God. That he makes perfect in our mistakes, and that anything can be used to His glory. And that no matter what we have done, we can come to him if we only believe in His son, Jesus. He sets my paths straight (though I don't always follow them as I should).
> 
> I'd love for you all to come to know and love Him one day. He yearns for it.
> 
> If anyone has any questions on how to come to Him and have eternal life, pls PM me.
> 
> INB4: Not bashing anyone else's beliefs  This is _my _belief, and I respect each of your choices/beliefs regardless if I agree or not.


 
Balls dawg. 

im LDS. i served a mission for two years in montana, some of the fellow ss,org-ers may call it forcing my religion down others throats. 

Truth is my bro is atheist, and my best friend is atheist, while a lot of my other friends are LDS. i just see a huge difference in the life styles/success/happiness of the two. mostly it boils down to who lives closer to what set of morals they believe in. my bro couldnt gove a shit about anything, he hates my mom and she was LDS so he in turn hates the LDS beliefs. he would never admit it but his life is a stones throw away from being a pile of shit. my best friend however lives by a very strict code of morals. i assume they are attached to his atheist beliefs. his life kicks as much ass as mine. 

simply stating what you believe or belonging to what is easiest for you to follow will get you no where. the christ i worship (just so you know thats a title not a last name) will accept any one who is honestly trying their absolute best. however he'll drop the hammer if your being a tool.


----------



## Rook

nojyeloot said:


> Hey Bro,
> 
> Since you asked, here's my synopsis:
> 
> I'm a follower of Christ Jesus, the Messiah, and believe He is the way, the truth, and the life. I also believe that only through Him can we come to the Father (God) and have everlasting life, and be spared from eternal separation from God. I also believe that he is a good, just, patient, perfect, graceful, wise, FIERCE and mighty God. That he makes perfect in our mistakes, and that anything can be used to His glory. And that no matter what we have done, we can come to him if we only believe in His son, Jesus. He sets my paths straight (though I don't always follow them as I should).
> 
> I'd love for you all to come to know and love Him one day. He yearns for it.
> 
> If anyone has any questions on how to come to Him and have eternal life, pls PM me.
> 
> INB4: Not bashing anyone else's beliefs  This is _my _belief, and I respect each of your choices/beliefs regardless if I agree or not.



Whether I believe it or not, I genuinely enjoyed reading that.

I'm also keeping whether I believe it or not to myself


----------



## tacotiklah

Fun111 said:


> Whether I believe it or not, I genuinely enjoyed reading that.
> 
> I'm also keeping whether I believe it or not to myself




Just remember that there is no spoon and then you can be more receptive.


----------



## aslsmm

ghstofperdition said:


> Just remember that there is no spoon and then you can be more receptive.


 

i think i know what your saying and i think i agree.


----------



## Miek

Scar Symmetry said:


> Initially, yes very challenging.
> 
> Beyond that, it gets much easier, or at least it did for me.



I'd just like to chime in and say, that for me, the belief in a lack of an absolute morality is not challenging at all. Yes, I believe in morality, yes I believe in kindness, in empathy, in compassion. I do not believe that for morality to exist, or for morality to be pertinent, there need be an absolute standard to which it is measured. Even over the infinitesimally short span of human history, what is regarded as moral, just, evil, etc. has changed.
That's because as our understanding of the world changes, so too must we change our perception of our own morals. This makes many holy books dated, challenged, or even obsolete in the modern world. They are certainly not without value. They are ways to better understand ourselves and our history. Whether they give us insight into an absolute morality, I cannot say. But given all the knowledge and history at my disposal, I do not believe they can create a standard of absolute morality that would be able to remain absolute even 100, perhaps quite a significant number less, after their inception.


----------



## tacotiklah

aslsmm said:


> i think i know what your saying and i think i agree.



I appreciate the +rep, but I was referring to this:





Remember that there is no spoon, and then your mind can believe anything. 

I was joking of course, but there's a hidden message in there too.

I believe that once a person realizes that reality is entirely based upon perception, then their reality can be whatever they want it to be. There's a verse in the bible (I believe it's in the book of Mark if memory serves me right) where Jesus is talking to the multitudes and says "Whatsoever a man believeth, that shall be his reward."

I truly believe in that.


----------



## pink freud

Varcolac said:


> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is what I was referring to with "do unto others." I thought those three words were a common shorthand for the entire maxim. I'm not sure what you mean by "antithetical implication." The "silver rule" - "don't treat people in ways you wouldn't want to be treated" - is of course implied by the golden one, but it's more a different perspective than an antithesis.
> 
> Society is a fairly good external control. Anyone's morality is subject to outside influences and internal reasoning, so that dichotomy isn't so rigid. Of course, I think I'm using a different definition of "absolute" to you. To me, absolute doesn't mean "set in stone by Moses on the mountain," but more "undeniably true, _a priori_." The golden rule meets that definition for me.
> 
> ...well, just about. You could argue about bodily integrity and group cohesion but then you'd be trying to go to zero'th principles and you'll just annoy me.



"Do unto others" is commonly known for the implication of "Do unto others _before_ they do unto you." Referring to violence, naturally, so that's why I found it humorous. Refer to "The Seven Deadly Habits of Highly Successful Pirates."

The thing about the Golden Rule is it doesn't comply with those of anti-social behavior. Psychotics don't generally have a developed sense of empathy, so such a concept would be alien to them at the emotional level (not necessarily at the intellectual level). Psychotics/Sociopaths have a morality system that is as equally valid to them (from their perspectives) as "normal" people of society have theirs. And even in society it's not so much one morality but a range of moralities that are similar enough that we get along fairly well anyway.

In essence:
"Treat others as you want to be treated."
"Yeah, but what if you're a masochist?"


----------



## aslsmm

pink freud said:


> In essence:
> "Treat others as you want to be treated."
> "Yeah, but what if you're a masochist?"


 
seriously? that it a terrible example. 




jafar explained it best when he said "whoever has the gold makes the rules."


----------



## Soubi7string

Asatru(Othin,Thor,Tyr,Frigg,Baldr,etc etc etc)
I take my religion and apply it to more realistic placings.
such as Ginnungagap being space and Muspell being the suns/stars/cosmic events
and Niflheim being planets ready for life to begin or in the creation of.The gods I see as representations as forces of nature and actual beings(all to a degree though) such as Tyr(sky) and Jorth(earth) and created thor(lightning) the representation of sky and land coming together and the like.


----------



## pink freud

aslsmm said:


> seriously? that it a terrible example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jafar explained it best when he said "whoever has the gold makes the rules."



Exactly how is it terrible? It shows the flaws of presuming that one's own morality is the same as that of other people's.


----------



## CrushingAnvil

So congrats to the person who didn't 'turn the other cheek' and neg repped me for my post. This is a seven string guitar forum - you're incredibly naive to expect everyone to praise christendom here.


----------



## AK DRAGON

When I was younger I was force fed the Christian beliefs by my parents even though I didn't believe in them. I hated going to church. I thought it was a waste of my time, when I could have been 'in the moment' elsewhere doing something more entertaining. 

With that early religion scarring, I have a problem with most 'organized' religions. Don't get me wrong, if you have found religion I'm cool with that. Just don't try to convert me. I don't believe the whole 'Jesus rises from the dead shtick. In our time we have seen human resilience of people surviving the odds of certain death. I personally think that if churches make millions a year, they should be taxed on it. There should be a limit of what tax breaks you get. Not harbor everything you can and make everyone else pay for you. 

Now that I have grown older and hopefully wiser, I still find that organized religion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm reading more and more into Buddhism and Zen. Buddhism teaches you to 'do for yourself' not have god provide it for you. I would love to see god provide me a place to live and food to eat just by sitting on my ass praying. You and me both know it's not going to happen.



TXDeathMetal said:


> I do not agree with how church/religion is run like a business and how the leaders of these churches are capitalizing on people's beliefs and fear to fatten their pockets.



AMEN Brother!! Tell it to the mountain!
TAX those Bastards!!



CrushingAnvil said:


> ...And being labeled a Satanist blows big time. You either have retarded people assuming you are, or people freaking out when you tell them.


 
I agree, I've read a little into Satanism and thanks to Hollywood having blown it (and its rituals) way out of proportion. It makes some not understand or uncomfortable.



ghstofperdition said:


> I'm christian, although I've become very disenchanted with the modern christian church. I think it's become little more than what the pharisees and sadduces were when Jesus was around. I try to tithe in a way that helps people (like instead of putting cash in a useless "building fund" that is just really another way for the pastor to make an extra income) like finding someone that's hungry and feeding 'em a bacon guacamole six dollar burger combo (because I hate people that "help" by buying 1 cheap ass $1 burger for someone else and then acting like their mother theresa) or putting them up in my home/a motel room for a night when they've got no place to sleep.
> 
> To me things like that are a much more "worthy" tithe than the money grubbing I see in churches. I apologize if I'm offending anyone here. It's just that I've been studying the bible for many, many years and during all those years I read about what a christian is supposed to do, yet I see a great many doing something COMPLETELY opposite and it makes me wonder wtf the point was to converting to christianity in the first place if nobody was gonna actually follow the same set of rules....
> 
> For that reason, you'd be hard pressed to find me in a church. I do read the bible, but having read it from front to back so many times, I just feel a little burnt out on it at times.
> 
> I too also consider myself to be a person that thinks that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Who's to say that God didn't create the most basic form of life and then let things go from there?


 
You Sir, are a saint. I believe you actually 'get' what it means to be Christian. Helping your fellow man, not the pockets of the righteous.


----------



## The Reverend

Based on everything I'm able to understand, I think the probability of a higher power/being/force or anything construed in what the world generally means by the word 'god' is very low. I admit that I do not know this to be a fact, and I admit that if compelling evidence contrary to any of my views were to come up, I would rethink my position.

I usually just say atheist, but there's always a perpetual debate as to what that means, both among "atheists" and "theists". I don't trust anyone who claims to *know* something about this subject, but I do trust people who *believe* in something. Check the definition for the word belief, too. I know people (as I'm sure we all do) who run around claiming that "there is no God" and rubbing it in everyone's faces, and while I generally do argue from that position, it's in a hypothetical vein, kind of like an easy way to facilitate discussions and shit. 

I also used to have a very laissez faire attitude toward religions and religious people, but the state of the world today and through history leads me to believe that any serious sentiment held by a group of people who claim superiority can only lead in death. It sounds really extreme, but holds pretty well when applied to a lot of the largest conflicts in the world. This kind of explains my political views as well. 

Also, gotta congratulate SS.org for dealing with such a volatile subject without massive amounts of trolling. If only the world could follow our example


----------



## CrushingAnvil

The Reverend said:


> Based on everything I'm able to understand, I think the probability of a higher power/being/force or anything construed in what the world generally means by the word 'god' is very low. I admit that I do not know this to be a fact, and I admit that if compelling evidence contrary to any of my views were to come up, I would rethink my position.
> 
> I usually just say atheist, but there's always a perpetual debate as to what that means, both among "atheists" and "theists". I don't trust anyone who claims to *know* something about this subject, but I do trust people who *believe* in something. Check the definition for the word belief, too. I know people (as I'm sure we all do) who run around claiming that "there is no God" and rubbing it in everyone's faces, and while I generally do argue from that position, it's in a hypothetical vein, kind of like an easy way to facilitate discussions and shit.
> 
> I also used to have a very laissez faire attitude toward religions and religious people, but the state of the world today and through history leads me to believe that any serious sentiment held by a group of people who claim superiority can only lead in death. It sounds really extreme, but holds pretty well when applied to a lot of the largest conflicts in the world. This kind of explains my political views as well.
> 
> Also, gotta congratulate SS.org for dealing with such a volatile subject without massive amounts of trolling. If only the world could follow our example



This is true.

Basic facts are, we don't know for certain there is no god - But evidence wise, it's a landslide.


----------



## MF_Kitten

I follow no religion, faith, or belief. However, i don't believe we can, currently, KNOW that there is no "god". However, the unlikelihood of there being such a thing, and the fact that there is no evidence to support it, or even suggest it, means i have nothing to base a belief in it's existence on.

In simpler terms: i am what you would call an Atheist.


----------



## vampiregenocide

MF_Kitten said:


> I follow no religion, faith, or belief. However, i don't believe we can, currently, KNOW that there is no "god". However, the unlikelihood of there being such a thing, and the fact that there is no evidence to support it, or even suggest it, means i have nothing to base a belief in it's existence on.
> 
> In simpler terms: i am what you would call an Atheist.


 
Thats kinda half athiest and half agnostic.


----------



## aslsmm

pink freud said:


> Exactly how is it terrible? It shows the flaws of presuming that one's own morality is the same as that of other people's.


Sorry if i offended. I was joking. It seemed funny at the time. Although i really dont agree with the example.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Miek said:


> I'd just like to chime in and say, that for me, the belief in a lack of an absolute morality is not challenging at all. Yes, I believe in morality, yes I believe in kindness, in empathy, in compassion. I do not believe that for morality to exist, or for morality to be pertinent, there need be an absolute standard to which it is measured. Even over the infinitesimally short span of human history, what is regarded as moral, just, evil, etc. has changed.
> That's because as our understanding of the world changes, so too must we change our perception of our own morals. This makes many holy books dated, challenged, or even obsolete in the modern world. They are certainly not without value. They are ways to better understand ourselves and our history. Whether they give us insight into an absolute morality, I cannot say. But given all the knowledge and history at my disposal, I do not believe they can create a standard of absolute morality that would be able to remain absolute even 100, perhaps quite a significant number less, after their inception.



I wish that I could rep this post 20 times over. I fully agree with every point made


----------



## Customisbetter

i follow "I don't give a fuck"


I don't give a fuck about what anybody else tells me i should believe.
I don't give a fuck about what other people believe.
All I care about is how I feel about my actions. I am my keeper.


----------



## Origin

Atheist. See my signature for details.
I think we just made it up, just like ghosts and psychics and all that other garbage, to try and explain what scared the shit out of us when we didn't have science to explain it then. And of course crowd control and indoctrination.  whoopee! As a good friend of mine likes to yell incoherently, "Tax the churches."


----------



## pink freud

aslsmm said:


> Sorry if i offended. I was joking. It seemed funny at the time. Although i really dont agree with the example.



Not offended, merely wondering what was wrong with the concept.


----------



## Kavnar

I'm 100% athiest but wish I believed in god.


----------



## aslsmm

Kavnar said:


> I'm 100% athiest but wish I believed in god.


 

thats funny cause some times i wish i didnt. why do you wish you believed in god? the reason i wish i didnt some times is cause i would have little to no moral code, just like my bro, and being a dick that does what ever you want is really easy.


----------



## Kavnar

aslsmm said:


> thats funny cause some times i wish i didnt. why do you wish you believed in god? the reason i wish i didnt some times is cause i would have little to no moral code, just like my bro, and being a dick that does what ever you want is really easy.



I spend a lot of time thinking about death and it genuinely fucking terrifies me. I know some people will argue but, knowing that when family go in the ground the only thing that's going to happen is that their flesh will rot is fucking horrible thought. Being Christian or something would blanket that feeling creating an illusion of happiness and would dampen the feeling of death. I think about it a lot and it's pretty hard to explain over a computer but hopefully some of you guys understand me.


----------



## aslsmm

yeah i feel that. It's frusterating when people say they know god exsists but it even more frusterating when people say you cant know. 

the best cristians are the one who never believed then gained faith

and the most dangerous non believers are the ones who lost their faith. 

who knows maybe youll get lucky and come back as a lacs.


----------



## Kavnar

aslsmm said:


> yeah i feel that. It's frusterating when people say they know god exsists but it even more frusterating when people say you cant know.
> 
> the best cristians are the one who never believed then gained faith
> 
> and the most dangerous non believers are the ones who lost their faith.
> 
> who knows maybe youll get lucky and come back as a lacs.



At this point I think it would be ignorant of me to believe in god. I've spent a lot of my time disproving god to myself so I don't think I could ever believe in any sort of the gods of any major religion or an after life.


----------



## aslsmm

yeah, im not trying to convert. with religon there is only 1 fact, one day we will know the truth. if god is real and we find ourselves standing before him, then we'll probably hear alot of "i'll be dammed. He is real." if i find myself never waking up after i die, then i guess i wont have much to worry about cause i wont be thinking or feeling a whole lot of anything.


----------



## Randy

Kavnar said:


> I spend a lot of time thinking about death and it genuinely fucking terrifies me. I know some people will argue but, knowing that when family go in the ground the only thing that's going to happen is that their flesh will rot is fucking horrible thought. Being Christian or something would blanket that feeling creating an illusion of happiness and would dampen the feeling of death. I think about it a lot and it's pretty hard to explain over a computer but hopefully some of you guys understand me.



That's actually a lot of where I was prior to Christianity. I got a lot of comfort from the fact that people have been dying for millions and millions of years, so even if there's not a Christian heaven, you're (in a way) "not alone" to any extent. I don't know what happens to your consciousness but, even scientifically, you become united with something (even if it's the soil)... I can't not believe there's some value in that. 

Aside from that, what I know of people facing death, you're either in one of two categories: 1.) You die unexpectedly and the fear never has a chance to torture you 2.) the fact you're going to die as a result of your predicament becomes apparent and, it hurts at first, but the human mind comes to terms with that and you accept it. I've been around a few dying people and honestly, all of them seemed pretty at peace before it happened.


----------



## Randy

Kavnar said:


> At this point I think it would be ignorant of me to believe in god. I've spent a lot of my time disproving god to myself so I don't think I could ever believe in any sort of the gods of any major religion or an after life.



Keep your mind open. I'm not going to preach to you, but I was in much the same mindset before, and eventually found other "compelling arguments" for changing my view. You grow and, invariably, your perspective shifts over time... nothing to feel hypocritical about if you change your mind in _some _way; whatever that may be.


----------



## Kavnar

I definitely find much more beauty in the fact that I'm existing despite the odds being drastically against me. I don't think I need a greater power or something to glorify it. Just being here now is the beauty of the only thing I'm in awe of; which is the scale of the universe. Obviously it's ignorant to say there isn't a creator or there isn't an afterlife. But for now, I've convinced myself of this. So I'm going to try and make the most of life as it is for me right now. 

I'm in a really strange place at the minute. I've seen family members pass away and it's left me really questioning what my life is. It's a strange topic that I like to discuss but it's very controversial aswell so maybe I shouldn't discuss it on a public forum.


----------



## Randy

Fair enough. 

FWIW, I think you've got a really levelheaded take on things.


----------



## Kavnar

Randy said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> FWIW, I think you've got a really levelheaded take on things.



Yeah thanks means a lot. A lot of the religious people I've talked to about these subjects aren't as understanding. It was also really cool to hear your take on things.


----------



## Mr Violence

aslsmm said:


> thats funny cause some times i wish i didnt. why do you wish you believed in god? the reason i wish i didnt some times is cause i would have little to no moral code, just like my bro, and being a dick that does what ever you want is really easy.



Before I start this, I want you to know this isn't an attack. You're well entitled to your opinion. These are merely reasons why I do not believe in a Christian God. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying why I don't.

And as an aside, I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Do Unto Others". What if I really, really like being raped? It's a flawed rule, IMHO.

This has been covered 10 fold in this thread, but I feel I should reiterate. Even though I admit I don't know if there's a God and I am okay with that, I still have a very strong moral code and a conscience that kicks my ass whenever I do something sketchy.

My conscience has been kicking my ass my whole life. When I know I've hurt someone, I feel it. I know it was wrong. It's undeniable, but yet I was still brought up without religion.

Also, you mentioned that you'd rather believe in God than not believe and end up wrong and in hell. I have to disagree with this thought. I really can't put my finger on why, but it just seems like a very disingenuous reason to believe in God.

Even if there is a God, I would like to hope he wasn't vengeful. That's a childish, human emotion. The reason I don't believe in a God that's been written about is because most of the time when I do read about them, they are cruel unless you bow to their will. This is mostly based on the Christian God. He acts too much like a human drunk on power. If a dictator did any of the actions God does, they're considered repugnant and manipulative. They are looked down upon and shunned and forced to resign or killed. Why is it different for a supreme being? Why is it revered for that behavior? Do none of its rules apply to it? To me, this God acts far, far too much like an asshole for me to believe in him. Maybe there is a God, but I'd like to believe that he'd be way beyond these human emotions that are injected into this God. Do you believe everything everyone says? No, but they aren't going to throw you in a fire if you find out they weren't lying. And you know it'd be wrong of them to do that, too.

If there is a God, I'd imagine it as an embodiment of all good and evil. I'd imagine it has logic and reason far beyond anything we could comprehend. I don't think it'd throw people in a fire for not believing another human's story about God. I'd like to think he knows we are not perfect and accepts every single one of us. Included the worst people that have ever lived.

Those are some reasons I don't believe in religion, but again, I say I don't know. I don't know if there's a more powerful being or just some force of nature or whatever the hell it is. I just know I'm alive and I'm happy about that.


----------



## aslsmm

Mr Violence said:


> Before I start this, I want you to know this isn't an attack. You're well entitled to your opinion.
> 
> And as an aside, I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Do Unto Others". What if I really, really like being raped? It's a flawed rule, IMHO.
> 
> 
> Also, you mentioned that you'd rather believe in God than not believe and end up wrong and in hell.
> 
> Even if there is a God, I would like to hope he wasn't vengeful. That's a childish, human emotion. The reason I don't believe in a God that's been written about is because most of the time when I do read about them, they are cruel unless you bow to their will. This is mostly based on the Christian God. He acts too much like a human drunk on power. If a dictator did any of the actions God does, they're considered repugnant and manipulative. They are looked down upon and shunned and forced to resign or killed. Why is it different for a supreme being? Why is it revered for that behavior? Do none of its rules apply to it? To me, this God acts far, far too much like an asshole for me to believe in him. Maybe there is a God, but I'd like to believe that he'd be way beyond these human emotions that are injected into this God. Do you believe everything everyone says? No, but they aren't going to throw you in a fire if you find out they weren't lying. And you know it'd be wrong of them to do that, too.


 
didnt sound like a personal attack but here are a few exagerations i found

1. the flaw of "do unto others" is only flawed through the presentation in wich it has been delivered on this forum. im sorry but the whole "what if you like being raped" or "what if your a masocist" is a little far fetched. Assuming jesus is real, id bet he would debate that logic.

2. you may want to re read my post, i never said "the reason i believe in god is because i dont want to go to hell. its an inssurance policy." in fact i never said that not believing in god got you a ticket to hell. 

3. thanks for defining you assumed opinion of my deffinition of god, a childish vengfull seeker.  never even came close to saying that.

4/final. if you honestly believe that being held accountable for ones actions is the same as seeking vengence then you may wanna study more about the christian faith than you have claimed.


----------



## Mr Violence

aslsmm said:


> didnt sound like a personal attack but here are a few exagerations i found
> 
> 1. the flaw of "do unto others" is only flawed through the presentation in wich it has been delivered on this forum. im sorry but the whole "what if you like being raped" or "what if your a masocist" is a little far fetched. Assuming jesus is real, id bet he would debate that logic.
> 
> 2. you may want to re read my post, i never said "the reason i believe in god is because i dont want to go to hell. its an inssurance policy." in fact i never said that not believing in god got you a ticket to hell.
> 
> 3. thanks for defining you assumed opinion of my deffinition of god, a childish vengfull seeker.  never even came close to saying that.
> 
> 4/final. if you honestly believe that being held accountable for ones actions is the same as seeking vengence then you may wanna study more about the christian faith than you have claimed.



Again, I'll reiterate, I wasn't attacking nor was I making presumptions on your opinion. That was my definition and my opinions and my understanding of what I've learned and taken in.

Being held accountable and being vengeful are two different things. My interpretation of God's punishments are vengeful and not justified. Especially the punishments for not believing. My interpretations. My. Mine.

I want to reiterate one more time, these are my opinions.

No offense was intended and I'm sorry if you became offended.

Take care.


----------



## aslsmm

i wasnt offended but saying "no offense, but these are my opinions, YOU said this" is hardly YOUR opinions alone. if its your opinion fine but i never said 


Mr Violence said:


> Also, you mentioned that you'd rather believe in God than not believe and end up wrong and in hell.


----------



## Mr Violence

aslsmm said:


> yeah, im not trying to convert. with religon there is only 1 fact, one day we will know the truth. if god is real and we find ourselves standing before him, then we'll probably hear alot of "i'll be dammed. He is real." if i find myself never waking up after i die, then i guess i wont have much to worry about cause i wont be thinking or feeling a whole lot of anything.



The above post is what I was referencing and if you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it, I apologize. How I phrased it was that I don't think that this alone is a valid reason to belong to religion.

I wasn't trying to imply this is your only reason or anything, merely that you brought it up.

I apologize about taking it the way I interpreted it.

/thread-derail, sorry everyone.


----------



## MF_Kitten

vampiregenocide said:


> Thats kinda half athiest and half agnostic.



Incorrect.

It's a common misconseption, but that's not what that means. Atheist = non-theist, meaning without god. That part means i do not believe in any god.

Agnostic means "without knowledge", and only refers to whether or not one believes one can know something. It is currently impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, so for the moment we can't explicitly KNOW that such a thing does not exist.

The words are supposed to be used together. I am an agnostic atheist. If you are an atheist, and you believe that we can know for certain that there is no god, then you are a gnostic atheist.

So you see, those aren't conflicting or overlapping, but refer to different parts of belief/disbelief.

The reason most agnostic atheists don't include the agnostic part, is because it's usually assumed, and really doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Being an agnostic doesn't mean "keeping an open mind to the idea" as commonly believed. Most people seem to use it to say "i don't really know whether there's a god or not, i don't personally believe in one at the moment, but i am open to the idea of it being an option" or something to that effect.


----------



## MF_Kitten

Also, i love how there's no way to talk about belief and religion without a debate popping up. Every.damn.time.

Just realize, guys, that debates don't do anything. It's the equivalent to shaking one's dicks around, hoping for the other person to die from it, just because. Or something. You are as likely to persuade the opposition as the opposition is likely to persuade you.

Remember, also, that belief and religion is FAITH. It's not evidence based, and doesn't rely on evidence. You can't use evidence to disprove that which does not rely on evidence. I know it's hard to get, but it really is useless. Another factor in this is that the conflicting ideas in one's mind when having one's values and beliefs challenged actually causes one to strengthen the belief to get rid of the other stuff, further strengthening one's conviction.

Trying to convert a typical atheist, which only lives by evidence, using something that isn't, and has no evidence, is pointless in the exact same way.

So if any of you are trying to "win" an argument, then that won't happen. If you are merely trying to correct misconseptions, then go right ahead. Also, i would say that having one's values and beliefs challenged is a good thing, if you can take it in and actually evaluate it.

I would suggest all religious people take a good close look at the debating opposition's argument, and try to truly understand it. I find that many, if not most atheists already have experience with religion, and have studied it up and down, but if you haven't, then i suggest you do. Always seek to understand the mind of the people you disagree with.

I'm out! Good luck folks


----------



## CrushingAnvil

MF_Kitten said:


> It is currently impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, so for the moment we can't explicitly KNOW that such a thing does not exist.



The fact that we even 'need' to is rediculous. There is zero evidence _for _the existance of a god. Common sense is, for some stupid reason, taboo these days.


----------



## MF_Kitten

CrushingAnvil said:


> The fact that we even 'need' to is rediculous. There is zero evidence _for _the existance of a god. Common sense is, for some stupid reason, taboo these days.



True, but adhering to the scientific way of thinking means that to say something definitely does not exist, when we don't really have any way of disproving it, is to make a false statement. Sure, the extreme unlikelihood of such a thing, and the complete lack of any real evidence for it means we can safely dismiss it, and in daily conversation i do dismiss it, but in discussions, i stick to the theory like a muthafuckin pro


----------



## vampiregenocide

MF_Kitten said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> It's a common misconseption, but that's not what that means. Atheist = non-theist, meaning without god. That part means i do not believe in any god.
> 
> Agnostic means "without knowledge", and only refers to whether or not one believes one can know something. It is currently impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god, so for the moment we can't explicitly KNOW that such a thing does not exist.
> 
> The words are supposed to be used together. I am an agnostic atheist. If you are an atheist, and you believe that we can know for certain that there is no god, then you are a gnostic atheist.
> 
> So you see, those aren't conflicting or overlapping, but refer to different parts of belief/disbelief.
> 
> The reason most agnostic atheists don't include the agnostic part, is because it's usually assumed, and really doesn't serve any purpose anyway. Being an agnostic doesn't mean "keeping an open mind to the idea" as commonly believed. Most people seem to use it to say "i don't really know whether there's a god or not, i don't personally believe in one at the moment, but i am open to the idea of it being an option" or something to that effect.


 
He doesn't follow any faith or religion, and doesn't believe in a God (atheism) but believes if there was a God, we wouldn't know about it anyway (agnostic). I know what the words mean. And like you just said, it is possible to not believe in a God but agree that the possibility of a God would be unknown to us, therefore being an agnostic atheist. As for the keeping an open mind idea, I think that is a big part of what it is. Accepting the fact we might not know for sure whether a God exists or not due to the pure nature of the subject is by definition keeping an open mind. I don't know what point you're trying to make.  You just disagreed then basically agreed with me.

What I do disagree with in terms of your post, is your definition of atheism. Atheism can mean rejection of the possibility of any God or Gods. That is to say, they don't believe in the chance of their being a God at all, as it has no real evidence and is deemed to be untrue. Therefore in that context, an agnostic athiest would be impossible. It depends on how extreme an atheist you are.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I gotta say too, that I believe these debates are helpful in tha they help us challenge our owwn beliefs, understand others and clarify what we really believe in. Providing you ren't mercilessly ripping someones faith to shreds and keep a level-headed/open mind on the matter, I think discussions like this are helpful and I think more people should be having them. I've certainly learnt a lot from this thread.


----------



## MF_Kitten

vampiregenocide said:


> He doesn't follow any faith or religion, and doesn't believe in a God (atheism) but believes if there was a God, we wouldn't know about it anyway (agnostic). I know what the words mean. And like you just said, it is possible to not believe in a God but agree that the possibility of a God would be unknown to us, therefore being an agnostic atheist. As for the keeping an open mind idea, I think that is a big part of what it is. Accepting the fact we might not know for sure whether a God exists or not due to the pure nature of the subject is by definition keeping an open mind. I don't know what point you're trying to make.  You just disagreed then basically agreed with me.
> 
> What I do disagree with in terms of your post, is your definition of atheism. Atheism can mean rejection of the possibility of any God or Gods. That is to say, they don't believe in the chance of their being a God at all, as it has no real evidence and is deemed to be untrue. Therefore in that context, an agnostic athiest would be impossible. It depends on how extreme an atheist you are.



the definition "agnostic atheist" is used alot actually, and it is a proper definition. the point is that i wouldn't identify myself as that to anyone if the asked, but from a technical standpoint i would be defined as that, since i don't believe we can currently know whether or not there is a god. if we somehow find a way to measure and find the existence or absence of a deity, then i will be a gnostic atheist. unles, of course, the measurements show, against all odds, that there is a god 

edit: i am being needlessly technical here though. i will say that i believe that there is no god, based in the lack of evidence, the lack of things pointing to there possibly being such a thing, and the unlikelihood of it, etc.


----------



## vampiregenocide

MF_Kitten said:


> the definition "agnostic atheist" is used alot actually, and it is a proper definition. the point is that i wouldn't identify myself as that to anyone if the asked, but from a technical standpoint i would be defined as that, since i don't believe we can currently know whether or not there is a god. if we somehow find a way to measure and find the existence or absence of a deity, then i will be a gnostic atheist. unles, of course, the measurements show, against all odds, that there is a god
> 
> edit: i am being needlessly technical here though. i will say that i believe that there is no god, based in the lack of evidence, the lack of things pointing to there possibly being such a thing, and the unlikelihood of it, etc.


 
Yeah I've heard it used before, tats why I said that chap is half agnostic half atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist' seeing as he fit that description.

And thats fair man. I believe that there is possibly a God or something that perhaps is similar, but we don't know enough to know for sure right now, hence I consider myself an agnostic theist. As I said before, I feel like God may be the act of creation itself, a force or process underlying all nature like evolution, rather than the creator itself.


----------



## jaredowty

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain

Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence, simple as that. People have a hard time coping with the very real possibility that life is hard and meaningless, and that we face absolute nothingness after death. Because of this, every culture has their own set of bullshit stories to make themselves feel better. So which of these many religions is "right"?

Don't kill, don't steal and don't abuse. I don't need a textbook of fairytales to reinforce these basic and universal morals.

And here's how I distinguish atheists/agnostics/believers:

Believer: There is a God.
Atheist: There is no god.
Agnostic/Atheist: There probably is no god.
Agnostic: God may or may not exist, impartial to it.


----------



## The Reverend

Like I said earlier, there's always a debate on what the words 'agnostic' and 'atheist' mean. What seems to work for me is to define a few parameters before I get into discussions about this stuff.

To me, 'God' is any force responsible for intentionally creating, well, creation. Self-aware or not, I use this term whenever I talk about a supreme force.

'Atheist' I interpret very literally. Keep in mind the word isn't 'antitheist'. Atheist means to me the utter lack of belief in God. It doesn't mean opposed, and isn't even an active word. It is not (to my understanding) rejecting anything. It is a natural state of being. Sort of like the whole "all babies are atheists" thing you hear sometimes. 

'Theist' means to me anyone who believes in God, in whatever shape that might be. If people started worshiping gravity, I would classify them as theists. 

'Agnostic' is a tricky one. My use is generally wildly different than most others'. I define it as not having enough information to conclusively lean one way or the other. So in practice, if we were discussing UFOs existing or something, a topic about which no one has any information on, I'd say I'm agnostic. I can't say one way or the other.

Lastly, I have to disagree with some of you. I believe that any force, even supernatural, who interacts with the natural world would by that fact become observable in some way. If God causes a flood (bit extreme of an analogy, but bear with me) that comes out of nowhere, we'd see the effect. We'd see that a flood was not likely in the area or whatever, or if we got extremely lucky we'd have on camera water just multiplying in volume and fucking things up. Of course, this only applies to the more involved 'gods', not deistic ones, although I think in the future, we'd be able to measure their involvement.


----------



## Miek

re: agnostics and atheists - I don't think it's any more than semantics. Any reasonable atheist would agree, yes, there is in fact a god in the face of concrete evidence that measures up to the standards we hold for any other idea.

Our world, from the smallest constituent particle of matter, to the not-quite physical world of social interactions, and to the cosmos itself is governed by interactions. It is through these interactions we experience, observe, change, and otherwise exist in our world. Is it so unreasonable to believe, that should god exist, that should god interact with our world, these interactions would be measurable? I do not believe it is.

Should there be a god, is it so unreasonable to believe that it would follow a set of rules wholly incompatible with our universe? I find it far more reasonable to postulate that god would be an extension of the known laws of physics and matter, and act through them.


----------



## vampiregenocide

You can't quite put a word to someones beliefs and have it completely describe them all the time. Belief systems are as complex as the human minds that create them. However, we do have various dictionaries and whatnot which let us know the basic meaning of these terms so we can better learn how to apply them to ourselves, meaning they aren't as 'open to interpretation' as we'd like to think. It just takes some research into what different beliefs there are in order to better understand where you sit in it all.


----------



## Miek

vampiregenocide said:


> You can't quite put a word to someones beliefs and have it completely describe them all the time. Belief systems are as complex as the human minds that create them. However, we do have various dictionaries and whatnot which let us know the basic meaning of these terms so we can better learn how to apply them to ourselves, meaning they aren't as 'open to interpretation' as we'd like to think. It just takes some research into what different beliefs there are in order to better understand where you sit in it all.


Of course, but when it comes to theism versus atheism, it's a rather binary situation. You either believe in a god or god(s), or you don't. It is possible to believe there is a possibility for the existence of a god, and not believe. That would make one an atheist. It is possible to believe there is a god, but not believe in a single religion in existence, in which case one would be a theist. The division between atheism and agnosticism, as far as my knowledge extends, has always been one of something like cultural obedience. I believe it was Charles Darwin who in his many correspondences had an acquaintance dislike the term atheist. He proposed himself agnostic to the existence of god, which, obviously, Darwin himself was. However, the term atheist easily includes this definition.

Now, I absolutely understand where you're coming from, and the two terms, at this point in time *do* have different connotations or implications, and I respect that. However, I believe that the difference between them was created artificially and unnecessarily.


----------



## MF_Kitten

vampiregenocide said:


> Yeah I've heard it used before, tats why I said that chap is half agnostic half atheist' or an 'agnostic atheist' seeing as he fit that description.
> 
> And thats fair man. I believe that there is possibly a God or something that perhaps is similar, but we don't know enough to know for sure right now, hence I consider myself an agnostic theist. As I said before, I feel like God may be the act of creation itself, a force or process underlying all nature like evolution, rather than the creator itself.



Yeah, that sounds like the right use. You recognize that you don't believe we can PROVE the existence of a deity or "higher being", even though you believe there to be such a thing, because you have faith.

I would say that this is the definition of faith too though. To believe where one cannot know, to take a "leap of faith", and trust it. That is the premise of many religions, and sadly the part that many religious (somehow mostly christians it seems) people forget. They say that they KNOW that god exists for sure, and can prove it with their (mangled) version of science. Yet they say they have faith.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I don't know if I have 'faith' per se; if the existence of a God was disproved, it probably wouldn't bother me. I just have this feeling that the perfection and sheer complexity of nature is implies something else is going on, something far greater than we can understand. While I am completely behind science, I do think that perhaps there are some questions beyond answering, some things beyond explanation. Faith is too strong a word for what I believe; I'd amount it to a suspicion, the phrase 'what if?' is always in my mind.


----------



## Miek

That is a very healthy and commendable attitude, and necessary for the skeptical mindset, but as it stands, I would say that the existence of god needs to be proved, rather than disproved.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Oh yeah thats true. Like I said I'm more behind science than anything else. I'm not bothered about the existence of a God or not, as I have one life that I know for sure of and I'm going to live that as I see fit. If theres something else, I'll find out when I die.


----------



## Xaios

Heh, funny observation: all the quibbling about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism resembles a debate that Christian legalists would have, full of definitions and pedantry. Who the hell cares about all the semantics? Beyond being a Protestant, I have no idea how I would define my particular belief set, as I was raised by parents who went to various churches based on the merits of the church, not because of the denominational assembly that the church was part of. I've attended Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite and non-denominational churches, and yet I don't ascribe any of those titles to what I believe.

Just be what you are. You don't gain anything by mounting your beliefs on a plaque with latin dyno labels describing the genus.


----------



## MF_Kitten

Xaios said:


> Heh, funny observation: all the quibbling about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism resembles a debate that Christian legalists would have, full of definitions and pedantry. Who the hell cares about all the semantics? Beyond being a Protestant, I have no idea how I would define my particular belief set, as I was raised by parents who went to various churches based on the merits of the church, not because of the denominational assembly that the church was part of. I've attended Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite and non-denominational churches, and yet I don't ascribe any of those titles to what I believe.
> 
> Just be what you are. You don't gain anything by mounting your beliefs on a plaque with latin dyno labels describing the genus.



This is true in all casual settings, but it's useful to put yourself on either side of the fence in order to show what you are talking about, using your own beliefs to fill the debate out as it goes on.

As Sam Harris has pointed out seeral times, the word Atheist is actually useless and shouldn't be needed. The only reason we use it, is because people expect everyone to belong to a group or belief set. There's really no way around it, until we get rid of that way of thinking.

Atheism is not believing, and nothing more. The list of things we are all atheist in regards to is never-ending. Leprechauns, fairies, santa claus... We simply do not believe in the existence od these. Yet we don't say that we are atheistic about it or something. It just isn't an issue. As Dawkins said also, religious people are also atheists toward the ge amount of gods that have existed in the past, in norse mythology, in greek mythology... Atheists just go one god further.

So really, the definition "atheist" is stupid in itself, but sadly we have to use it to show that we are a part of society, and not just stray individuals or something, who lost their ways. That's the only good reason to use the word.

Trying to reply to someone about qyour belief by saying you don't have a belief always confuses people. It shouldn't, but it does.

This is typical of humanity though. If you act differently, or dress differently, frpm the rest of the guys in high school, you can expect to be bullied. You shouldn't have to expect something as dumb and pointless as that, but you just kinda have to.


----------



## Mettle209

I am a practicing Christian and am a member of the Christian & Missonary Alliance (C&MA). I am also planning to and will attend Seminary soon to obatin a Masters in Divinity (M. Div.). I am Hmong American and the religion of the Hmong people prior to the 1970s and the Secret War in Laos was and still is shaminsim and Ancestor Worship. Growing up Hmong American, the spirit world (both good and bad) was never disputed and oftetimes was quite real and tangible. My uncles from my mother's side of the family are prominant Shamans in the local Hmong community but my family has long denounced it due to what they call being "slave to the devil." Although this is disputable, from my personal experience and shared experiences with others, the spirit world is quite real and every now and then it intrudes on our reality. For me, this is enough "facts" (I use this term loosely here) to realize that there is a world beyond our own and thus a compassionate God in the person of Jesus Christ is not so farfecthed. Laslty, I admire the life and teaching of Jesus Christ through the Bible. Disclaimer: I am not out to nor do I like to bash "Faiths." This is only my opinion of course, and we are all entitled to our own opinions and views. However, I do consider myself a very critical, pragmatic Christian that borders heressy at times.


----------



## jaredowty

Xaios said:


> Heh, funny observation: all the quibbling about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism resembles a debate that Christian legalists would have, full of definitions and pedantry. Who the hell cares about all the semantics? Beyond being a Protestant, I have no idea how I would define my particular belief set, as I was raised by parents who went to various churches based on the merits of the church, not because of the denominational assembly that the church was part of. I've attended Lutheran, Pentecostal, Mennonite and non-denominational churches, and yet I don't ascribe any of those titles to what I believe.
> 
> Just be what you are. You don't gain anything by mounting your beliefs on a plaque with latin dyno labels describing the genus.



Well, since this is a thread about religion, discussions of categories of religion are inevitable, right? If you would have taken your own advice you wouldn't of listed yourself as protestant or christian in the first place. "Just be what you are".


----------



## Xaios

jaredowty said:


> Well, since this is a thread about religion, discussions of categories of religion are inevitable, right? If you would have taken your own advice you wouldn't of listed yourself as protestant or christian in the first place. "Just be what you are".



I figured someone would bring this up when I said it. I believe that Protestantism has a basic enough definition that no one really argues about it. Even the meaning of the term "Christian" is debated far more. So in that sense, I believe that "Protestant" is a safe enough term to use without having to drag everything through the muck.



And now, having said that, that's EXACTLY what will happen.


----------



## AcousticMinja

Dunno.
I believe what I want. I have two sides of everything.
There is always a possibility for absolutely everything. I believe in the infinite everything. Life is ever changing, we discover things we never knew would be possible. To rule out the existence of anything is turning your back on the unknown. 
Long story short, I guess I am "agnostic", only because I dont deny or say God exists. Shit happens, and there is science behind it all, but we can't understand everything. But thats what makes life so awesome. It's a journey. Life is about learning and discovering. Who knows, the human mind is so complex, we may all live inside our minds in electromagnetic harmony with the universe when we die.
Or, we could all go await the ultimate judge.
You just don't know.
But I like not knowing, it's fun to just have your imagination run wild with the possibilities of life after death...or ultimate nothingness. It's scary, but also awesome.


----------



## daemon barbeque

I too believe in spiritual energy, gut feeling, life energy. I myself witnessed many of those things first hand. I also have a strong 6. sense, which is sometimes very frightening.
But, all of these have nothing to do with a God.
IMHO, you can't say " you can't explain the soul, so there is a god" argument. Yes, there might be soul, undying energy, other stuff that we can't explain for now. But I accept, that I don't know for certain. I too search for the answers and explanations, but those answers doesn't seem to be in religion. Just because we don't know something for today, we should't just accept myths as answers.


----------



## vampiregenocide

MF_Kitten said:


> This is true in all casual settings, but it's useful to put yourself on either side of the fence in order to show what you are talking about, using your own beliefs to fill the debate out as it goes on.
> 
> As Sam Harris has pointed out seeral times, the word Atheist is actually useless and shouldn't be needed. The only reason we use it, is because people expect everyone to belong to a group or belief set. There's really no way around it, until we get rid of that way of thinking.
> 
> Atheism is not believing, and nothing more. The list of things we are all atheist in regards to is never-ending. Leprechauns, fairies, santa claus... We simply do not believe in the existence od these. Yet we don't say that we are atheistic about it or something. It just isn't an issue. As Dawkins said also, religious people are also atheists toward the ge amount of gods that have existed in the past, in norse mythology, in greek mythology... Atheists just go one god further.
> 
> So really, the definition "atheist" is stupid in itself, but sadly we have to use it to show that we are a part of society, and not just stray individuals or something, who lost their ways. That's the only good reason to use the word.
> 
> Trying to reply to someone about qyour belief by saying you don't have a belief always confuses people. It shouldn't, but it does.
> 
> This is typical of humanity though. If you act differently, or dress differently, frpm the rest of the guys in high school, you can expect to be bullied. You shouldn't have to expect something as dumb and pointless as that, but you just kinda have to.


 

I kinda disagree with your post. I'm of the opinion that non-belief is still a believe. You can't not believe in something, even if that is choosing to believe in nothing.

Secondly, you can't compare atheism to leprechauns and santa claus...those are myths, fairy tales and not Gods which is what atheism refers to (theist coming from the Greek theos meaning God). I know you might say well they hold the same weight in terms of evidence compared to religion, but you have to keep things in context. Comparing religion to all the other myths and legends mankind has created only distorts your view of what you're actualy talking about, and puts you farther away from actually understanding the religion itself. Not believing in something is not the same as atheism. I can't be atheist regarding certain unproven scientific theories. 

And Dawkin's is wrong regarding his believe that all religious people choose to believe in a God/Gods and therefore are atheist regarding all other proposed Gods. Atheism is a broad rejection of a God/Gods, not specific ones. You can't be an atheist if you believe in a God, it goes against the very meaning of the word.

I know a lot of atheists prefer to distance themselves from belief because that is seen as becoming a religion in itself, and while I think it is a belief, it has a way to go before becoming a religion. There's no specific creed attached to atheism, and so it *currently* can't be considered a religion. As far as atheists being bullied and whatnot, atheists are in the majority in most economically developed countries, and even then those people who are religious tend to be fairly tolerant regarding atheism. It's only the small extremist groups that persist that atheism is the road to eternal suffering.


----------



## dooredge

I am a Christian (meaning I believe in Jesus Christ, "god" is too generic a term for me). I've seen too much evidence in my own life to not believe. 

Why people don't believe in something baffles me really. I've heard it said it takes more faith _not_ to believe, than _to_ believe.

I am not sure that I've ever met a _true _atheist. In my opinion few people _really_ are, because that means _blind faith_ in the strange proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowhere. In short, life would be void of any real meaning. That doesn't work for me.


----------



## jaredowty

dooredge said:


> Why people don't believe in something baffles me really. I've heard it said it takes more faith _not_ to believe, than _to_ believe.
> 
> I am not sure that I've ever met a _true _atheist. In my opinion few people _really_ are, because that means _blind faith_ in the strange proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowhere. In short, life would be void of any real meaning. That doesn't work for me.



Who created God? I mean, I hear people of faith mentioning how everything could not of come from nothing. So if God = Everything, then where did he come from? Nothing?


----------



## ArkaneDemon

dooredge said:


> Why people don't believe in something baffles me really. I've heard it said it takes more faith _not_ to believe, than _to_ believe.
> 
> I am not sure that I've ever met a _true _atheist. In my opinion few people _really_ are, because that means _blind faith_ in the strange proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowhere. In short, life would be void of any real meaning. That doesn't work for me.



Ascribing meaning based on nothing but a hunch of "well I can't explain this so it must have been created by God" is pretty foolish.

You're taking the term blind faith in a completely wrong direction. A lot of atheists are very scientific and rational thinkers, and not so much "well, I think it's this way just because". 

I don't see how it takes less faith to put all your money on a big man in the sky as opposed to branching out into a multitude of possibilities and thinking past your own meaningless existence. You're on a speck of dust out of 100 billion specks of dust, with 100 billion collections of 100 billion specks of dust 13.7 billion light years across. I'm sorry, I must be completely irrational to not believe that all of this was created for _me.

_Just because something doesn't work for you doesn't make it false.


----------



## SenorDingDong

I believe in God, i pray too, but i don't follow a set religion, I don't believe God necessarily wants us to worship in that fashion, as long we are good people and do good things, and pray, we will be a-o-k


----------



## daemon barbeque

dooredge said:


> I am a Christian (meaning I believe in Jesus Christ, "god" is too generic a term for me). I've seen too much evidence in my own life to not believe.
> 
> Why people don't believe in something baffles me really. I've heard it said it takes more faith _not_ to believe, than _to_ believe.
> 
> I am not sure that I've ever met a _true _atheist. In my opinion few people _really_ are, because that means _blind faith_ in the strange proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowhere. In short, life would be void of any real meaning. That doesn't work for me.



It needs not faith, but balls to be a real atheist. Overcoming the very deep lying Fears, not able to praying for something, believing in only yourself and your own strength to overcome problems. Yes, it need something more, but that is not faith.
An Atheist doesn't propose something. He/she tries to understand all of it, try to explain with evidence in hand. Trying to put a meaning, therefore believing in a superior being is not what an Atheist would do. It is also not "logical" to find the meaning of life in a superior beings service. Pray, believe, do this, sacrifice, don't do this etc. Being a good person for the sake of virgins on the other side, or being a good person just because of the fear from the depths of hell doesn't make sense for an atheist. 
I just tell these to clarify my viewpoint, and the reason why I am an atheist.

And for the last time. Atheism is not a belief. It is lack there of.


----------



## vampiregenocide

jaredowty said:


> Who created God? I mean, I hear people of faith mentioning how everything could not of come from nothing. So if God = Everything, then where did he come from? Nothing?


 
One would assume he's ever present, ever existing and therefore was never created. Kinda like the Joker in the Dark Knight. You never found out how he became that way, he just is the Joker.


----------



## Miek

Science and empiricism is the very opposite of faith. It does not take any faith to disbelieve in the supernatural.


----------



## aslsmm

The thread title should be changed to "what kind of non believer are you?"

Even though there are no out right attacks on being christian (aside from a few braind dead comments from a certain member that i find to be very annoying) there is still a lack of respect for the beliefs of the christian faith. comparing god to the joker is sacreligious to us. Yeah i know its a joke not ment to offend and im not offended, im just saying it shows the lack of respect for people who happen to believe in god. the same with camparing the bible to "fairy tales", saying that a beliefe in christ is horrific, assuming one is christian because of fear or that its ignorant to believe a an all mighty power when the lack of evidence is "so overwhelming". Which isnt true. there is eveidence on both sides that back up and leave questions about the beliefs. im not bitchin about it, i know what is thought of the christian beliefs on this forum, but to ask what faith a person is a touchy question that most people wouldnt answer, so when they do answer treating their beliefs with disrespect just shows very poor taste. 

Im assuming there will be a few "these are just our opinions, chill out man." posts following this. im just saying if your opinion is disrepectful then maybe you should keep it to yourself or phrase it in away that isnt so belittling. like i said im not offended at any single comment just at the lack of respect and all the effort to prove christianity or god wrong. i remember one member saying he believed in mythology, there was no disrepectful comments about that, just a few "thats bad ass" posts.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I don't see how my likening of the Joker to God in the context I was saying could be construed as offensive, I was merely saying how they are both are seen as beings of a constant existence, we don't know how they come about we just know who/what they are. It was the only comparison I could think of, I wasn't implying that the fictional existence of the Joker is any bearing on the existence of any God. That could be considered offensive, but if you find what I said upsetting then I think you should be stronger regarding your faith. It's what you believe and its yours alone no one can take that from you; if you truly believe it what some person says on the internet shouldn't matter. Besides, I'm not against the existence of a God myself so to comment on that in such away would be going against my own beliefs to an extent.

Also I wasn't referring to a Christian God, as is often the assumption when the word 'God' is brought up. Most of the time when I refer to that word I'm talking in the general sense of a non-specific deity.

I can however, see that likening God to a fairy tale would be offensive, which is why I defended that point in my post before last. 

If you were referring to any of my posts, I suggest you read al the other posts I have made in this thread, as I think you've misunderstood my posts and opinions. if you're referring to me of course, I know a few people in this thread have been a little less than graceful in their wish to understand the faiths of others. That was my wish with this thread, but it has brought up the subject of atheism very heavily which is no suprise as it is the most common belief in a lot of the countries that most of the posters on this forum are from.


----------



## aslsmm

hey man i wasnt offended by it i was saying that it showed a lack of respect. my faith is strong enough in my religin (calling my faith into question is offensive) and yes i have seen you comment on some posts that were less than respectful. 

just pointing out the fact that there is a lack of respect for christianity. An example is this. if some one says "that is so gay" they get hit with "your such a bigot to say that." but if someone says "jesus fucking christ thats awesome" there is nothing. im not a ss.org hall monitor but that seems a bit off balence to me. i love this forum and i have enjoyed this thread for the most part but there is deffinatly a lack of respect for the christian beliefes. 

also if i got offended at some one calling me gay (providing i was gay) and deffended it, no one would say "i suggest you get more comfortable with your sexual orientation." do you follow?


----------



## ArkaneDemon

There is too much respect for Christianity. Way more than it deserves.


----------



## aslsmm

ArkaneDemon said:


> There is too much respect for Christianity. Way more than it deserves.


 
point proved. its not a respect for christianity, its a respect for christian members of the forum. that right there is just as prejudice as hating on race or sexual orientation.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I sort of see what you're saying. I don't respect the Christian faith, I don't personally see anything in it and it has caused far too much trouble throughout history for me, but I will respect individuals who follow it and give them the time of day. I wouldn't mean to outright offend someones beliefs directly.

Also likening homosexuality or race to religion is not something I completely agree with. Those are two very different things and I imagine a few people might actually get offended by that.

I'm sorry if I offended you and if it seemed like I was questioning your faith, I was merely commenting how I believed my comment was relatively tame and so found it odd that you would call it out. Perhaps I should have worded myself better.


I'm starting to think this thread has run its course.


----------



## Randy

*The problem here is the amount of "fingers in my ears" type rhetoric that always gets brought out here. That's actually the reason why I locked the P.U.S.H. thread when I did... the first three posts started with "I didn't read the article but... BLAH BLAH BLAH". Then why the fuck come in here? Why? To make your point and leave? That's not a discussion, that's a soapbox.

The point of this thread was originally to just SAY what your religion is, and move on. Eventually the trajectory changed a bit, and it became focused on where your beliefs come from, etc. A little liquid but informative. When it became a problem was when it became "Oh, if you don't believe in God you're an idiot" or "If you believe in God you're an idiot". All passive aggressive swipes at one another, nobody with the balls to just directly address anybody here. Thank you for ruining this thread and being a ball-less, closed minded fuckwhit; you'll all know who you are based on if you're offended by reading this.

The thread stays open and the tone gets changed, or I'll keep banning people until only the civil bunch are left.*

Ross, you didn't say anything wrong so ignore him.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Thanks Randy. My intention was never for people to question each others faiths, but to ask questions _about_ them. Religion is an interesting thing and hopefully by better understanding it we can become more tolerant of one another. I feel this is something we don't do enough as a society, we just have our opinions and thats it. We never talk about them, never challenge them and just treat religion on face value. Some people look at Christianity and its history, and think pain and suffering + lack of evidence must = stupid people, when in fact that is not true. This thread has taught me a lot about what different Christians believe, and that it is a far more complex faith individually that I previously thought. I hope that if I got something out of it, then more people can do the same.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

vampiregenocide said:


> I feel this is something we don't do enough as a society, we just have our opinions and thats it. We never talk about them, never challenge them.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Randy

vampiregenocide said:


> Thanks Randy. My intention was never for people to question each others faiths, but to ask questions _about_ them. Religion is an interesting thing and hopefully by better understanding it we can become more tolerant of one another. I feel this is something we don't do enough as a society, we just have our opinions and thats it. We never talk about them, never challenge them and just treat religion on face value. Some people look at Christianity and its history, and think pain and suffering + lack of evidence must = stupid people, when in fact that is not true. This thread has taught me a lot about what different Christians believe, and that it is a far more complex faith individually that I previously thought. I hope that if I got something out of it, then more people can do the same.


^
And that right there is what intelligent discussion and even debate is about.


----------



## jaredowty

aslsmm said:


> The thread title should be changed to "what kind of non believer are you?"
> 
> Even though there are no out right attacks on being christian (aside from a few braind dead comments from a certain member that i find to be very annoying) there is still a lack of respect for the beliefs of the christian faith. comparing god to the joker is sacreligious to us. Yeah i know its a joke not ment to offend and im not offended, im just saying it shows the lack of respect for people who happen to believe in god. the same with camparing the bible to "fairy tales", saying that a beliefe in christ is horrific, assuming one is christian because of fear or that its ignorant to believe a an all mighty power when the lack of evidence is "so overwhelming". Which isnt true. there is eveidence on both sides that back up and leave questions about the beliefs. im not bitchin about it, i know what is thought of the christian beliefs on this forum, but to ask what faith a person is a touchy question that most people wouldnt answer, so when they do answer treating their beliefs with disrespect just shows very poor taste.
> 
> Im assuming there will be a few "these are just our opinions, chill out man." posts following this. im just saying if your opinion is disrepectful then maybe you should keep it to yourself or phrase it in away that isnt so belittling. like i said im not offended at any single comment just at the lack of respect and all the effort to prove christianity or god wrong. i remember one member saying he believed in mythology, there was no disrepectful comments about that, just a few "thats bad ass" posts.



EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see the posts by Randy and vampiregenocide. Figured I'd let that debate die.


----------



## Randy

ArkaneDemon said:


> My thoughts exactly.



Well that varies widely depending on where you live. NYS, and the bulk of the northeast US, is one of the "least churched" areas of the United States. I grew up on open atheism and agnosticism... most of the people I know are adamantly anti-Christian and make every effort to "preach" about the stupidity of Christianity every chance they get. In fact, I was at an Acacia Strain show yesterday and they played "Jesus Fucking Christ", to which he opened with how he was dedicating the song to all the atheists out there, asked everybody to raise their hand if they were "Atheist, Agnostic, Nihilist or just hate Jesus Christ and the idea of him", to which the whole room raised their hands, and he let a chant of "fuck you" while they looked up in the sky and pumped middle fingers. This wasn't exactly a Deicide show, so I didn't necessarily expect this.

In my world "questioning the norm" is probably very different than your's.


----------



## lookralphsbak

Raised a Catholic, fell out of faith, became atheist, but I tell people I'm agnostic... I don't believe in God... Frankly I think he/it/whatever is as real as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I don't believe in a heaven or hell although I believe in ghosts.

Even though I have atheistic beliefs I tell people I'm agnostic because I think that labeling yourself as an atheist can have negative connotations.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I've had more encounters with preachy Atheists than any other belief, which further strengthens the point that it's not the faith that is the issue, its the people who follow it.


----------



## lookralphsbak

vampiregenocide said:


> I've had more encounters with preachy Atheists than any other belief, which further strengthens the point that it's not the faith that is the issue, its the people who follow it.


Yea true, works with Christians as well.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Well I was implying that is the case with any faith.


----------



## lookralphsbak

vampiregenocide said:


> Well I was implying that is the case with any faith.


Yea. Personally, whenever I tell someone I don't believe in God or when I would say I'm an atheist I would get that "what" look or an "oh", as if they had never met someone that didn't believe in God and are some how confused as to how someone can't believe. I feel like the reaction I get saying agnostic is better than the reaction I get saying atheist.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Fortitude - we all need it. If you don't have it, get some.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

Randy said:


> Well that varies widely depending on where you live. NYS, and the bulk of the northeast US, is one of the "least churched" areas of the United States. I grew up on open atheism and agnosticism... most of the people I know are adamantly anti-Christian and make every effort to "preach" about the stupidity of Christianity every chance they get. In fact, I was at an Acacia Strain show yesterday and they played "Jesus Fucking Christ", to which he opened with how he was dedicating the song to all the atheists out there, asked everybody to raise their hand if they were "Atheist, Agnostic, Nihilist or just hate Jesus Christ and the idea of him", to which the whole room raised their hands, and he let a chant of "fuck you" while they looked up in the sky and pumped middle fingers. This wasn't exactly a Deicide shows, so I didn't necessarily expect this.
> 
> In my world "questioning the norm" is probably very different than your's.



Even I would have been offended by that Acacia Strain thing, and I'm atheist. There's one thing to not believe in Christianity and whatnot, but an entirely new concept altogether when you pull stupid shit like that.

I live close to Toronto, Canada, and a huge majority of the population is Christian or Muslim or other stuff like that. I'm the kind of guy who will sit there and listen to what you have to say about your faith, and at the end of it I will have learned something new. I won't agree with you, but I won't jump in your face yelling "ACACIA STRAIN RULZ". I mean, what Acacia Strain said .

It sucks though, when I'm the one sitting there being passive and listening and forming an opinion based on multiple ideas presented to me by the person speaking to me, and yet I'm the one getting shit thrown in my direction for not believing what you believe. I find it insulting that I have to put up with so much shit and get treated like less than a human being, but if I were to call those beliefs absurd, everyone within a 50 mile radius will get butthurt and play the intolerance and prejudice card on me. Double standards much?

But no, I don't respect beliefs, I respect people, I _tolerate_ beliefs. Respect is earned, not given away, at least in my book. Where I live, I try to keep my mouth shut because if someone is forced to listen to what I have to say, I'm an intolerant asshole who doesn't care about anybody's belief. So why should I respect something that doesn't even have the slightest shred of respect for me.



vampiregenocide said:


> I've had more encounters with preachy Atheists than any other belief, which further strengthens the point that it's not the faith that is the issue, its the people who follow it.



Really? I've met plenty of atheists, but I guess since they all live where I live and we all get flak for what we are, we all just shut our mouths lest we be called intolerant heathens. HOW DARE WE HAVE OUR OWN SET OF VALUES? 



lookralphsbak said:


> Even though I have atheistic beliefs I tell people I'm agnostic because I think that labeling yourself as an atheist can have negative connotations.



I've sort of done that in the past as well. I've tried agnostic atheist on for size (cause that's what I am), but people we're all "WUT?" so I dropped it. But now I just say, when asked, that I'm an atheist to simplify things. Labelling yourself an atheist does have negative connotations, which shows how ignorant people are when they're allowed to preach their business and gospel and demand respect and tolerance and have the ability to say what they want, even if it's offensive, without anyone having the possibility of saying something back to them, lest they be cast off as heretics or intolerant bigots, while atheists, a huge minority, are smeared with shit at the mention of atheism. I'm speaking strictly for what I've experienced in my area, and not for everyone, of course.

It goes something like this:

"Hi I'm a Christian"
"Cool"
"Hi I'm a Muslim"
"Cool"
"Hi I'm a Hindu"
"Cool"
"Hi I'm a Buddhist"
"Cool"
"Hi I'm an ath..."
"HEATHEN! HERETIC! GODLESS MORON! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING YOU NEED SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN I'M GONNA SAVE YOU FROM EVIL YOU HAVE NO MORALS GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU'RE WORTH LESS THAN HALF A HUMAN YOUR OPINIONS ARE WRONG AND INVALID"

True story.


----------



## Randy

ArkaneDemon said:


> Really? I've met plenty of atheists, but I guess since they all live where I live and we all get flak for what we are, we all just shut our mouths lest we be called intolerant heathens. HOW DARE WE HAVE OUR OWN SET OF VALUES?



Well, lest we forget, he's from the same country as Christopher Hitchen who, regardless of your religious views or how smart the guy is overall, is one of the most pompous people on the planet Earth.


----------



## lookralphsbak

ArkaneDemon said:


> It goes something like this:
> 
> "Hi I'm a Christian"
> "Cool"
> "Hi I'm a Muslim"
> "Cool"
> "Hi I'm a Hindu"
> "Cool"
> "Hi I'm a Buddhist"
> "Cool"
> "Hi I'm an ath..."
> "HEATHEN! HERETIC! GODLESS MORON! HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IN NOTHING YOU NEED SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN I'M GONNA SAVE YOU FROM EVIL YOU HAVE NO MORALS GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU'RE WORTH LESS THAN HALF A HUMAN YOUR OPINIONS ARE WRONG AND INVALID"
> 
> True story.


That's never happened to me haha; I live in NYC, a fairly liberal city, so people for the most part are open minded. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a growing percentage of people that identify either agnostic, atheist, or non denominational. I know that atheism in the USA is on the rise which I think is good.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Randy said:


> Well, lest we forget, he's from the same country as Christopher Hitchen who, regardless of your religious views or how smart the guy is overall, is one of the most pompous people on the planet Earth.


 
I had to google him, but I recognise him.


----------



## tacotiklah

Randy said:


> Well, lest we forget, he's from the same country as Christopher Hitchen who, regardless of your religious views or how smart the guy is overall, is one of the most pompous people on the planet Earth.



QFT. 

One thing that I try to get people to understand during debates is that there needs to be a certain form of civility and a willingness to have an open mind. Being ridiculously militant regarding your beliefs is a guaranteed way to piss somebody off and causes most everybody else to not give a damn about what it is that you have to say. 

I see this problem occur from both atheist and non-atheist alike. It strikes me as funny (not in a ha-ha way either) that for all each side tries to do to separate themselves from the other side, they become increasingly alike.

Reason for this imo, is the simple indisputable fact that we're all human.

I guess as a way to tie this in with beliefs, I'll state my beliefs on this subject as well.

The thing with individual thought is that we try so hard to PROVE we're individual to both ourselves and to others, that we completely ignore even the most basic things that we have in common. It leads to a horrid form of posturing and it's from this posturing that stems things like racism, bigotry, and the school of thought known as "I know it all". 

Now I'm not saying that everyone should be robots without thoughts and ideas of their own (in fact I'm an advocate AGAINST such a thing)
But the problem I'm finding there is that everybody is so militant with their beliefs that all chance of looking at the world through a different set of eyes is lost. This to me is a real tragedy. Perhaps the world would be better if atheists were to walk in the shoes of a christian for a day and vice-versa. If you were to ask me what I think of when God is mentioned, I would probably say that it's a being with the capacity of that kind of understanding. In that kind of understanding there is love for your fellow man. If I were to get preachy, I would remind fellow christians that that is the greatest commandment that Jesus gave us. In His own words, he said, "Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself. Of all the commandments there are none greater than these."

If a person were to break down the meaning of those 2 sentences, they would would probably ask themselves, "what is love?"
Well going from what I know love to be, it would be the definition that you'd find in the bible. "Love is patient, love is kind, love is understanding."




tl;dr version:
to anyone that posts in this thread regarding their beliefs:
Before you post long insulting words about what a person believes in (regardless of what that belief is), remember that the key to living a happier, more peaceful life with other people is by you not being a dickbag to said other people.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

ghstofperdition said:


> they would would probably ask themselves, "what is love?"



Baby don't hurt me.

I had to, I'm sorry


----------



## Scar Symmetry

ghstofperdition said:


> One thing that I try to get people to understand during debates is that there needs to be a certain form of civility and a willingness to have an open mind. Being ridiculously militant regarding your beliefs is a guaranteed way to piss somebody off and causes most everybody else to not give a damn about what it is that you have to say.
> 
> I see this problem occur from both atheist and non-atheist alike. It strikes me as funny (not in a ha-ha way either) that for all each side tries to do to separate themselves from the other side, they become increasingly alike.
> 
> Reason for this imo, is the simple indisputable fact that we're all human.
> 
> I guess as a way to tie this in with beliefs, I'll state my beliefs on this subject as well.
> 
> The thing with individual thought is that we try so hard to PROVE we're individual to both ourselves and to others, that we completely ignore even the most basic things that we have in common. It leads to a horrid form of posturing and it's from this posturing that stems things like racism, bigotry, and the school of thought known as "I know it all".
> 
> Now I'm not saying that everyone should be robots without thoughts and ideas of their own (in fact I'm an advocate AGAINST such a thing)
> But the problem I'm finding there is that everybody is so militant with their beliefs that all chance of looking at the world through a different set of eyes is lost. This to me is a real tragedy. Perhaps the world would be better if atheists were to walk in the shoes of a christian for a day and vice-versa. If you were to ask me what I think of when God is mentioned, I would probably say that it's a being with the capacity of that kind of understanding. In that kind of understanding there is love for your fellow man. If I were to get preachy, I would remind fellow christians that that is the greatest commandment that Jesus gave us. In His own words, he said, "Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself. Of all the commandments there are none greater than these."



Agreed.

The key is to be comfortable in your own opinion without being so comfortable with it that you ridicule others. There has to be balance. If you're too comfortable with what you believe and bag on other people for not being as smart as you, you're a dick. If you know what you believe but you get upset when someone says they don't believe the same thing, you're a dick too.

Balance is all it is, finding that happy medium where it's good for you and good for other people. It's really not *that* difficult. Sway from the line slightly either way from time to time to keep things interesting, but never let it get to the stage where you upset yourself or others, or if you do say something that could be interpreted as such, make sure the relevant party involved is prepared and willing.

Having a good sense of humour and not taking it all too seriously also really helps. If you can laugh at your own viewpoint and you know the people you're talking to can too, chances are neither of you is going to get butthurt over a conversation about beliefs.


----------



## The Reverend

I wish I lived where some of you guys did. My whole life, or at least since I started thinking about these things, I've been a non-believer, and expressing that in any form has rarely been a positive experience. I was definitely a closet atheist, ashamed of not being able to believe. I'm assuming it's because I live in the South though, which for my money is the most devout place in America, Bible-belt be damned.

Also, I believe it was vampiregenocide who made this point, back before the thread derailing, I'd have to argue from personal experience (which is the weakest soapbox to stand on, I know) that non-belief is a belief. Like I said, babies are atheists. I've actually thought about an interesting experiment where we would take babies and raise them in some sort of Truman Show set, where they would go about being hunter-gatherers, and seeing what would happen. I strongly doubt they would even come up with the concept of a higher power for at least a few generations. It's not a natural position to take. 

There were also some posts that were along the lines of "I don't have the faith to be an atheist" or something similar to that, to which I have say you should look into the definition of faith, and not just the Hebrews 11 one (although the first part of it proves the point, sorta ). Faith in this context is believing or acting on something for which there is no proof. In that sense, saying you have faith in God is less respectable than saying you believe in God. 

I personally respect _anyone _has really delved into their beliefs, and considered others' with an open mind much more than those who have blindly accepted whatever the societal norm is for their region. Even if your worldview aligns with whatever the religious cultural majority is, the fact that you took the time to ascertain the truth, however close you feel you can get to it impresses me. It's a marker of intelligence in my book.  

And a silly question: Why is Judaism one of the Big Three religions? There really aren't that many Jews at all in the world. Aside from the obvious reasons, why is it still taught as such in schools?


----------



## DaddleCecapitation

I'm an atheist and have plenty of friends who respect my beliefs and I have respect for other faiths too.

It's bizarre to see all this commotion in America with things like Fox News' War on Christmas/Atheists thing. I saw maybe one news report that mirrored it in Australia, and that was only when the Prime Minister admitted to being an atheist.

I hope that I speak on behalf on all rational, non-preachy atheists that all people have the right to believe whatever they want. When an atheist goes all "Passion of the Dawkins" and says that religion is a bane on humanity, it's probably an overstatement.

It's not those of faith that atheists hate, it's the creationists who attempt to undermine science. Man I hate those guys!

Funny Creationist Quote: "The design of the moth's eye points to evidence of an intelligent creator. Why don't we have this knowledge? seeing as we were have supposed to have evolved from moths."


----------



## unitas

Catholic. Pax vobiscum.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

dooredge said:


> Why people don't believe in something baffles me really.



Why people believe in anything (aside from possibilities) baffles me and a lot of other people. 

All I'll add is that I respect people's right to believe in whatever they want, and would defend the shit out of it if it came down to it, but that doesn't necessitate a respect for the beliefs themselves.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Why people believe in anything (aside from possibilities) baffles me and a lot of other people.
> 
> All I'll add is that I respect people's right to believe in whatever they want, and would defend the shit out of it if it came down to it, but that doesn't necessitate a respect for the beliefs themselves.



Are you my clone or some shit? You're like...me.


----------



## Varcolac

The Reverend said:


> And a silly question: Why is Judaism one of the Big Three religions? There really aren't that many Jews at all in the world. Aside from the obvious reasons, why is it still taught as such in schools?



Silly answer: Israel lobby.

Less-silly answer: they're less the Big Three (Slayer! Oh wait that's big four...) than just the Abrahamic faiths, and as the first, you sort of need to "get" Judaism to get its descendents.


----------



## RenegadeDave

I would answer this question over a year ago as probably agnostic, but now I would answer it unequivocally and unabashedly Christian. Each year i found myself making little resolutions to continually "improve" myself, then when I started working on being more generous and humble, I finally got over myself to accept the possibility that I wasn't the greatest. I realized all of my little improvements I had been striving for were essentially biblical virtues, so I eventually got over my ego to the point where I could accept I was/had the capacity to be wrong and made peace with it. 

I've been far more at peace since coming to terms with my new belief, i realize my "agnosticism" really fell more into the "mystery of faith" realm, which really essentially is what agnosticism is. How can a finite mind contemplate the infinite? How can you ask a blind man to describe what he think the color red looks like? All in all, I believe the scripture to be a series of parables that contain the truth, much like most stories have "morals". 

More recently as well i realize that a lot of the mysticism and spirituality is not mutually exclusive apart from Christianity, just somehow got neutered from it in the western practice for one reason or another. 

Christianity, when practiced what I understand to be "correctly" is essentially like Buddhism. You stop envying others, you start acting with compassion, you become content with what you have, because what you have is God inside of you. The rest is just window dressing.


----------



## RenegadeDave

jaredowty said:


> Who created God? I mean, I hear people of faith mentioning how everything could not of come from nothing. So if God = Everything, then where did he come from? Nothing?



You realize the Christian creed essentially acknowledges that there is no one or nothing before God, right? 

There are many mysteries of the Christian faith.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

RenegadeDave said:


> I would answer this question over a year ago as probably agnostic, but now I would answer it unequivocally and unabashedly Christian. Each year i found myself making little resolutions to continually "improve" myself, then when I started working on being more generous and humble, I finally got over myself to accept the possibility that I wasn't the greatest. I realized all of my little improvements I had been striving for were essentially biblical virtues, so I eventually got over my ego to the point where I could accept I was/had the capacity to be wrong and made peace with it.
> 
> I've been far more at peace since coming to terms with my new belief, i realize my "agnosticism" really fell more into the "mystery of faith" realm, which really essentially is what agnosticism is. How can a finite mind contemplate the infinite? How can you ask a blind man to describe what he think the color red looks like? All in all, I believe the scripture to be a series of parables that contain the truth, much like most stories have "morals".
> 
> More recently as well i realize that a lot of the mysticism and spirituality is not mutually exclusive apart from Christianity, just somehow got neutered from it in the western practice for one reason or another.
> 
> Christianity, when practiced what I understand to be "correctly" is essentially like Buddhism. You stop envying others, you start acting with compassion, you become content with what you have, because what you have is God inside of you. The rest is just window dressing.



Why do you need to be a Christian to be more generous or humble? Can't you be a good person for the sake of being a good person?

I'm quite generous and humble, and I do nice things for people all the time. I also don't cheat on my girlfriend, I hardly ever drink, I don't do drugs, etc. In fact, I'm more "Christian" than a lot of so called Christians, with the exception of the believing in god part. I would never identify myself as a Christian. Just because your (or my) behaviors coincide with a religion doesn't mean you have to convert


----------



## lookralphsbak

RenegadeDave said:


> You realize the Christian creed essentially acknowledges that there is no one or nothing before God, right?
> 
> There are many mysteries of the Christian faith.


I don't want to come off as a dick saying this but it's kind of a rebuttal to what you just said:

You do realize that the Christian "creed" essentially ripped off previous religions and belief "systems".


It really boggles my mind how someone can believe in a higher power, more specifically God, when it's so blatantly obvious the story is made up. If you do research on religions or society in general that predate Christian and even Hebrew beliefs you will learn that there were in fact Gods, sons of Gods, virgin mothers, etc that "existed". These stories helped influence the Jewish and essentially the Christian religion. 

When I do have a debate or discussion with a Christian and it gets to the point where no one is leaving as a winner I end up asking "Why are you right? Who's to say that Osiris or Zeus or perhaps the Gods that the Native Americans believed in are the ones that exist? Why does your God have to be the one and only God?"


----------



## Adam Of Angels

RenegadeDave said:


> Christianity, when practiced what I understand to be "correctly" is essentially like Buddhism. You stop envying others, you start acting with compassion, you become content with what you have, *because what you have is God inside of you.* The rest is just window dressing.



This is actually contrary to Christian belief.


----------



## Randy

lookralphsbak said:


> It really boggles my mind how someone can believe in a higher power, more specifically God, when it's so blatantly obvious the story is made up.



And this is what we agreed to not do. See what happens when we do that? We get banned for a week. 

JJ's comments, while directed at Dave, were at least a little "food for thought" like rather than insulting. If anybody has trouble distinguishing one from the other, play it safe and stay the fuck out of here. I'm done with warnings.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is actually contrary to Christian belief.



That's called the "holy spirit". We're going to take a break of attacking eachother's beliefs now, m'kay?

See previous post.


----------



## JPhoenix19

jaredowty said:


> Who created God? I mean, I hear people of faith mentioning how everything could not of come from nothing. So if God = Everything, then where did he come from? Nothing?



Are you familiar with the Kalam argument?




> The premise is that: every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. The conclusion thus follows that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover.



The direct answer to your question is that God did not 'come from' anywhere, nor was he created. He always was, and always is. A being that is not limited by beginnings and ends. Sure, that defies what we know about space, time, and our universe; but since I believe that God created these things I have no problem believing that he is much greater than His creation and thus is not bound by space, time, and our universe.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

JPhoenix19 said:


> Are you familiar with the Kalam argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The direct answer to your question is that God did not 'come from' anywhere, nor was he created. He always was, and always is. A being that is not limited by beginnings and ends. Sure, that defies what we know about space, time, and our universe; but since I believe that God created these things I have no problem believing that he is much greater than His creation and thus is not bound by space, time, and our universe.



In that case why is it any harder to believe the big bang could have created space and time? It seems just as plausible, if not more so.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> That's called the "holy spirit". We're going to take a break of attacking eachother's beliefs now, m'kay?
> 
> See previous post.




I'm not attacking anybody's beliefs - I actually completely agree with him and see "god" as being an internal beingness, but Christians view God as being external to the self. I didn't consider the bit about the Holy Spirit, though.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not attacking anybody's beliefs - I actually completely agree with him and see "god" as being an internal beingness, but Christians view God as being external to the self. I didn't consider the bit about the Holy Spirit, though.



Trust me, if I thought you were, you'd have gotten the same treatment as Ralph.  No problem.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JJ Rodriguez said:


> In that case why is it any harder to believe the big bang could have created space and time? It seems just as plausible, if not more so.



The problem, at least for me, is when you have to ponder what existed before the big bang - something came from nothing - what is nothing?


----------



## Randy

JJ Rodriguez said:


> In that case why is it any harder to believe the big bang could have created space and time? It seems just as plausible, if not more so.



The problem still being that there's no explanation for how all that energy got set off. If it's 100% "action->reaction" or "cause and effect", the circumstances that allowed the big bang to occur couldn't have happened in a vacuum, not related to those same laws.


----------



## JPhoenix19

JJ Rodriguez said:


> In that case why is it any harder to believe the big bang could have created space and time? It seems just as plausible, if not more so.



Edit:  Randy ninja'd me.

It does seem just as plausible at face value. I often wonder if the big bang theory and creation theory really have to be diametrically opposed- assuming you don't take Genesis 1 and 2 literally.






aslsmm said:


> Even though there are no out right attacks on being christian... ...there is still a lack of respect for the beliefs of the christian faith.



I've noticed it as well, and to be honest it bugs me from time to time.


----------



## Randy

If science relies on laws that are proven by finding no exceptions to those laws (ie. the laws of physics), the idea that the big bang was able to occur with no energy existent prior to that but *after* it happens (for reasons and in circumstances unknown), then the laws of physics apply to everything that happens afterward? Yeah, that sounds no less "convenient" an explanation than anything else.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Mmmm hmmm


----------



## JPhoenix19

Randy said:


> If science relies on laws that are proven by finding no exceptions to those laws (ie. the laws of physics), the idea that the big bang was able to occur with no energy existent prior to that but *after* it happens (for reasons and in circumstances unknown), then the laws of physics apply to everything that happens afterward? Yeah, that sounds no less "convenient" an explanation than anything else.




What boggles my mind is how limited our measuring tools are in regard to the universe. Quantifying the origins of the universe is like trying to reach absolute zero temperature- last I heard we've never achieved it, and it seems we never will.


----------



## Randy

Correct. I consider the origins of the universe and "what happens after you die" to be "non-determining issues" with regard to science vs. religion. They're things that are unsolvable or immeasurable, and thus, neither can be wielded to prove one side or the other until something more conclusive presents itself. Still fun to discuss but ultimately, not having an answer proves no side more believable than another.


----------



## -42-

I'm not affiliated with any faith, and I choose not to make an issue of it, I got out of my arguing against creationism phase in sixth grade (meaning that I don't pick fights with creationists to flex my intellectual muscle, not that I have no arguments with the concept of creationism itself).


----------



## jaredowty

-42- said:


> I got out of my arguing against creationism phase in sixth grade (meaning that I don't pick fights with creationists to flex my intellectual muscle, not that I have no arguments with the concept of creationism itself).



I don't think intellect has much to do with it. Some of the most brilliant people I know are creationists.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

Randy said:


> Correct. I consider the origins of the universe and "what happens after you die" to be "non-determining issues" with regard to science vs. religion. They're things that are unsolvable or immeasurable, and thus, neither can be wielded to prove one side or the other until something more conclusive presents itself. Still fun to discuss but ultimately, not having an answer proves no side more believable than another.



True, but the major problem with religion is that it's not a "theory" to people who belong to it. These people "know" with an absolute certainty that what they follow is true. I proposed the big bang, but I don't "believe" in the big bang. Like you said, I wasn't there, and there's no way for me to know for sure, but I don't also base my entire life on it, or my entire moral code


----------



## unitas

JJ Rodriguez said:


> In that case why is it any harder to believe the big bang could have created space and time? It seems just as plausible, if not more so.



You're not alone in that thinking, nor is it mutually exclusive to religion/metaphysics. Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas would refer to our Big Bang as the First Cause.


----------



## aslsmm

JJ Rodriguez said:


> True, but the major problem with religion is that it's not a "theory" to people who belong to it. These people "know" with an absolute certainty that what they follow is true. I proposed the big bang, but I don't "believe" in the big bang. Like you said, I wasn't there, and there's no way for me to know for sure, but I don't also base my entire life on it, or my entire moral code


 

can i ask why that is a "major problem"? I guess i dont see why it would matter either way if someone says they "Know" a theory is true or not. Besides can you really say what someone does or dosnt know? It is an assumption on your part to say what a person does or dosnt know.


----------



## RenegadeDave

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Why do you need to be a Christian to be more generous or humble? Can't you be a good person for the sake of being a good person?
> 
> I'm quite generous and humble, and I do nice things for people all the time. I also don't cheat on my girlfriend, I hardly ever drink, I don't do drugs, etc. In fact, I'm more "Christian" than a lot of so called Christians, with the exception of the believing in god part. I would never identify myself as a Christian. Just because your (or my) behaviors coincide with a religion doesn't mean you have to convert



To me JJ, it seemed like drinking non-alcoholic beer. It's like doing all of the work and getting none of the benefit. No, i don't mean that on an "eternal damnation" type of line but rather a wellspring of hope and inner peace. If you have that peace and none of the hollowness that I experienced then I am happy for you. I was constantly dissatisfied as a serial goal setter/meeter that no matter what goal I achieved, the novelty would wear off rather quickly.


----------



## RenegadeDave

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is actually contrary to Christian belief.



As they addressed, it is not contrary, it is another mystery, the Trinitarian God. If you care to verify it, Acts 2, so it's in the Christian canon.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

aslsmm said:


> can i ask why that is a "major problem"? I guess i dont see why it would matter either way if someone says they "Know" a theory is true or not. Besides can you really say what someone does or dosnt know? It is an assumption on your part to say what a person does or dosnt know.



I should have worded that differently, I meant it's a major problem to me, as in it's one of my big beefs that is one of the things I most dislike about religion. When I say they "know" I mean that in their head, they truly believe in whatever. I know that 1+1 = 2, because it's easily observable, and I don't doubt it at all. If you ask any Christian who is truly faithful, they will tell you they KNOW their god exists, as in there isn't any doubt in their mind.

If someone wants to believe in that, and it gives them inner peace or happiness, whatever, then good for them. A lot of Christians (most of present company excluded of course) don't have a live and let live mentality though and are quite militant about their beliefs, and quite disrespectful of anyone who can't reconcile themselves with having complete blind faith in something that can't be known.



RenegadeDave said:


> To me JJ, it seemed like drinking non-alcoholic beer. It's like doing all of the work and getting none of the benefit. No, i don't mean that on an "eternal damnation" type of line but rather a wellspring of hope and inner peace. If you have that peace and none of the hollowness that I experienced then I am happy for you. I was constantly dissatisfied as a serial goal setter/meeter that no matter what goal I achieved, the novelty would wear off rather quickly.



That's cool man, and I don't have any kind of inner turmoil or hollowness or anything. I'm at peace with myself, because my life is great, and I owe it all to myself, rather than a deity who hands out good things to good people. I'm not saying you think like that, but some people would. I worked my ass off in school and got a pretty decent job, I have a hot, young girlfriend, and I'm just a fucking awesome person in general  I have no need for a deity, I have myself, which sounds quite LaVey Satanist of me  You can see why I do identify closely with them.


----------



## RenegadeDave

lookralphsbak said:


> I don't want to come off as a dick saying this but it's kind of a rebuttal to what you just said:
> 
> You do realize that the Christian "creed" essentially ripped off previous religions and belief "systems".
> 
> 
> It really boggles my mind how someone can believe in a higher power, more specifically God, when it's so blatantly obvious the story is made up. If you do research on religions or society in general that predate Christian and even Hebrew beliefs you will learn that there were in fact Gods, sons of Gods, virgin mothers, etc that "existed". These stories helped influence the Jewish and essentially the Christian religion.
> 
> When I do have a debate or discussion with a Christian and it gets to the point where no one is leaving as a winner I end up asking "Why are you right? Who's to say that Osiris or Zeus or perhaps the Gods that the Native Americans believed in are the ones that exist? Why does your God have to be the one and only God?"



What you're mentioning is an interesting anthropological phenomenon. All of these various cultures from all over the world share a desire to believe in something greater than themselves. 

My personal faith is exactly that, personal. There is nothing I can say to you that will make you experience what I experience. I don't have my ego tied up in this so I don't feel the need to "be right", I'm simply sharing.

As for Hebrew beliefs, of course they influence Christianity. Christianity is born of the Jewish faith. The message from the Jewish faith is carried forward and expounded upon in the Christian faith. The difference is Christians acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek). The divergence from the Jewish tradition occurs because Christians believe that Christ was God in flesh and instructs us how to worship and remain in communion with God, which is why most of the Jewish tradition and holidays are not observed by Christians. 

I mean the parallelism of the Nordic Ragnarok (gods fighting the final battle with their glorious einherjar) versus the Christian Rapture (God returning to earth with those "asleep in him" to assume the faithful and judge the unfaithful) is not lost on me. I'm familiar enough with the "Hero with a Thousand Faces" to pick up on the universal myth where it's prevalent in Christianity. The fact there is a "universal myth" at all gives me reason enough to begin to ponder.


To me, it's fun to study the similarities. It kind of reinforces the point of ecumenism (A movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations. from dictionary.com).


----------



## RenegadeDave

JJ Rodriguez said:


> That's cool man, and I don't have any kind of inner turmoil or hollowness or anything. I'm at peace with myself, because my life is great, and I owe it all to myself, rather than a deity who hands out good things to good people. I'm not saying you think like that, but some people would. I worked my ass off in school and got a pretty decent job, I have a hot, young girlfriend, and I'm just a fucking awesome person in general  I have no need for a deity, I have myself, which sounds quite LaVey Satanist of me  You can see why I do identify closely with them.



That's cool man. A lot of the Jewish/Christian doctrine essentially focuses on sowing/reaping. You "get" that on your own and it's obviously working out for you.


----------



## aslsmm

Cool jj. I just miss understood.


----------



## SwampAshSpecial

Jewish here, and taking shit for it from my friends 24/7...


----------



## MF_Kitten

atheism is a belief, just like baldness is a hair colour. that's my stance.


----------



## Varcolac

MF_Kitten said:


> atheism is a belief, just like baldness is a hair colour. that's my stance.



Skullets are agnostic?


----------



## vampiregenocide

MF_Kitten said:


> atheism is a belief, just like baldness is a hair colour. that's my stance.


 
The only way something isn't a belief is if you believe in absolutely nothing at all, that is to say you have no opinion whatsoever. As an atheist you don't believe in God, and therefore _believe _there is no God_. _Any belief be it for or against something is still a belief. It may not have the same creed or doctrine that a fuly fledged religion does, but you still make a choice to believe in or in the abscence of something.


----------



## JamesM

My beliefs are hardly uncommon. 

My life is ruled by science. I don't think there is a god, but to say with certainty that there isn't would be foolish, arrogant and unbacked. There is no way to say yay or nay for certainty, thus the role of faith.

I don't believe there is a god, but if there is: I'm sorry!


----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> The only way something isn't a belief is if you believe in absolutely nothing at all, that is to say you have no opinion whatsoever. As an atheist you don't believe in God, and therefore _believe _there is no God_. _Any belief be it for or against something is still a belief. It may not have the same creed or doctrine that a fuly fledged religion does, but you still make a choice to believe in or in the abscence of something.



No, an Atheist do not need to "believe in nothing". We don't care man! we don't care if Buddha farts or Ra Poops. We don't care about God's wrath or Tarhunt's ass burning thunder. We really don't care. That's why it is not a belief. We ignore it. It's not like we "pray" everyday for the god of nothingness, nor do we sit and think why there is not a god.
The only beef an Atheist has with religions are the causes and side effects of the religion. That is all. But the matter "belief" is totally "0" bites in our hard drives. Well "no file is still a file" will not make sense would it?


----------



## vampiregenocide

That doesn't really come close to what a belief is. It's like a choice, whatever you do, you choose to do something. Even if you choose to do nothing, you still make a choice to do that.


----------



## -42-

jaredowty said:


> I don't think intellect has much to do with it. Some of the most brilliant people I know are creationists.



I think my previous statement was poorly worded, my intent wasn't to say that atheists are inherently more intellectual (or vice versa), just that the debate between atheists and creationists often turns into something akin to a pair of drunk men flexing their muscles, each attempting to impress the other enough to cause him to back down, even though both are too stubborn to do so.


----------



## daemon barbeque

vampiregenocide said:


> That doesn't really come close to what a belief is. It's like a choice, whatever you do, you choose to do something. Even if you choose to do nothing, you still make a choice to do that.



I think this discussion is and will be fruitless, since doing nothing is doing nothing. 
A belief has a base, an outcome and last for a certain time. Atheism ignores all three. It needs reason, fact, and result. It's not a belief, and there is no room for belief in Atheism. It's reasoning, concluding based on facts. Again, no room for belief here.


----------



## aslsmm

daemon barbeque said:


> I think this discussion is and will be fruitless, since doing nothing is doing nothing.
> A belief has a base, an outcome and last for a certain time. Atheism ignores all three. It needs reason, fact, and result. It's not a belief, and there is no room for belief in Atheism. It's reasoning, concluding based on facts. Again, no room for belief here.




I dont know much about atheism but you say its a lack off all belief right? Now im not trying to argue i just really want some clarity, you dont believe in anything or anything as far as life death and religion? 

The reason i ask is cause it seems to me that you either believe god exsist or you beleive he dosnt. So wouldnt it still be a belief? Serious question.


----------



## Randy

Honestly, that part of the discussion has gone nowhere. He prefers not to have his mindset regarded as "beliefs", so no amount of debating semantics is going to sway the argument. Let's please just move off of it.


----------



## Spondus

Atheist. 

As an aside, Richard Dawkins cycled past me on my way home from lectures earlier (a few of my friends have lectures with him as well) which was pretty awesome.


----------



## Randy

Like, riding a bicycle?


----------



## Spondus

uh.. yes. Almost everyone in Oxford cycles everywhere. I see the singer from radiohead from time to time too.


----------



## JamesM

I adore that man's mind.


----------



## jtm45

Dawkins speaks the truth!
Blind faith is ludicrous and a cop-out.


----------



## Varcolac

jtm45 said:


> The Pope speaks the truth!
> Scientific inquiry is ludicrous and a cop-out.



Not really a helpful discussion to have.


----------



## Randy

jtm45 said:


> Dawkins speaks the truth!
> Blind faith is ludicrous and a cop-out.





Varcolac said:


> Not really a helpful discussion to have.



It's actually a 'cop-out' argument lol, considering anything can be followed (or not followed?) blindly.  It's a non-debate.


----------



## Xaios

For the record, Dictionary.com defines atheism as the following:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


So, everyone's right. Let's move on.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Xaios said:


> So, everyone's right. Let's move on.


Why move on when we could continue to circularly debate semantics?


----------



## Randy

I find circular semantics debating to be most fun when it includes a dictionary definition. Personally.  You know, for maximum redundancy.


----------



## daemon barbeque

aslsmm said:


> I dont know much about atheism but you say its a lack off all belief right? Now im not trying to argue i just really want some clarity, you dont believe in anything or anything as far as life death and religion?
> 
> The reason i ask is cause it seems to me that you either believe god exsist or you beleive he dosnt. So wouldnt it still be a belief? Serious question.



Well, it is like "dismissing" the idea of any kind of deity and religious content. There is a certain time it makes "click" on ones brain. Like clicking shift+delete 
After that, the human mind- personality stops connecting things, personal events, questions or answers to any kind of god or religion. That's why it is not a belief. You just stop having it.


----------



## Randy

daemon barbeque said:


> That's why it is not a belief. You just stop having it.



Not sure if you got the memo, but we're not discussing that anymore... now gladly shut the fuck up about it, please.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Amazingly, the banner at the bottom of the page right now is an ad for a DVD called "The God Who Wasn't There". Right next to it is a quote that says "Irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed." - Newsweek

I'd be interested in watching that one. However, I think it's widely accepted that Jesus did actually exist. 

I just thought I'd share that


----------



## daemon barbeque

Randy said:


> Not sure if you got the memo, but we're not discussing that anymore... now gladly shut the fuck up about it, please.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Amazingly, the banner at the bottom of the page right now is an ad for a DVD called "The God Who Wasn't There". Right next to it is a quote that says "Irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed." - Newsweek
> 
> I'd be interested in watching that one. However, I think it's widely accepted that Jesus did actually exist.
> 
> I just thought I'd share that



It's certainly on the fringe of "disbelief" arguments. As RenegadeDave mentioned earlier, I'm of the belief that the Bible never really functioned as a history book, however, the more major events listed certainly elude to things that actually happened. There are enough separate accounts of the man to conclude he probably walked the Earth. Everything other than that (miracles, crucification, resurrection, etc.) are admittedly hard to account for.


----------



## pink freud

Randy said:


> It's certainly on the fringe of "disbelief" arguments. As RenegadeDave mentioned earlier, I'm of the belief that the Bible never really functioned as a history book, however, the more major events listed certainly elude to things that actually happened. There are enough separate accounts of the man to conclude he probably walked the Earth. Everything other than that (miracles, crucification, resurrection, etc.) are admittedly hard to account for.



Word tells it that the bible was specifically designed to make Jesus seem divine. There is supposed to be a great deal that was left out because it didn't lend that impression.


----------



## Randy

Like the New Testament Apocrypha, including the Gospel of Mary.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

And more than that yet - the texts found at Nag Hamaddi are numerous and should have been included as part of the Bible. Reincarnation is a vital part of those texts, as it was in early versions of the Bible. However, if you have Reincarnation, you can't have Hell, and if you don't have Hell, you don't have nearly as many churchgoers/followers of strict dogma.

This is my main issue with Christianity - not that the moral codes are bad, but that the sacred texts have been altered in order to better fit the cause of the church.

I was raised Catholic and my family are still pretty devout followers. I even went to a Catholic school. I never felt right about that belief system, though, even as a child. I'm ok with others following it if they choose to, but it does not work for me.


----------



## The Reverend

Adam Of Angels said:


> And more than that yet - the texts found at Nag Hamaddi are numerous and should have been included as part of the Bible. Reincarnation is a vital part of those texts, as it was in early versions of the Bible. However, if you have Reincarnation, you can't have Hell, and if you don't have Hell, you don't have nearly as many churchgoers/followers of strict dogma.
> 
> This is my main issue with Christianity - not that the moral codes are bad, but that the sacred texts have been altered in order to better fit the cause of the church.
> 
> I was raised Catholic and my family are still pretty devout followers. I even went to a Catholic school. I never felt right about that belief system, though, even as a child. I'm ok with others following it if they choose to, but it does not work for me.



This. 

Underneath the label of Christianity is a core tenet of ideas, and while there's a plethora of interpretations, the core more or less stays the same. Once you factor in some of the apocryphal and non-canonical texts (the apocrypha used to be included in some versions of the Bible, hence my hesitance to call them non-canonical) you see another, in some ways completely different religion. Even Christians adhering to the more liberal interpretations would have to rethink things.

I'm not averse to the idea of a higher power at all. I am averse to worshiping one, especially one only known through religious texts. I'm not sure the argument could be made that without those texts, belief in those deities would be recognizable to modern practitioners. 

Someone smarter than me who knows where this is going should take over. I can't quite put into words what I'm trying to say.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

Adam Of Angels said:


> However, I think it's widely accepted that Jesus did actually exist.



I do think that there was probably a dude named Jesus who walked around and did shit for people and was probably a prophet for this newfangled Christianity sect of Judaism. I guess that's people believing in the "historical Jesus" vs the "biblical Jesus".


----------



## pink freud

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I do think that there was probably a dude named Jesus who walked around and did shit for people and was probably a prophet for this newfangled Christianity sect of Judaism. I guess that's people believing in the "historical Jesus" vs the "biblical Jesus".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I do think that there was probably a dude named Jesus who walked around and did shit for people and was probably a prophet for this newfangled Christianity sect of Judaism. I guess that's people believing in the "historical Jesus" vs the "biblical Jesus".




Yeah, that's what I mean, of course.


----------



## JPhoenix19

pink freud said:


> Word tells it that the bible was specifically designed to make Jesus seem divine. There is supposed to be a great deal that was left out because it didn't lend that impression.



Well, there were different people from different cultures and different backrounds being converted. Unfortunately, they brought many of their old beliefs with them through their conversion. The councils that met did so to decide the cannonand sift through the writings that included content incompatible with known doctrine. It's less to make Jesus appear divine as it was to sift through inconsistent writings.

I'm not trying to say that I believe the scriptures are 100% infallible, but I do not discredit their overall validity on their having been organized by councils of men.


----------



## Josh_Conlee

Vampire, I kind of am the same way as you, but I tend to lean a bit more towards the agnostic side....While I do think there may be some higher power (not necessarily "god" per say) over us, I really don't think it has much impact on our lives, and to even comprehend such a being, we have to understand ourselves first..


----------



## Xaios

Indeed. If the Church wanted the apocryphal texts wiped from the earth, they could have probably accomplished it in the 1600 years since the general consensus was reached as to what was to be considered canon and what wasn't. The Apocrypha has been kept around because many believe that, while not divinely inspired, it's useful for teaching purposes.


----------



## unitas

JPhoenix19 said:


> The councils that met did so to decide the cannonand sift through the writings that included content incompatible with known doctrine. It's less to make Jesus appear divine as it was to sift through inconsistent writings.



This.

The texts we have now are remarkably accurate to the oldest manuscripts available, which are far more plentiful and originate closer to the events described within them than the Iliad or the writings of Plato. Not to mention the bible is probably the most scrutinized collection of books in history; I find it hard to believe that one person or group can slip in successive changes over centuries to suit their agenda and have no one notice given the huge amount of historical copies one could compare with.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

unitas said:


> This.
> 
> The texts we have now are remarkably accurate to the oldest manuscripts available, which are far more plentiful and originate closer to the events described within them than the Iliad or the writings of Plato. Not to mention the bible is probably the most scrutinized collection of books in history; I find it hard to believe that one person or group can slip in successive changes over centuries to suit their agenda and have no one notice given the huge amount of historical copies one could compare with.



How much have you read on the subject?


----------



## vampiregenocide

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I do think that there was probably a dude named Jesus who walked around and did shit for people and was probably a prophet for this newfangled Christianity sect of Judaism. I guess that's people believing in the "historical Jesus" vs the "biblical Jesus".


 
Oh yeah I believe he was probably real too, just not as supernatural as people would like to think of course.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

vampiregenocide said:


> Oh yeah I believe he was probably real too, just not as supernatural as people would like to think of course.



There was no-one with the name Jesus, there were people with similar names around that time in that area but no-one with the actual name Jesus.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I know that Jesus would not have gone by the name Jesus, but there could have possibly been somebody named Jesus. I don't see why not, asde from it being an uncommon name in those parts


----------



## vampiregenocide

Scar Symmetry said:


> There was no-one with the name Jesus, there were people with similar names around that time in that area but no-one with the actual name Jesus.


 
I don't necessarily believe he was called Jesus, but he was based on somebody. There were theories going around that he was a bit of a freedom fighter rebelling against Roman oppression, which doesn't fit with the church portrayal of him at all.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't necessarily believe he was called Jesus, but he was based on somebody. There were theories going around that he was a bit of a freedom fighter rebelling against Roman oppression, which doesn't fit with the church portrayal of him at all.



Here's a portrayal of Jesus locked in combat with the Romans.


----------



## daemon barbeque

The apocrypha contradicts with the current Christian beliefs in some ways.For example the Adam and Eve. It shows clearly that Adam and Eve where not made of Flesh before they reached the world. The heaven is on earth, somewhere beyond the sea. You can wash away your sins with washing yourselves in that clear water etc. 

Not that I take it as a fact, but I wanted to show the contradiction, therefore the "but it was not inspired by the holy ghost" thing.


----------



## RenegadeDave

Just a bit of Christian trivia for those discusing, Jesus's actual name was "Joshua ben Jospeh", apparently the shortened/less formal of "Joshua" is "Jesus". That's from memory but a quick google search supports it. If I recall correctly, this is what Muslims refer to him as when they say he was a misinterpreted Muslim prophet (someone else verify that).

As for the apocryphal, these are books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic church into their bibles, but not typically into the protestant bibles. Originally, all Jewish scripture was in Hebrew. Jews are conquered and it is all translated into Greek as they must all speak Greek. When the early church sits down and decides which books are going to be accepted into their cannon, they decide to go back to the early books that have the original Hebrew. There are several books that do not have copies of existing Hebrew translations, these are considered the Apocryphal books. So they are accepted by the Catholic church as non-canonical books because they are still (if I recall correctly) accepted into the current Jewish canon. The argument with which they include them is that Jesus would have been studying them. With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls several of the apocryphal books have found (surprise) original Hebrew translations. If you read them, they're really not particularly meaningful or drastically change the old Testament story. At the council of Trent as late as the 16th century, the Catholic church accepted more Apocryphal books as being "inspired". Admittedly, I have a "New American Version" of the bible as well as my preferred translation (New International Version), but my studies have not lead me to the Apocryphal books (yet). 

The controversial stuff you're referring to are gospels/testimonies/letters that were not accepted into the early church canon. It's easy to say "look at all of this stuff they're leaving out!" If you read any of the epistles of Peter/Paul/John, they are constantly warning of false teachers, specifically of the gnostics (who believed that the spirit was divine and the flesh did not matter and was evil, therefore sins of the flesh did not matter. This flies in the face of Jesus's stance on sin "if you look at a woman who is not your wife lustfully, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart" type of stuff). So you have a lot of gospels/letters of questionable origin by people who do not have first/second hand experiences with Jesus. If you consider that the early NT books did not start getting written until about 25-30 years AFTER the death of Jesus, books from beyond that period begin to have questionable authenticity with respect to the author's experience with Christ and the authority with which they can write. As far as the early church developing their canon (which was 100+ years after the death), it was not really a position of power at that point as they still suffered the Roman persecution. Regardless, I give the developers of the canon the benefit of the doubt for the most part as what is accepted as inspired has many ties to Old Testament scripture (which is no doubt why they were deemed as "inspired"). 

I used to have a lot of the same doubts, but I realized it stemmed from my desire to find God as I wanted him to be, and not discover God as he is. This was really my ego putting up a defense. The consistency of the character of Jesus and the consistency of his teaching in what is widely accepted as the "inspired" scripture is quite incredible. What's more is if you reach back into the Old Testament books, you begin to see the threads developing with the NT books. It's easy to see why they picked the 4 gospels when you compare their recounts to the Old Testament, as he fulfills many of the prophecies. 

It is somewhat fallacy to base Christianity strictly on the bible with respect to worship. If you consider a majority of the world could not read let alone afford bibles until the printing press was invented then being strictly biblical is really losing some of the tradition of the practice of the faith. 


At the end of the day, we have imperfect creatures attempting to assemble what they know about the perfect/divine.

If anyone is curious enough to crack a bible on their own and see what it says on Jesus, I recommend starting with Luke, then Mark, then Matthew, then John. John is far more spiritual/theological than the others, if you read the first chapter of it through the lens of "Bios" and "Zoe" (biological life/spiritual life), it gets wild.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

[/thread]


----------



## Rapture

Well, I follow myself. I don't want to be labeled as nothing, cause it's all titles. To a christian I would probably be labeled as a satanist. But not to a satanist.


----------



## unitas

RenegadeDave said:


> As for the apocryphal, these are books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic church into their bibles, but not typically into the protestant bibles. Originally, all Jewish scripture was in Hebrew. Jews are conquered and it is all translated into Greek as they must all speak Greek.



Not quite. Ptolemy II wanted all of the hebrew scriptures written down in greek for the library in Alexandria. This greek translation of the hebrew scriptures is known as the septuagint. How this is mainly different is that the septuagint includes 7 more books than the hebrew old testament. These 7 books are considered canon by the Catholic Church, and apocryphal by non-Catholic Churches. These 7 books were considered scripture by the Jews until the late first century, hypothetically at the council of Jamnia, when the Hebrew scriptures were finalized and 7 books were omitted.



> When the early church sits down and decides which books are going to be accepted into their cannon, they decide to go back to the early books that have the original Hebrew. There are several books that do not have copies of existing Hebrew translations, these are considered the Apocryphal books. So they are accepted by the Catholic church as non-canonical books because they are still (if I recall correctly) accepted into the current Jewish canon. The argument with which they include them is that Jesus would have been studying them. With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls several of the apocryphal books have found (surprise) original Hebrew translations. If you read them, they're really not particularly meaningful or drastically change the old Testament story.


When the canon of scripture was being considered, the septuagint was used for the old testament because that is what was widely used in that area at that time, it was already in greek and many old testament quotes made by the apostles references the septuagint, not the hebrew, so it stands to reason that even the apostles used and were familiar with the greek version.



> At the council of Trent as late as the 16th century, the Catholic church accepted more Apocryphal books as being "inspired". Admittedly, I have a "New American Version" of the bible as well as my preferred translation (New International Version), but my studies have not lead me to the Apocryphal books (yet).


This isn't entirely accurate. What would become the final canon of scripture was originally decided upon in 382ad at the council of Rome, ratified at the council of Hippo without change in 393ad, ratified again without change at the council of Carthage in 407, and lastly, again without change, at Trent. The reason it was an issue over a millenia later was because Martin Luther challenged the inspiredness of the septuagint, preferring the hebrew instead. It is probable that this had political motivation as Luther disputed the doctrine of purgatory, and 2 Maccabees provides scriptural support for it. 2 Maccabbes is however absent from the hebrew scriptures, possibly explaining Luther's preference. Such preference has precedence, for example, Luther also questioned the inspiredness of James which contradicts his doctrine of sola fide. It should also be mentioned that the complete, finalized, hebrew scriptures didn't exist in written form until the late first century, after Christianity was established.

The bible contained these seven disputed books since the late 4th century. Even the original King James bible, a very popular non-Catholic translation, contained them until 1827. The Catholic Church did not add these books at Trent, they were removed at a later date by non-Catholic translators.

That's my $0.02 anyway


----------



## RenegadeDave

unitas said:


> I've studied this subject quite a bit, this is how it really is.



Your knowledge of Canon/Apocrypha obviously surpasses my own. Thanks for further clarifying it.


----------



## JPhoenix19

RenegadeDave said:


> It is somewhat fallacy to base Christianity strictly on the bible with respect to worship. If you consider a majority of the world could not read let alone afford bibles until the printing press was invented then being strictly biblical is really losing some of the tradition of the practice of the faith.



Just as a matter of curiosity: are you, by chance, Roman Catholic? I was *almost* confirmed in the RCC a while ago, but I pulled out of the RCIA class. I ask because the quoted statement sounds very much like some of my Catholic friends' arguments against sola scriptura.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

I do not believe in god(s). I'm fairly certain there aren't any omni-benevolent beings around here, lol. The universe seems to get along just fine without the need for gods. If there were a god, it wouldn't be hard for him to prove to me that he is real and worthy of my (or anyone else's) attention. Jesus moonwalking on my pizza image, sort of like a gif image should do the trick. Or a pillar of pot smoke. Or my guitar playing itself. Nothing huge, really. Just not some vague image on a piece of toast seen because of the effects of pareidolia.

*looks down at pizza*

Nope, nodda. That sucks, it seemed to work for these two:

And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me...? And Isaiah said ... shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward. - 2 Kings 20:8-11

Why is it _now_ we can't temp the lord but back in the day it was ok? There are a few (that I know of) times where god was more than happy to prove to not only the followers but other people who were converted after witnessing the miracles. 

There are two different sets of commandments (Exodus 20 and 34). Almost all of god's people break 1 or more of the commandments and get off punishment free, save a foreskin or two. There are times when god even breaks them himself! But it's ok, because it's god? (God impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph, for example). Why should anyone follow this god and his rules when he is an angry, jealous, genocidal, hemorrhoid-obsessed (Deuteronomy 28:27, 1 Samuel 5:12, 1 Samuel 5:6-7) hypocrite? Most of the commandments are redundant, anyways. What, are we fucking stupid? (arguable, I suppose...) Why are they so negative? Why are the christian interpretations so negative? How come they have to tell you "Thou shalt not * " instead of "Thou shalt be honest", which is all it really needs (Carlin!). I'll stop now though, seems everyone is busy arguing over another text which - much like the traditional bible - cannot be verified as to who the authors are, lol.


----------



## Dvaienat

I don't follow any religion in particular, but I would say I'm closest to being a Humanist. I believe in and support it's values. However, unlike Humanism, I don't rule out the existance of a God. I also believe in the human spirit, which in my opinion cannot be denied. I believe in both spiritual and physical satisfaction. I do believe in living for the moment and indulging, yet being kind and compassionate to others. I'm also a vegetarian, out of compassion for animals. I'll also mention that I used to be a Christian. Now I absolutely despise Christianity. The whole 'repent and be forgiven or burn in hell' basis of Christianity makes me sick. I commit what Christians would call 'sins' every day. Im my opinion nothing is a sin unless it harms others. The Church and it's discrimination and prejudice (gay people, women, atheists etc.) is another source of my hate for Christianity too. I'm quite happy to get along with Christians though, as long as they respect my beliefs, I will respect theirs.


----------



## RenegadeDave

JPhoenix19 said:


> Just as a matter of curiosity: are you, by chance, Roman Catholic? I was *almost* confirmed in the RCC a while ago, but I pulled out of the RCIA class. I ask because the quoted statement sounds very much like some of my Catholic friends' arguments against sola scriptura.



As a service to my wife, we're going through RCIA. The flavor of church really didn't matter to me, and for whatever reason she's always had her heart set on being Catholic. I was raised Episcopal but never really "got it", spent a lot of time as an open minded agnostic. I will never self identify as an anything before a Christian.


----------



## FYP666

I'm a non-denominational Christian, so to say. I'm not a part of any big group of ''believers'', and I don't tend to stuff my beliefs down someones throat. I have my reasons why I believe in certain things and IMO, these things are personal and these aren't kind of things that you have to run over the rest of you life. Just want to enjoy life, bacon and women, you know


----------



## RenegadeDave

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Why is it _now_ we can't temp the lord but back in the day it was ok? There are a few (that I know of) times where god was more than happy to prove to not only the followers but other people who were converted after witnessing the miracles.
> 
> There are two different sets of commandments (Exodus 20 and 34). Almost all of god's people break 1 or more of the commandments and get off punishment free, save a foreskin or two. There are times when god even breaks them himself! But it's ok, because it's god? (God impregnating Mary while she was betrothed to Joseph, for example). Why should anyone follow this god and his rules when he is an angry, jealous, genocidal, hemorrhoid-obsessed (Deuteronomy 28:27, 1 Samuel 5:12, 1 Samuel 5:6-7) hypocrite? Most of the commandments are redundant, anyways. What, are we fucking stupid? (arguable, I suppose...) Why are they so negative? Why are the christian interpretations so negative? How come they have to tell you "Thou shalt not * " instead of "Thou shalt be honest", which is all it really needs (Carlin!). I'll stop now though, seems everyone is busy arguing over another text which - much like the traditional bible - cannot be verified as to who the authors are, lol.



First, with respect to your Carlin comment, Jesus does essentially say that. If you love the Lord with all your heart and honor him, you honor his creation (your neighbors). In so doing, you keep with the remainder of the commandments. That bit was clarified in the New Testament. 

The balance of your argument is with the Old Testament, a lot of your issues start to disappear if you view it through the lens of the New Testament. If you have interest in clarifying it I'll happily discuss it with you via PM/email/whatever, if not, that's fine too . Eitherway, a happy saturday to us all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Never heard George Carlin say a word I didn't agree with.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Umm, Love your neighbor as yourself? So, basically, love anyone more than your own family?

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37

Jesus seems to be all over the place. What about Jesus' temper tantrums? Mark 11:12-14. Matthew 12:46-50, renouncing his own faming. Jesus does this on multiple occasions. Why cherry pick? You can take the good deeds literally but the bad deeds must have some deeper meaning?

The new testament doesn't negate the old one. Deuteronomy 12:32, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 5:38-39, Matthew 5:27-28. The old law is upheld. Even this can't be agreed upon by christians because of the contradictions within the book.

Another thing that gets me is that the whole 'getting saved' or baptized thing is basically a get-outta-jail-free card. Why is it that, say, someone who has raped, murdered, and gone off to jail can find god and go to heaven? When, say, a nerd whom has never hurt a thing is his life is going to hell because he doesn't believe in an immoral contradictory story written thousands of years ago by goat-herders? Yes, I do believe that the god of the bible is immoral. It's self-evident. 

Where does god even get his standards for morals? Does he do things because they are intrinsically moral? Or are things moral because he does them? Genocide is ok because he commands it? or is genocide automatically good, so he goes with that? The bible endorses slavery and rape too. Exodus 21:7, even of your own daughter. How do you rationalize that? "Oh, *tv laugh*. That was then, things were different back then, the new testament...". Do you guys know that you are trying to rationalise atrocities? Why can you throw the old testament out the window when it's convenient for you, but not the rest?


----------



## RenegadeDave

I am certainly not any sort of professional apologist or schooled in divinity or anything. But that said, without any great degree of authority here are the musings of a neophyte on your points. 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Umm, Love your neighbor as yourself? So, basically, love anyone more than your own family?



More succinctly put, love everyone as family. 



> "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:34-37



The "greatest commandment" puts God before all else. This is expounded upon in the "body of Christ" Paul addresses in his letters. Before Christ's appearance, you had men attempting to interpret God's will. Jesus appears and says "yeah that's what you thought, but this is what I meant". This bit is addressing the fact that not everyone would be able to accept his teaching and cling to the old ways. 



> Jesus seems to be all over the place. What about Jesus' temper tantrums? Mark 11:12-14. Matthew 12:46-50, renouncing his own faming. Jesus does this on multiple occasions. Why cherry pick? You can take the good deeds literally but the bad deeds must have some deeper meaning?


Mark 11:12-14
Jesus was teaching that for a thing to claim to be a thing but not fulfill that thing's function, it is worthless. The lesson being if I say I am a Christian, but do no charitable acts, am arrogant and selfish, then I am not a Christian despite what I may say. Faith without deeds is worthless. 

Matt 12:46-50
Again, teaching that his message is for everyone and he desires to be in fellowship with those who return his love, not just an elect few. John 3:16 obviously further illustrates that point with the "the world" bit. 

The verses you are highlighting do not contradict the body of the text in the slightest if they are read in context of his teaching, it's totally consistent. 



> The new testament doesn't negate the old one. Deuteronomy 12:32, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 5:38-39, Matthew 5:27-28. The old law is upheld. Even this can't be agreed upon by christians because of the contradictions within the book.


So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it? 

The OT was a series of men interpreting the will/word of God. The NT is God coming and explaining it as he meant it. The OT is a series of sowing/reaping. God detests sin and punishes it. That all gets clarified when Jesus shows up. God desires a relationship with individuals, not simply a series of rules that must be followed and a weekly seminar to confirm your self righteousness. You cannot take a minimalist mentality with it "As long as I don't break these specific rules, I'm good", it goes much deeper than that. God has laid out what his standard of holiness is and desires it for all of us, but it is on us to choose to submit our wills to his and attempt to walk that way. You are still accountable for your actions, but after the price is paid there is the possibility of forgiveness. For that reason that is why Christians study the NT in greater depth than the OT. A new covenant is made, new information distributed. 

The "eye for an eye" bit, originally was intended as a safeguard against retaliation spiraling up continual escalation, but began to be interpreted as "he wronged me, I demand to wrong him in turn!" Jesus dropped the turn the other cheek line to clarify that point. 



> Another thing that gets me is that the whole 'getting saved' or baptized thing is basically a get-outta-jail-free card. Why is it that, say, someone who has raped, murdered, and gone off to jail can find god and go to heaven? When, say, a nerd whom has never hurt a thing is his life is going to hell because he doesn't believe in an immoral contradictory story written thousands of years ago by goat-herders? Yes, I do believe that the god of the bible is immoral. It's self-evident.



You are entitled to what you wish to believe. With respect to murderers/rapists it is as you highlight with the example of the fig tree, someone who says they're saved but does not act like it is not saved. it's not just a matter of saying "ah hah! I get it", it's not a "one and done" type of deal, it's a choice that gets made over and over and over again every day in every decision. 

To be completely honest with you I have not studied the law with any great degree of depth since coming into the fold. I doubt I could give you an answer that would begin to satisfy you on your final point. There might not be an answer that satisfies you.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Before Christ people interpreted god's will? You just presented a few interpretations of your own. The new testament is interpreted just as much and the old. It is a case of special pleading, to say that he MUST have meant something else, because an apostle said so (and an argument from authority, fallacious) or because it doesn't align with your particular views of the bible. Most fundamentalists would interpret that differently, as they just say that all the horrible things done by god's people in the bible were ok because they were wicked and it was god's will.

That fig tree Jesus bitch-slapped wasn't producing fruit because it was out of season. It was in fact, doing it's job. Christians just assume that because it wasn't bearing fruit it must have been lame. Jesus could never be a jerk, right? 

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away." - Mark 11:13-14, 20-21

You can continue to try to rationalise these horrible things done in the bible, the get-outta-jail-free-card analogy still stands, as you provided a non-answer. It is apparent that you haven't studied the bible too thoroughly, as you probably wouldn't believe it if you read it from beginning to end without systematic interpretation. 

-"So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it?"

Do you agree that slavery is wrong? What about rape, murder, genocide, forced incest, whoring out your daughter, killing babies? 

"Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones." -Psalm 137:9

There are things done in the name of god that by any reasonable, rational breathing human being would consider immoral and plain wrong. But then again, pastors don't teach that stuff. It doesn't benefit them to instill doubt in their congregation. How many pastors are going to go and do a sermon, on say, Hosea chapter 1? I'll tell you how many ...NONE.

Again, it wouldn't be hard for an almighty god to show to us that he exists and is worthy of attention. All I ask is a simple gesture from god and I would believe in him. But, do you know what it would take for you to no longer believe? Have you ever even thought of that? Atheists are often accused of being close minded when in fact it is quite the opposite. Faith is not an answer. Faith is pretending to know what you do not know (or what is unknowable).


----------



## aslsmm

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Before Christ people interpreted god's will? You just presented a few interpretations of your own. The new testament is interpreted just as much and the old. It is a case of special pleading, to say that he MUST have meant something else, because an apostle said so (and an argument from authority, fallacious) or because it doesn't align with your particular views of the bible. Most fundamentalists would interpret that differently, as they just say that all the horrible things done by god's people in the bible were ok because they were wicked and it was god's will.
> 
> That fig tree Jesus bitch-slapped wasn't producing fruit because it was out of season. It was in fact, doing it's job. Christians just assume that because it wasn't bearing fruit it must have been lame. Jesus could never be a jerk, right?
> 
> "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. ... And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away." - Mark 11:13-14, 20-21
> 
> You can continue to try to rationalise these horrible things done in the bible, the get-outta-jail-free-card analogy still stands, as you provided a non-answer. It is apparent that you haven't studied the bible too thoroughly, as you probably wouldn't believe it if you read it from beginning to end without systematic interpretation.
> 
> -"So because the scripture doesn't marry up with your idea of morality it is wrong? You can not agree with it, but your disagreement does not necessarily make it "wrong". What makes your idea of morality or moral relativism correct other than you choose to subscribe to it?"
> 
> Do you agree that slavery is wrong? What about rape, murder, genocide, forced incest, whoring out your daughter, killing babies?
> 
> "Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones." -Psalm 137:9
> 
> There are things done in the name of god that by any reasonable, rational breathing human being would consider immoral and plain wrong. But then again, pastors don't teach that stuff. It doesn't benefit them to instill doubt in their congregation. How many pastors are going to go and do a sermon, on say, Hosea chapter 1? I'll tell you how many ...NONE.
> 
> Again, it wouldn't be hard for an almighty god to show to us that he exists and is worthy of attention. All I ask is a simple gesture from god and I would believe in him. But, do you know what it would take for you to no longer believe? Have you ever even thought of that? Atheists are often accused of being close minded when in fact it is quite the opposite. Faith is not an answer. Faith is pretending to know what you do not know (or what is unknowable).


 

hahahaha. your joking right? i mean you dont actually miss understand the bible that much do you? 

good job man, you disproved the bible with the logic that suggest an IQ of 10.


----------



## aslsmm

cyadine_anima your free to your opinion but my opinion is that you have little to no understanding of the scriptures and more like you have studied with the purpose of finding fault. just like man dad says, "You can find anything you want if you look hard enough.".


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Is that all you can do, just laugh and claim i'm an idiot? 

*Claps* 

I wasn't even trying to disprove the bible at all. I was just presenting an argument: Given if the bible were true (and its grandiose claims which cannot be proven) it would still be immoral. Now you have me questioning _your_ comprehension skills.


----------



## aslsmm

in my face.


----------



## ddtonfire

If the bible (or some other religion/holy text) isn't the source of morality, then you can only claim that it is immoral relative to what our society has now become. Through what lens of morality are you judging the bible, anyways?

And yes, the bible is packed full of immorality and wickedness. Does that mean it condones it? Does CSI condone murder?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Why do religious people claim morality can only come from a religious text? Morality can be found in nature. Chimpanzees have morality within their society, they reward what they consider good behavior, and they punish those who do what they deem bad behavior. Again, the 'lens' in which I am judging morality is secular, which refers to what benefits us all not just the religious.

Secular morality > religious morality. Religious people claim to have a monopoly on morality, when they are actually morally bankrupt. Christians have no intrinsic morality, it has to be given to them by a creator which they claim is the only source of morality. The only 'proof' they can present is the bible, which creates a circular argument. Begging the question is not proof, it is hardly an argument at all. Morality is a result of necessity. It's obviously not a good idea to murder your children because you would eliminate your genes from the gene pool. Not to mention the social consequences such as jail and scorn. Just claiming morality has to come from some outside source does not make it so. Morality is part of the natural order of things, and that includes more than just us humans.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -Arthur C. Clarke

Yes, god condones the things he does, well, because he does them! He is supposed to be all good, all loving, all knowing, all merciful and all just (contradiction right there...), so whatever he does must be good, whether it is intrinsically good, or good because he says it is good. Wouldn't matter either way. If the things he does are moral simply because he does them, them the rules are arbitrary and he is a monster. If the things he does are intrinsically moral then he is getting his morals from an outside source, which negates the claims of his being omni*.


----------



## highlordmugfug

^
 And well put.


----------



## ddtonfire

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Why do religious people claim morality can only come from a religious text? Morality can be found in nature. Chimpanzees have morality within their society, they reward what they consider good behavior, and they punish those who do what they deem bad behavior. Again, the 'lens' in which I am judging morality is secular, which refers to what benefits us all not just the religious.


Did I claim that morality only comes from a religious text? Am I even religious? It appears you have missed my point. What I was trying to say is that morality is only relative to the time in which we are now in. You are judging the bible by today's morality, which will be just as obsolete 4000 years from now as that of what was accepted as fine in BC times. This is because morality progresses towards some greater right.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Secular morality > religious morality. Religious people claim to have a monopoly on morality, when they are actually morally bankrupt. Christians have no intrinsic morality, it has to be given to them by a creator which they claim is the only source of morality. The only 'proof' they can present is the bible, which creates a circular argument. Begging the question is not proof, it is hardly an argument at all.


I do not claim to have a monopoly on morality. Everybody exercises some form of morality at one point or another. I would like to think I do the "right" thing, but then again, I am human and unduly fallible. The bible is not proof of creator-derived morality no more than the Principia is proof of gravity. 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Morality is a result of necessity. It's obviously not a good idea to murder your children because you would eliminate your genes from the gene pool.


An example: a man is drowning. Do you protect yourself and leave him to die? (instinct for self-preservation) Or do you risk yourself to help him? (herd instinct) In terms of necessity, either choice is fine, but only one would be the moral thing to do. Would you feel guilt if you let him drown, even if nobody knew? Because you referenced morality in nature earlier, I have to ask, what about cannibalism in nature? There are species that eat their offspring. 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Not to mention the social consequences such as jail and scorn. Just claiming morality has to come from some outside source does not make it so. Morality is part of the natural order of things, and that includes more than just us humans.


Jail and scorn are just implementations of our present morality, not sources of morality itself. One thing legal yesterday is illegal today. One thing fine yesterday is frowned upon today. 



Cyanide_Anima said:


> "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -Arthur C. Clarke


A witty saying proves nothing.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yes, god condones the things he does, well, because he does them! He is supposed to be all good, all loving, all knowing, all merciful and all just (contradiction right there...), so whatever he does must be good, whether it is intrinsically good, or good because he says it is good. Wouldn't matter either way. If the things he does are moral simply because he does them, them the rules are arbitrary and he is a monster. If the things he does are intrinsically moral then he is getting his morals from an outside source, which negates the claims of his being omni*.


Paul addresses these points in Romans 9. On the subject of God and morality, I'd recommend you look at the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, since C.S. Lewis can explain and reason far better than I can. ( C.S.Lewis. Mere christianity )


----------



## Ckackley

A good friend told me this one day , and it's been a source of much irritation to a lot of fundies I've met.. 
"All religion can be boiled down to three things. Play nice, Share your stuff, and take naps. "
We're all right and we're all wrong in our own ways. So play nice, and share your thoughts before the mods take care of the nap part.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

-"Did I claim that morality only comes from a religious text? Am I even religious? It appears you have missed my point. What I was trying to say is that morality is only relative to the time in which we are now in. You are judging the bible by today's morality, which will be just as obsolete 4000 years from now as that of what was accepted as fine in BC times. This is because morality progresses towards some greater right."

I don't think I missed any point. If you are not a religious person, than obviously my statement of the religious claiming morality comes from their texts doesn't include you, part of my post was pre-emptive. I would argue that not all things are on a sliding scale of morality, or just moral for the times. Murder, rape, slavery, genocide, etc. Things of that nature are wrong, have always been wrong. It's just that man have justified these actions in the past usually through religious means.

Your example of a drowning man is an individual case. If the person witnessing the drowning is a proficient swimmer, one would think he can save the man with minimal risk to himself. If the person in question cannot swim, then how would it be immoral for him to not jump in? How would it be immoral for him to likely drown trying to save someone? How would it be immoral to let both you and the man die? There are more options here, such as getting help, if available. This is also kind of a straw man since there is no drowning man. But if you are saying that morality is not black and white, then yes, I totally agree with you. Morality is not, however, completely subjective or objective. I never asserted that.

Yes, many species eat their offspring. Many species also have many, many offspring at once. Many of these offspring are not going to survive. Many of these animals are also not conscious as we know it and run purely on instinct, programming. So I do not think morality could even apply to them. I think it can in some cases where the animals are more sentient, like apes. Scientists can explain it better than I can...

Why Some Animals Eat Their Offspring | LiveScience

Jail and scorn are social pressures to correct what is seen as bad behavior, they are natural emergent mechanisms. Just noting that morality isn't black and white doesn't refute my points. I still contend that there are aspects of morality that are nearly empirical, nearly universal. Certain things can be attributed to the times, I suppose, but that doesn't make them right. The prophet Muhammed married children. This was acceptable in the times, but does that make it right? Fuck no. 

Romans 9 does not address the problem of where god gets his morality. It does nothing of the sort. It seems to be dealing with predestination and 'god's purpose'. Which refutes the bibles own claims of free will. Like many things in the bible, it is just a cryptic non-answer. No-one has yet to provide an answer as to the source of god's morality, because doing to would bring up more questions that it would answer. In debates, theologians like to try to get around that with semantics (a dishonest tactic), which is why defining things is so important. Regarding C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, most of that book deals with what Christians believe. He often begins discussing a topic and then runs away from it...

"Either this man (Jesus) was, and is, the son of God, or else a madman or something worse." He never does anything more than address that there is a problem here. He begins discussing the virgin birth, saying that it is either valid or it is not, and proceeds to avoid answering something that he brought up himself. He is hardly reasonable at all. Bertrand Russel tore his arguments apart before Lewis even made them in "Why I Am Not A Christian". 

My quoting of Arthur C. Clarke was not meant to refute anything, it was merely an introduction to what I was about to argue. Which I have never gotten a straight answer on.

EDIT:

I'll add that the main reason why I stopped believing was these reasons, the (im)morality of the bible and the god of the bible. I was a baptist for the pretty much the first 20 years of my life. =)


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate

I believe in reality and not fairytails.


----------



## Prydogga

A Jehovah's witness (maybe?) came to my house the other day, and said to me that not one fact in the bible was inconsistent with today's scientific knowledge. 

If that were true, I may have reconsidered my thoughts on my being an atheist, for about 7 seconds.


----------



## JPhoenix19

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I believe in reality and not fairytails.



 How very troll-ish.



Cyanide_Anima said:


> -
> 
> Romans 9 does not address the problem of where god gets his morality. It does nothing of the sort. It seems to be dealing with predestination and 'god's purpose'. Which refutes the bibles own claims of free will. Like many things in the bible, it is just a cryptic non-answer. *No-one has yet to provide an answer as to the source of god's morality*, because doing to would bring up more questions that it would answer. In debates, theologians like to try to get around that with semantics (a dishonest tactic), which is why defining things is so important. Regarding C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, most of that book deals with what Christians believe. He often begins discussing a topic and then runs away from it...





Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yes, god condones the things he does, well, because he does them! He is supposed to be all good, all loving, all knowing, all merciful and all just (contradiction right there...), so whatever he does must be good, whether it is intrinsically good, or good because he says it is good. Wouldn't matter either way. If the things he does are moral simply because he does them, them the rules are arbitrary and he is a monster. If the things he does are intrinsically moral then he is getting his morals from an outside source, which negates the claims of his being omni*.




I'm going to have a hard time trying to debate this mindset you have without sounding like I'm attacking you, so if I come across that way, I'm asking you to forgive me in advance.

It seems you approach the question (not problem) of God's 'morality' with a mindset that is flawed. I say it is flawed because you're trying to confine God to human understanding of morality by saying he must have a source of morality, or that his having a source of morality contradicts his being omniscient. The answer to your question regarding where God gets his morality is simple, He doesn't 'get' it from anywhere. To try and judge things God does as moral or immoral is to attribute human understanding onto something that is by nature divine, and does not work. An example (albeit an imperfect one) would be trying to say that animals that eat their young applies to our sense of morality, when clearly it does not. The article you posted lends itself to saying that it is not a practice that can be applied to our sense of morality.

Does God have a source for His Morality? Well, that question is so hard to answer because our sense of morality does not apply to Him. Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions? If all you are searching for is hard and fast answers, I can see why you no longer believe (and I don't meant that as an insult at all). Try and teach a humming bird algebra, and you'll come up frustrated because the hummingbird simply does not have the capacity to comprehend mathematics of that scale. A hummingbird trying to understand our reasoning would not be able to... understand what I'm trying to illustrate?

On some other points:

God having a plan doesn't necessarily contradict our having free will. As we've seen in the OT, God can change His mind (and apparently, His plan). The only way I see to look at it is that instead of God seeing everything that _will_ happen (predestination?), He sees everything that _can_ happen, along with what is most likely to happen.

And please do not bash theologians and imply they are dishonest. Some may be, but to make a blanket statement like that can only appear troll-ish.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

I loathe biblical debates. I never understood the point in trying to prove someone wrong about what they believe. If that works for them then why not let them have it? Many times people ask questions just to bait someone in. If they really wanted to know they'd do the research themselves instead of trying to get second hand info from another source. Questions are like Pringles chips..they can't have just one. Just keep that in mind the next time someone asks you about your religion. Do you really want to get into it with them? Sometimes it's worth it, but many times it's not.

I was reading a book from Peter Gilmore (High Priest of the Church Of Satan) and he said it best. Some people are "intellectual black holes". You throw info into them repeatedly, get nothing back, and it changes nothing for the better.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

It doesn't really seem like you are attacking me personally... What's up with the "flaw" though? How is my perspective on this flawed, because I'd like a definition which didn't also include yourself. I have a question. How can we NOT confine our understanding of god to the human perspective? It's all we got. We are but men, the bible was written by men, all we ever have about the gods were written by men. To say that we have more implies first or second-hand knowledge, correct? All we have of that are people's delusional personal visions of god which contradict each other. Some of them correlate, but not that many, but they are hardly a reliable source of information. I'm finding it hard to understand how _we_ could attain the knowledge of an infinite being seeing how he's already so far beyond our understanding, right? All we have are the bible, and my use is just as valid as anyone else's. I'm quite sure i've read it more times and study it more often than most christians do. I read it every summer when I was a teenager (and a believer).

God _has_ to get his morality from somewhere, its basic logic. He either gets it from himself or a source that is outside of himself. It's a pretty simple concept. Did he will his own morals into existence? How does god's plan not necessarily impede free will? If god has a plan, desires for that plan to be carried out, and will not change it. That means everything is predestined, he knows what is going to happen...

"He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." - Ephesians 1:4-5

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." - 2 Thessalonians 2:13

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." - 2 Thessalonians 2:11

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." - Romans 9:11-22

Doesn't seem that we can do anything to change it either. But, i'm sure there are passages somewhere which state we possibly do have free will, so which do you go by and why? Is it because it is more comfortable? Free will makes us feel all nice and fuzzy, right? It was definitely more comforting to me when I was a believer, but it contradicted what the bible says. I lived with that cognitive dissonance for years, lol.

I think debates are fun! lol. A chance for parties of both 'sides' to learn more about the other. As long as circular arguments aren't made. "The Bible is true > Why? > Because the bible says so > The Bible is true..." Which is what this whole 'debate' has been utilizing. I'm takin' it easy. I've 'given them' the bible. I usually go for the throat, which is probably inappropriate here. lol But there are other places for that. Debates aren't really for the people involved. It's for the observers who are 'on-the-fence'.


----------



## JPhoenix19

Cyanide_Anima said:


> It doesn't really seem like you are attacking me personally... What's up with the &quot;flaw&quot; though? How is my perspective on this flawed, because I'd like a definition which didn't also include yourself.


 Perhaps I wasn't clear? I apologize if I wasn't. I was trying to illustrate that our tools of reason and understanding have limits. The 'flaw' I'm trying to show you is trying to use lacking human logic and apply it to an infinite being. Whether or not you believe God exists, could we agree that if he did and he was omniscient as he is presented in the Bible, then God would indeed be beyond our comprehension? If he exists, and he is beyond our comprehension, doesn't that make sense why many questions we ask about Him would not be able to be answered accurately? It'd be like trying to get to absolute zero or quantify the origin of the universe: our tools simply cannot measure them.


> I have a question. How can we NOT confine our understanding of god to the human perspective? It's all we got.


 Great point. All we have is human logic, so trying to grasp him with this logic ultimately ends in frustration, right? My answer to that is faith. Faith comes in where logic cannot grasp. Faith allows belief without complete understanding. With faith, I can take God at His word about the things he explains, and I don't have to worry about the things I don't understand. I have the freedom to hold an opinion, or even guess at what the answers might be, but ultimately I accept I'll never comprehend the God I believe in. That said, is faith a dangerous thing? Absolutely. Do I need to balance my faith with common sense and logic? Absolutely. Does that mean I need to wrestle with doubt sometimes? Yes. But I'd rather have to deal with my doubts than close my mind.


> God _has_ to get his morality from somewhere, its basic logic. He either gets it from himself or a source that is outside of himself. It's a pretty simple concept.


 Yes, the concept is simple. But this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to apply the simple concept- that works with many things mind you, to a being that, if exists, is beyond such concepts. Do you believe that God should be able to be proved by logic? If so, then by definition you'll never be able to believe in the god of Christianity, since He requires faith and chooses to remain never completely understandable. I guess you already know this, but I felt it needed to be said.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

But you use human logic when reading/learning/'understanding'/preaching/teaching the bible, correct? So how is my analysis invalid when you are doing the exact same thing? Seems hypocritical to me. So tell me, how do people acquire this knowledge of god being so far above us? Again, the NT bible was written by man (same as OT), not even during Jesus' lifetime. It's third hand information, at best. Same with the gospel of judas. 

Sorry, faith explains absolutely nothing. If you are seeking real objective truth and you invoke 'faith' you automatically lose in your search for truth. Faith is pretending to know what you do not know (do I really have to repeat myself?). There is nothing objective about faith, sorry. To say that god doesn't have to adhere to the rules of logic is counterintuitive. Everything in existence from the stars to gravity to light to math have deep logical underpinnings. God cannot make 1+1=42. Saying that anything exists without logic is a non sequitur and a misnomer.


----------



## JPhoenix19

With all due respect, it seems you're missing my points. This particular debate seems to be going nowhere fast, so I'll not add anything to what I've said beyond that I'm not a hypocrite, and that you seem to have skirted around my main point and put words in my mouth. Saying much else would be repeating myself.


----------



## Chris Kult

I am a Left-Hand path Occultist. That is specific as I can get. I used to be a Christian, but found the beliefs too limiting.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Skirted around what? I addressed your arguments. I am not missing your argument, I understand what faith is, and the context in which you are using it. I understand that you cannot seem to process that everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind. I can grasp the concept of god using logic just fine, it is necessary to do so. You keep saying i'm missing something, but you them continue to argue in circles without explaining exactly what it is, other than faith of course, which is taking an extremely biased position from the start. It appears that you have actually 'skirted' my arguments and called upon faith. Faith doesn't fill in those gaps with anything, it just says "I don't know, therefore faith, therefore god." or "science can't explain this (yet), therefore faith, therefore god". I do believe that this debate has gone somewhere, it has shown the circular and fallacious nature of arguments for the existence/goodness/omniwhateverance of god.


----------



## jonnyboymills

I dont believe in beliefs


----------



## JPhoenix19

I'll have to wait until I can get to a computer to respond, as I am currently out and about checking the board on my phone.


----------



## JPhoenix19

> Skirted around what? I addressed your arguments.


 
Partially, perhaps.



> I am not missing your argument, I understand what faith is, and the context in which you are using it.


 
if this is so, I missed it. the definition of faith you gave seems entirely different from mine. Were you being sarcastic?




> I understand that you cannot seem to process that everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind.


 
Here is where we fundamentally disagree, and I believe this is the problem with our debate. It's not that I can't process it, I just flat out don't agree. You assert that everything must fit into logical constructs, and near bludgeon me with it as fact. I have no problem with you stating it as your belief.



> I can grasp the concept of god using logic just fine, it is necessary to do so.


 
I'm confused. Why ask the question about God's morality if you understand the concept of God? To what do you refer to when you say 'concept of god'? Does that statement mean you understand what I was trying to say? From what I read I do not see that, an I apologize if that's an error on my part.



> You keep saying i'm missing something, but you them continue to argue in circles without explaining exactly what it is, other than faith of course, which is taking an extremely biased position from the start.


 
Statements like this are what lead me to believe you are not addressing my points, as I clearly explained what I was trying to say. As stated above, however, it's obvious that we disagree fundementally. Since we're pointing out bias, I might as well point out your seeming inability to see past your own belief concerning everything fitting into logic constructs. 




> It appears that you have actually 'skirted' my arguments and called upon faith. Faith doesn't fill in those gaps with anything, it just says "I don't know, therefore faith, therefore god." or "science can't explain this (yet), therefore faith, therefore god".


 
I did not skirt your arguement. I clearly stated that your question is hard to answer because you are trying to apply human logic to a being that by definition of being infinite cannot be measured by logic. If you don't agree with that, just say you don't agree with it instead of acusing me of not answering your question. An answer you don't like is still an answer.



> I do believe that this debate has gone somewhere, it has shown the circular and fallacious nature of arguments for the existence/goodness/omniwhateverance of god.


 
Was that last part really necessary?




I believe I should also point out that I am not trying to get you to believe in God, or to convert. I'm really not. I'm only trying to answer your 'problem of God's morality'.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

*double post*


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

I believe you misunderstood me if you think I believe everything has to be completely logical in reference to god, but certain elements that we understand do, and this is one of them. A question which is evaded with semantics rather than faced head on. You _do_ in fact realize that everything you "know" about god can only come through your own human understanding, this goes for any person. We have a set of tools in which we use to learn and interact with reality. Logic is one of them (reason, emotion, empiricism, rationalism, etc). god must 'get' or 'draw' his morals from some sort of abstract concept if it isn't some sort of 'god-logic'. Whether he created it himself or adopted it from somewhere else. Is _that_ so hard to understand? You can't just say "he gets his sense from nowhere! tada!". That's nonsense. _This_ is what logic dictates and how I was using it.

-"It seems you approach the question (not problem) of God's 'morality' with a mindset that is flawed. I say it is flawed because you're trying to confine God to human understanding of morality by saying he must have a source of morality, or that his having a source of morality contradicts his being omniscient. The answer to your question regarding where God gets his morality is simple, He doesn't 'get' it from anywhere. To try and judge things God does as moral or immoral is to attribute human understanding onto something that is by nature divine, and does not work. An example (albeit an imperfect one) would be trying to say that animals that eat their young applies to our sense of morality, when clearly it does not. The article you posted lends itself to saying that it is not a practice that can be applied to our sense of morality."

It does indeed contradict his omniscience if he gets his 'source' of judgement from an outside concept or entity. The Mormon doctrine would agree with this, as it's just pure regression at it's craziest. Have you heard of the "Adam God" theory? It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's similar with the Moonies. Anyways, If he gets his morals from himself whether it was created when he willed himself into existence or afterwards, he would have still had to determine the parameters and ethics of his morals. Most of them being arbitrary, not really the sign of an all-knowing being as I pointed out earlier in the thread. Reiterating myself is getting old.

-"Does God have a source for His Morality? Well, that question is so hard to answer because our sense of morality does not apply to Him. Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions? If all you are searching for is hard and fast answers, I can see why you no longer believe (and I don't meant that as an insult at all). Try and teach a humming bird algebra, and you'll come up frustrated because the hummingbird simply does not have the capacity to comprehend mathematics of that scale. A hummingbird trying to understand our reasoning would not be able to... understand what I'm trying to illustrate?"

Our sense of morality does not apply to him? So it is ok for him to command an army of people to wipe out another tribe simple because he said so. This is moral? How? What did the children of the tribe ever do to him (except the 'women children' taken as wives, of course)? I thought kids have a clean slate... When you further examine this stuff, it just doesn't make any friggin' sense! It's just people using delusions of grandeur to take thing which they wrongfully believe to be theirs. How can you so easily dismiss the OT when it is the very foundation of Christianity? The first christians were a group of jews who decided not to call themselves jews anymore!

The hummingbird analogy isn't even analogous. The bird doesn't have a sense of morals. The bird doesn't have the capacity (or the tools) to understand logic, reason, math or what you are communicating to him. We _do_ have the capacity to understand what god is supposedly trying to communicate to us through 'divine inspiration', the Bible. It is written in term we understand, but it's full of contradictions, which go ignored, and atrocities, which go ignored or are justified with statements such as "God is beyond us...". That is a total cop-out response. If the god of the bible is everything he claims to be, he probably cancels himself out.

So you see, I don't see how i'm missing your point at all, I understand exactly what you are saying. But i'm not sure _you_ do. I don't mean to "bludgeon" you, but sorry if i'm not soft, I don't sugar coat anything. lol. I'm also sorry if you think my use of logic is a belief but that is not correct. Logic is a tool. This statement seems like a way of trying to 'level the playing field' by trying to state something I believe, because you believe in something. It's also a red herring... What about my arguments earlier, where I described god must get his morals from somewhere, and his morals affect how he enacts with his reality, thus effect how he proceeds with his plan. Which lead to predestination. Which you wrote off. So again, we _can_ understand certain aspects of god because that is what he _gave_ to us in the Bible (supposedly). This is what everything you have stated, all the things you "know" about god have come from! Do you get it yet? Or are the circles going to continue? lol If you are saying that moral (or any) understanding of god is just not possible, you might as well chuck that book right out the window.

Was that last part necessary? I think so! The arguments are circular, and when I present an argument based upon the bible you reject it saying it's "flawed" and just say it's beyond us. I mean, you are combining logical fallacies here like the power rangers combining zords.

Sorry, a joke, couldn't help it, but no offense really. These discussions are good, they help.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Chris Kult said:


> I am a Left-Hand path Occultist. That is specific as I can get. I used to be a Christian, but found the beliefs too limiting.



Props to a fellow Left-Hand path guy!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Tell us about the Magic you perform, Drakk.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis

Adam Of Angels said:


> Tell us about the Magic you perform, Drakk.



Nah..nah I'm good.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Me too


----------



## Vicissitude27

I have a strong belief with the Dalai Lama, and Tibetan Buddhism. Not really a follower, because I believe the truth path to One's serenity is through many paths of experience. We all are different, but hopefully we can respect each other. This thread can be a great example of toleration. Many cheers!


----------



## daemon barbeque

One of my main problems with Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the fact that God created all. God is omnipotent.
This also includes all the sins like Rape, Murder, Genocide, Greed, Pedophilia etc. God created all. Which kind of "good and loving" entity would create things like that? How can you love all your children, but allow one of the older child (a priest) rape one of the innocent young one, even a boy. Not just that, if that older dude confesses, he just forgives him. But what about the victims? What about their pain and suffering? God seems not to care about it. 
Yes, God created all the bad things as the good things, and just watches the very bad things happen, especially to the innocent ones, and doesn't care.
God created the whole universe for the humans, including viruses, black death, toxic metals.
God seem not to care that his "servants" just throw an atom bomb on an Island full of children and women. Napalm on "commies" who are godless anyway.
God seem not to care send his word to the "rest of the world" in any form in history. He is obsessed with the middle east. But sending his word to India and China would have a bigger effect actually, since they where much more crowded and well established.

But again, god's ways are not comprehend-able by us mere humans. So we just accept all these self contradicting immoral acts as "divine" or get insulted with having just 10 IQ buy his followers if we ever try to understand it. Obviously, reading the whole thing intensively and understanding every sentence is not a wanted thing by god himself. 

It's like ready made, packed food. It tastes good and make you full. Why to check the ingredients and get confused?


----------



## Konfyouzd

Drakk does magic? Wtf?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Yeah! Drakk is a Satanist, he has a thread on the board about how he came about it. It's an interesting read!


----------



## USMarine75

This is the most 'polite' religious debate I've ever seen lol... 

Best books I've read on the topic...

"The Looming Tower - Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" - Wright
"The God Delusion" - Dawkin
"God is Not Great" - Hitchens
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea", "Consciousness Explained", and pretty much anything by Daniel Dennett (one of my professors!)
_"Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (AKA Milestones)" -_ Qutb
"Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" - Oren
No religious booklist would be complete without the "Bible", "Torah", and "Qur'an" - all written by men... many, many men... and changed through translation and rewritten in response to zeitgeist (e.g. King James version)

BTW... finally saw "Book of Eli"... similar to "The Looming Tower" it shows how men can manipulate (or desire to manipulate) other men to extreme acts of violence while invoking god, religion, and faith.


----------



## Nimgoble

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I loathe biblical debates. I never understood the point in trying to prove someone wrong about what they believe. If that works for them then why not let them have it? Many times people ask questions just to bait someone in. If they really wanted to know they'd do the research themselves instead of trying to get second hand info from another source. Questions are like Pringles chips..they can't have just one. Just keep that in mind the next time someone asks you about your religion. Do you really want to get into it with them? Sometimes it's worth it, but many times it's not.



You're making the assumption that all personal beliefs are benign. People's beliefs inform their actions. And people's actions affect others.

Also, why is there anything wrong with debating beliefs? It's the pitting of multiple ideas against one another, (potentially) showing the strengths and weaknesses of each. It's how good ideas grow and bad ones die.

So, I think a better question would be: Why NOT debate beliefs? Pitting your ideas against someone else's is intellectually healthy.


----------



## Matti_Ice

I follow learning. As a young child, traditional Baptist upbringing made sense. The older I got, the deeper into college, the more educational TV, the more reading I did the more that changed. I hate when people ask me what I believe because they always want to hear Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. Truth is, I learn something new every day that changes what I believe


----------



## JPhoenix19

> I believe you misunderstood me if you think I believe everything has to be completely logical in reference to god, ...


wait, what? was it not you that said _"...everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind"_ Did I misunderstand you? These two statements seem to completely contradict each other.



> but certain elements that we understand do, *and this is one of them*...


This is the entire basis of my argument, and again the fundamental schism in our paradigms. You think that God's 'morality' should be able to be understood, when I do not. Is that an accurate assessment?




> You _do_ in fact realize that everything you "know" about god can only come through your own human understanding, this goes for any person.


True, and this is why I do not profess to &quot;know&quot; very much about God. I don't. One thing that I do "know" is that it's impossible for us to "know" much about the finer details of His mind works.



> We have a set of tools in which we use to learn and interact with reality. Logic is one of them (reason, emotion, empiricism, rationalism, etc). god must 'get' or 'draw' his morals from some sort of abstract concept if it isn't some sort of 'god-logic'. Whether he created it himself or adopted it from somewhere else. Is _that_ so hard to understand? You can't just say "he gets his sense from nowhere! tada!". That's nonsense. _This_ is what logic dictates and how I was using it.


Ok, ok... here's what I keep trying to point out. Yes, we have the tools of logic, reason, emotion, rationalism and whatnot. But (again) the entire basis of my argument is that if indeed this being exists, and He is infinite, then our tools- which are obviously _not_ infinite, would not be able to measure Him accurately. Is *that* so hard to accept? I suppose is not accurate to say he doesn't get His morals from anywhere (I know I made this statement earlier), as it is to say we do not (and can not) understand that facet of His character. If you disagree with that, then disagree with it and move on.




> you then quote me
> 
> 
> 
> It does indeed contradict his omniscience if he gets his 'source' of judgement from an outside concept or entity. The Mormon doctrine would agree with this, as it's just pure regression at it's craziest. Have you heard of the "Adam God" theory? It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's similar with the Moonies. Anyways, If he gets his morals from himself whether it was created when he willed himself into existence or afterwards, he would have still had to determine the parameters and ethics of his morals. Most of them being arbitrary, not really the sign of an all-knowing being as I pointed out earlier in the thread. Reiterating myself is getting old.
Click to expand...

Well, the definition of the god we are debating about is "nothing exists except by Him, and without Him nothing exists". Also, by definition the god of the bible has no beginning or end, He just always was, is, and will be (I do not want to argue about this, it is not a contradiction unless you draw absolutes to make it so). Based on these two definitions, God could not draw morals from and outside source since _He_ is the source, so to speak. Yes, that means his ethics and morals would exist as he does, without a beginning or end. No, that explanation doesn't allow the problem to fit within a logic construct. Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment of God's morals- I'm merely postulating to attempt to answer your problem.

I am not familiar with Mornon doctrine, and that I am aware of I have not heard of the "Adam God" theory. I do find it odd, though, that you're trying to use a subjective philosophical approach to find an objective truth. I believe you could spend your energy better refuting God using more objective methods. A philosophical question begets a philosophical answer. If you're looking for an objective truth about where the god of the bible got his morals and ethics, you'll be left speculating. It sounds like your saying that because God had to make up His mind as to what He would do, He's not all-knowing. If that's an accurate assessment, it's faulty at best.



> Does God have a source for His Morality? Well, that question is so hard to answer because our sense of morality does not apply to Him. Perhaps we're asking the wrong questions? If all you are searching for is hard and fast answers, I can see why you no longer believe (and I don't meant that as an insult at all). Try and teach a humming bird algebra, and you'll come up frustrated because the hummingbird simply does not have the capacity to comprehend mathematics of that scale. A hummingbird trying to understand our reasoning would not be able to... understand what I'm trying to illustrate?
> 
> 
> 
> Our sense of morality does not apply to him?
Click to expand...

No.



> So it is ok for him to command an army of people to wipe out another tribe simple because he said so. This is moral? How?


If humans are indeed His creations, and He indeed does hold sovereign dominion over His creation, then it would be permissible. 'Morality' would have nothing to do with it.



> What did the children of the tribe ever do to him (except the 'women children' taken as wives, of course)?


It wouldn't matter, according to the above point.



> It's just people using delusions of grandeur to take thing which they wrongfully believe to be theirs.


Unfortunately, sometimes this is true. Drawing it as a sweeping generality, however, shows a clear blind bias and is a fallacy.



> How can you so easily dismiss the OT when it is the very foundation of Christianity? The first christians were a group of jews who decided not to call themselves jews anymore!


What? I dismiss the OT? No, I just don't view it in absolutes as it seems you do. If that assessment is inaccurate, then correct me. FWIW, I'm actually in the process of studying the OT further and seeking scholarly commentary on it.



> The hummingbird analogy isn't even analogous.


I said it wasn't perfect, but it is analogous.



> The bird doesn't have a sense of morals. The bird doesn't have the capacity (or the tools) to understand logic, reason, math or what you are communicating to him. We _do_ have the capacity to understand what god is supposedly trying to communicate to us through 'divine inspiration', the Bible.


Whoa, what? God is trying to tell us what the source of His morals are? No, last I checked what he communicated was "My mind is not your mind" and "No one can know the mind of God".

I have to give you some credit, because we do have the tools you mentioned earlier. But the hummingbird has his own tools to comprehend the world around him, and look at the difference between his tools and ours. The hummingbird's tools are like a much less complex version of ours. _That_ is analogous.



> [the bible] is written in term we understand, but it's full of contradictions, which go ignored, and atrocities, which go ignored or are justified with statements such as "God is beyond us...". That is a total cop-out response. If the god of the bible is everything he claims to be, he probably cancels himself out.


Yeah, to blindly write off contradictions and atrocities is foolish. I am merely trying to present the possibility that perhaps many of the things that appear to be contradictions could be found not to be upon further study and review- so drawing absolutes about them might not be the best way to approach them. Regarding atrocities, well, I sort of covered that so I won't add anything on that.

Yes, saying "God is beyond us" to blindly write off above contradictions or atrocities may be foolish, but it could also be a plausible answer to things we do not understand- provided that's not it and we are still striving to understand. Just because I believe I cannot know everything about God doesn't mean I don't have a drive to continue learning.




> So you see, I don't see how i'm missing your point at all, I understand exactly what you are saying. But i'm not sure _you_ do. I don't mean to "bludgeon" you, but sorry if i'm not soft, I don't sugar coat anything. lol. I'm also sorry if you think my use of logic is a belief but that is not correct. Logic is a tool. This statement seems like a way of trying to 'level the playing field' by trying to state something I believe, because you believe in something.


Surely you can see how condescending this appears. You believe you should use logic to understand god, right? You said _"everything which exists within the universe or can interact with it must be within its logic constructs, and will/should leave evidence of its interaction behind."_ That's what I was referring to. Is that an incorrect assessment? I wasn't trying to equate your use of logic to my religion, if that's what you mean. I apologize if that's how it came across.




> It's also a red herring...


That does not seem like a red herring.




> What about my arguments earlier, where I described god must get his morals from somewhere, and his morals affect how he enacts with his reality, thus effect how he proceeds with his plan. Which lead to predestination. Which you wrote off.


It's a little insulting to say I wrote it off, I really tried to answer that. Perhaps I didn't expound on it, or perhaps you bushed over my answer. Either way, you seem to be setting a precedent for giving credit only to answers you agree with.



> So again, we _can_ understand certain aspects of god because that is what he _gave_ to us in the Bible (supposedly).


Certain aspects, yes. But as per my argument, just not the particular aspects you're bringing up.



> This is what everything you have stated, all the things you &quot;know&quot; about god have come from!


Oh? I would refer you back to my statement of me never claiming to "know" much about God.



> Do you get it yet? Or are the circles going to continue? lol If you are saying that moral (or any) understanding of god is just not possible, you might as well chuck that book right out the window.


Moral understanding? I personally don't believe we'll get there but I'd love to be proved wrong. Any understanding? I never said we can never achieve any, I said we could never achieve _total_ understanding- big difference. If I did say we couldn't achieve any understaing, I misrepresented myself and it was an error.



> Was that last part necessary? I think so! The arguments are circular, and when I present an argument based upon the bible you reject it saying it's "flawed" and just say it's beyond us. I mean, you are combining logical fallacies here like the power rangers combining zords.
> 
> Sorry, a joke, couldn't help it, but no offense really. These discussions are good, they help.


Yes, you could help it. And so can I. We are obviously at am impasse, and it seems to me that this debate could very well end up in the swinging of the ban hammer. Not to mention we totally hijacked the thread. Can we call a cease-fire? I know I asked some questions but as far as the debate, can we refrain from taking it further?


----------



## KingAenarion

USMarine75 said:


> This is the most 'polite' religious debate I've ever seen lol...
> 
> Best books I've read on the topic...
> 
> "The Looming Tower - Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" - Wright
> "The God Delusion" - Dawkin
> "God is Not Great" - Hitchens
> "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", "Consciousness Explained", and pretty much anything by Daniel Dennett (one of my professors!)
> _"Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (AKA Milestones)" -_ Qutb
> "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" - Oren
> No religious booklist would be complete without the "Bible", "Torah", and "Qur'an" - all written by men... many, many men... and changed through translation and rewritten in response to zeitgeist (e.g. King James version)
> 
> BTW... finally saw "Book of Eli"... similar to "The Looming Tower" it shows how men can manipulate (or desire to manipulate) other men to extreme acts of violence while invoking god, religion, and faith.



You seem to be heavily reading argumentative books written by atheists that are arguing their own point of view without reading anything from the other side. Any critical thinker knows that's a no no.

I've read all of the literary books mentioned (I haven't read every verse in the Qur'an, nor every bit of Jewish History in the Torah). The God Delusion is a funny one. For a man of Science, Dawkins claims to know a lot about everything...

I'd also be interested to know how you read the Bible, Torah and Qur'an. Did you read them straight through, did you just read snippets. Did you read snippets and quotes in other books?



daemon barbeque said:


> One of my main problems with Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the fact that God created all. God is omnipotent.
> This also includes all the sins like Rape, Murder, Genocide, Greed, Pedophilia etc.



He created the possibility for the act and left the choice to perform the act up to free will. 



> God created all. Which kind of "good and loving" entity would create things like that? How can you love all your children, but allow one of the older child (a priest) rape one of the innocent young one, even a boy. Not just that, if that older dude confesses, he just forgives him. But what about the victims? What about their pain and suffering? God seems not to care about it.



Why do you say that? Why does God seem to not care? Because he doesn't intervene and gives humans free will to do good OR evil?
One of the many things that initially made me question this line of thinking and become a Christian was the fact that if, say, Christians are right and Jesus was God made man, he did experience incredible suffering when he became a man. Just a point of interest...



> Yes, God created all the bad things as the good things, and just watches the very bad things happen, especially to the innocent ones, and doesn't care.
> God created the whole universe for the humans, including viruses, black death, toxic metals.
> God seem not to care that his "servants" just throw an atom bomb on an Island full of children and women. Napalm on "commies" who are godless anyway.
> God seem not to care send his word to the "rest of the world" in any form in history. He is obsessed with the middle east. But sending his word to India and China would have a bigger effect actually, since they where much more crowded and well established.



So you're saying because a God allows suffering he doesn't care?



> But again, god's ways are not comprehend-able by us mere humans. So we just accept all these self contradicting immoral acts as "divine" or get insulted with having just 10 IQ buy his followers if we ever try to understand it. Obviously, reading the whole thing intensively and understanding every sentence is not a wanted thing by god himself.
> 
> It's like ready made, packed food. It tastes good and make you full. Why to check the ingredients and get confused?



I find that a Bizarre way of looking at it. I mean if followers of religion are belittling you then you need to tell them sod off. But of course there are some things that we won't comprehend. Dealing with Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - which we as humans have not experienced - there are going to be things that appear to be logical fallacies. Free will vs Predestination being an example. When you are dealing with unlimited power and knowledge, then these two things aren't mutually exclusive. But while we can't understand the practicalities of it all, we can still understand the philosophical and moral questions it raises.


----------



## daemon barbeque

KingAenarion said:


> He created the possibility for the act and left the choice to perform the act up to free will.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that? Why does God seem to not care? Because he doesn't intervene and gives humans free will to do good OR evil?
> One of the many things that initially made me question this line of thinking and become a Christian was the fact that if, say, Christians are right and Jesus was God made man, he did experience incredible suffering when he became a man. Just a point of interest...
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying because a God allows suffering he doesn't care?
> 
> 
> 
> I find that a Bizarre way of looking at it. I mean if followers of religion are belittling you then you need to tell them sod off. But of course there are some things that we won't comprehend. Dealing with Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - which we as humans have not experienced - there are going to be things that appear to be logical fallacies. Free will vs Predestination being an example. When you are dealing with unlimited power and knowledge, then these two things aren't mutually exclusive. But while we can't understand the practicalities of it all, we can still understand the philosophical and moral questions it raises.



God indeed let people choose between good and evil. But why to create evil in the first place? Why put a fruit on the lovely tree but forbid to take it. This is indeed a way of torture the human soul.

Why let people suffer from acts of other people? Free will to destroy some other's life which is "precious" thing in religion does not make sense in the eye of the victim. 
How does a Loving GOD allow children die from hunger, malaria and other stuff. How god let so many poor and religious people suffer, but let nonreligious to be wealthy and healthy?

These all are questioned by an atheist, who Read it all, page by page. Not just that, but all the "explanations" , descriptions written by "experts". 

God itself is an Atrocity. It sends you to an inferno for killing, but he wipes out entire cultures with his wrath. He kills babies, let people suffer form other's "free will", let innocent suffer by his followers. God do not intervene in these things? No he doesn't. So why pray? If God let's his favorite creations made from his own image tortured, why not interfere? It is not free will to be raped. It is not free will to be molested. How God awaits kids to become caring, loving, functioning adults when he lets them suffer their whole lives?


Yes, we can't understand his will and his ways you say. So why believe in it ? Why follow a deity when his ways are not clear, his Morals are twisted? Of course we might cherry pick the good parts and leave the rest. That is exactly what most of the Jews and Christians do. But that is exactly what a good person does, with or without belief in anything. We do the things we see righteous, and don't do the things we see false. We don't look in a textbook how to react when people fall down suddenly on the pavement. If we are good, we help. If we are not, we don't. Bible or any other book do not play a role in this situation.


----------

