# What do you believe? And why or how did you come to believe that? no trolling please



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

Okay, I have to ask a question and for the most part I'm just curious. This is not to stoke a fire or for trolling nor shall trolling be allowed. 

I grew up in a christian family, but over time I have floated in to the athiest/borderline agnostic person. Why? For me it was because some things just didn't add up for me. Directly from the christian religion the bible was translated to many languages from Hebrew and many of the stories were written down long after they happen. Those 2 reasons made me question accuracy of the original information to begin with because metaphors translate poorly into other languages and you also end up with a varied story each time something is retold as seen many times through history. These were my personal issues with the faith I was following at the time.

The one thing that was never an issue was science in relation to religion because who says from a religious perspective God did not create all things in a rational way ie science.  I've always found it funny when religious groups denounce science on that fact considering the point I just made.

Now, the other thing that always bothered me was the notion that my branch of faith was the only group going to heaven. We are taught that God is loving and righteous and yet he would condemn people on a superficial level like that just seemed bizarre to me. Then I was told later on that only people who knew of Christianity would be condemned if they did not accept it which makes the crusades, and conquistadors a little twisted when you think about it. (telling them about it when they know they won't abandon what they were told all their life thus condemning them to hell ).

The straw that broke the back for me was when I learned the history of the faith and how it progressed. When you find out that some of the most influential people in the faith had used their power to take advantage you can't help, but assume they could have even altered historical religious facts as well. Like the middle ages with the "coupons" for redemption as an example.

Last but not least what is happening now confounds me when you hear stories of the bible like the tower of babel. We build huge skyscrapers, fly planes and have been in space and yet according to this story this is how different languages were formed because he didn't want us to reach up into the skies. To boot we have begun to reinstate a more global language as well. Assuming this story is what genuinely happened it doesn't make sense why there would be a change of heart.

As a whole it is just a bunch of dots that don't connect all that well to me and the fact that many religions exist (making me believe if it was true they could be just as right or more right than the others). This leads me to 3 possibilities; one religion is right, all religions were derived from the same religion or in fact they were all wrong and invented to help understand/explain the world around them. None of what I say denies the possibility of someone pulling the strings, but I do find myself more on the line of such thoughts. At this point in my life I find that I am an Atheist who doesn't deny the possibility of a "God", but I don't have enough non-conflicting info to derive what/who etc. so it just seems like fruitless work. In other words there could be one or many, but it isn't worth the effort when there is no "absolutes" on the subject.

So the question this was all leading up to is what do you believe? And why or how did you come to believe that? I find that people seem to err on the side of cautious in talking about religion so I would ask that no one trolls and respects each others point of view.

I say again this was not an attempt to offend anyone I am genuinely curious of other perspectives on life and things beyond that.

[EDIT]

Over time I have come to find that I enjoy the life principles that the Buddhist practice. It all kind of makes sense to me in terms of how someone should I've their life if they wish to be truly happy.


----------



## Mayhew (Mar 2, 2012)

I question anyone who thinks they have it figured out.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2012)

If any of this is real, then I'm inclined to lean towards the whole Zecharia Sitchin/twelth planet theory.

However, I'm not even convinced that it all isn't a dream.
Who's dream? Maybe yours (meaning anyone's), maybe mine, maybe god's (if there is).

edit; A great read (true or not) is William Bramely's GODS OF EDEN. It traces the whole origon, development and progression of secret societies and the brotherhood of the snake.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> If any of this is real, then I'm inclined to lean towards the whole Zecharia Sitchin/twelth planet theory.
> 
> However, I'm not even convinced that it all isn't a dream.
> Who's dream? Maybe yours (meaning anyone's), maybe mine, maybe god's (if there is).
> ...



Zecharia has an interesting theory at a glance. Does he do anything to actually back it up??? Or are these all just assumptions made by him?

I'll have to read that at some point it's always nice to hear things from a different perspective. It actually makes for good converstion/debate as well. Afterall if you know nothing about a subject the only thing in a debate you can say is "Na ah your wrong stupid head"


----------



## ittoa666 (Mar 2, 2012)

When I was younger, I used to go to church with my parents, but around 12 or 13, we stopped. Eventually I decided that Christianity just wasn't for me. I respect the ideas of being a good person and treating others well, but it never made sense to me that people would need a greater presence to make them realize what was right. 

I would regard myself as an athiest, and to a lesser degree, a misanthropist (along the lines of Schopenhaur). I love the idea of free thinking and I believe that religion binds you in that sense.

Basically, I believe what I do because I don't agree with anyone who thinks they are better than anyone else because of their beliefs, and I'm also disgusted by the things that human kind does to nature and "lesser" beings.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

ittoa666 said:


> When I was younger, I used to go to church with my parents, but around 12 or 13, we stopped. Eventually I decided that Christianity just wasn't for me. I respect the ideas of being a good person and treating others well, but it never made sense to me that people would need a greater presence to make them realize what was right.
> 
> I would regard myself as an athiest, and to a lesser degree, a misanthropist (along the lines of Schopenhaur). I love the idea of free thinking and I believe that religion binds you in that sense.
> 
> Basically, I believe what I do because I don't agree with anyone who thinks they are better than anyone else because of their beliefs, and I'm also disgusted by the things that human kind does to nature and "lesser" beings.



Yeah I shoot bows at a local archery, don't hunt, but the way people talk about killing is creepy when you think about it. When you consider the fact that babies raised in the wild behave like animals and that animals can be domesticated I also don't see a strong enough line to distinguish the 2. Hell my dog has a personality stronger than some people and if anyone hurt him I'd make sure they suffered no one hurts my dog. That being said we are carnivores so I have nothing against hunting as a whole just the bloodlust when some people talk about it.

[edit]
for me too when you consider the notion that you need a reason to be good under some faith it would seem that an honest atheist is actually an overall better person because of it. (no reward)


----------



## bhakan (Mar 2, 2012)

Your (OP) views are basically exactly the same as mine. I was technically raised as a christian, but for as long as I can remember religion has seemed improbable to me. I can't honestly believe in anything that has as many contradictions as christianity (or almost any religion for that matter) and has no real facts to back it up. I don't really really have much else to add, as the OP covers almost every basis for my "religious" beliefs.

I would also like to add that I mean no offense to anyone. Religion is always a touchy subject and can generally become volatile very quickly.

EDIT:
Would any Christians mind putting their opinions on some of the contradictions brought up in the OP? I myself have always wondered:
-If God is all loving, why would he punish the majority of the population based solely on which culture they were born into?
-Many ideas shown in Christian beliefs/the Bible have been disproved (sun does not revolve around earth, earth not created in seven days, etc.) If these are incorrect what makes the others correct?

Again, I mean no offense, and I may have made some mistakes as to what is said in the Bible etc, so please keep it civil, I'm just curious as to what others think.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Zecharia has an interesting theory at a glance. Does he do anything to actually back it up??? Or are these all just assumptions made by him?
> 
> I'll have to read that at some point it's always nice to hear things from a different perspective. It actually makes for good converstion/debate as well. Afterall if you know nothing about a subject the only thing in a debate you can say is "Na ah your wrong stupid head"


 
Yeah he went (he's dead now) ape shit chronicaling the evidence (of coarse it's debatable).

It's really just a more detailed expansion of Erich Von Daniken's research into our most ancient known civilizations.
The whole ancient astronauts theory is much older than that though. There's plenty to show that the Nazis were hot on the trail to obtain furthur archeological evidence that supports the theory.

History Channel's Ancient Aliens show delves into this and it's many intermingled tie-ins.

At the very least it's interesting to ponder (at least it is to me ).


----------



## ittoa666 (Mar 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yeah I shoot bows at a local archery, don't hunt, but the way people talk about killing is creepy when you think about it. When you consider the fact that babies raised in the wild behave like animals and that animals can be domesticated I also don't see a strong enough line to distinguish the 2. Hell my dog has a personality stronger than some people and if anyone hurt him I'd make sure they suffered no one hurts my dog. That being said we are carnivores so I have nothing against hunting as a whole just the bloodlust when some people talk about it.



Hunting for food is one thing, but doing it for "sport" is very wrong in my mind. What's sporting about sitting in a tree camouflaged so you can kill an animal that's already trying it's hardest to survive (I'm of course referring to deer hunting)? I've always disagreed with the hunting of animals for trophy or poaching purposes.

:EDIT: I apologize for getting slightly off topic.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 2, 2012)

I used to be a very die hard Christian. I went to Catholic school, was the chaplain's aid of my Boy Scout Troop, went to Church every Sunday, and prayed every day. Still I believe everyone had to right to believe in what they wanted to, who was I to question what they believed? 

Well, life started to take a turn for the worse. I was in college, a new place where I knew no one and was very scared. I was involved with some people who treated me like shit, laid off from my job with the government, I had to give up my grass cutting business which I loved and a few other things. My OCD had been acting up a lot too so that was not helping. My family said turn to religion and prayer. I did that, nothing happened. Over time I began to think that God is not listening. After all I did and the devotion I showed, I did not see anything at all and starting taking matters into my own hands. One day i just stopped going to church, stopped praying, and just moved on.

What am I now? I do not know anymore, do I care as much? Not really. I just want to do what I want to do, get on with life and do what I enjoy. Only thing I absolutely believe is I have a disgust for those who criticize others for what they believe, because I have been there, many of us have.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 2, 2012)

LaVeyan Satanist.

As to why? It seems to be the most common sense and logical religion. The religion is one of those things where you either agree with it or you don't..those who read the book fall into one of those categories. I'd pretty much lived my entire life as a Satanist even when I didn't know it


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah he went (he's dead now) ape shit chronicaling the evidence (of coarse it's debatable).
> 
> It's really just a more detailed expansion of Erich Von Daniken's research into our most ancient known civilazations.
> The whole ancient astronauts theory is much older than that though. There's plenty to show that the Nazis were hot on the trail to obtain furthur archeological evidence that supports the theory.
> ...



I'll have to find those episodes and watch them to get a solid grip on it. Reading nonfiction can get too droll sometimes so it should help sink it in. It does sound intriguing though.



ittoa666 said:


> Hunting for food is one thing, but doing it for "sport" is very wrong in my mind. What's sporting about sitting in a tree camouflaged so you can kill an animal that's already trying it's hardest to survive (I'm of course referring to deer hunting)? I've always disagreed with the hunting of animals for trophy or poaching purposes.
> 
> :EDIT: I apologize for getting slightly off topic.



Ya I have a bigger problem with big game hunting than anything. We have too many conveniences that makes hunting even for sport just unfair. As long as nothing goes to waste and your not a psychopath (the hunter) I'm usually alright with the idea. Deer meat tastes pretty good and meet at the grocery store isn't anymore humane or cheap either, but if all your after is the trophy it rides the line of bloodlust IMO. Although, Deer are pretty dumb so I don't know how others feel on the issue.

Religion encompasses many things so it isn't much of a detour.

To put back on topic the one thing that I still don't get to this day is why the all of a sudden disappearance act (God). If you read the bible his presence is strong through out (christian) and yet today nothing. That is a very large discrepancy for me as well.

Again anyone else who has opinion feel free to post. I'd love t hear from a religious persons perspective. I'll be nice. 

[edit]
Also I've always thought what if people with personality disorders and hallucinations were in fact more aware of the supernatural rather than crazy or maybe the prophets of the past in fact had a personality disorder. Just another thing I always think about.


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 2, 2012)

I think following one thing too closely is a great way of shutting off exciting and awe inspiring ideas and thoughts. I am "Christian" but I use that loosely. I strongly believe that there is a God but I also believe that this God didn't make the Earth in 7 days and that a man walked on water and that another man parted the sea and blah, blah, blah. 

I've seen documentaries about the stars and their relation to Christianity that were REALLY cool and made a lot of sense. Science on its own makes a lot of sense. Christianity on its own can make sense if you wade through the wizard stuff. Combine the two and I think you have a really great combination. That is just my opinion, obviously. 

Plus, there is a lot of cool shit in science. Like...everything ever to do with astrophysics is unbelievably interesting.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> I think following one thing too closely is a great way of shutting off exciting and awe inspiring ideas and thoughts. I am "Christian" but I use that loosely. I strongly believe that there is a God but I also believe that this God didn't make the Earth in 7 days and that a man walked on water and that another man parted the sea and blah, blah, blah.
> 
> I've seen documentaries about the stars and their relation to Christianity that were REALLY cool and made a lot of sense. Science on its own makes a lot of sense. Christianity on its own can make sense if you wade through the wizard stuff. Combine the two and I think you have a really great combination. That is just my opinion, obviously.
> 
> Plus, there is a lot of cool shit in science. Like...everything ever to do with astrophysics is unbelievably interesting.



So do you mean that you just believe in a super being of some sort or in fact the christian faith with some exclusions?

I do agree things "can" work smoothly together for sure. In fact things in the universe work so well together it is one of the few reason I still believe that it is possible that their is in fact a "God" of sorts. This isn't related entirely, but I had read a somewhat joke list that was talking about bible omissions about Jesus. According to the list not only did he do the things mentioned, but was a dragon slayer of sorts. Don't know if that was every really written, but it was funny to think about in terms of the wizard stuff you mentioned.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

Church2224 said:


> I used to be a very die hard Christian. I went to Catholic school, was the chaplain's aid of my Boy Scout Troop, went to Church every Sunday, and prayed every day. Still I believe everyone had to right to believe in what they wanted to, who was I to question what they believed?
> 
> Well, life started to take a turn for the worse. I was in college, a new place where I knew no one and was very scared. I was involved with some people who treated me like shit, laid off from my job with the government, I had to give up my grass cutting business which I loved and a few other things. My OCD had been acting up a lot too so that was not helping. My family said turn to religion and prayer. I did that, nothing happened. Over time I began to think that God is not listening. After all I did and the devotion I showed, I did not see anything at all and starting taking matters into my own hands. One day i just stopped going to church, stopped praying, and just moved on.
> 
> What am I now? I do not know anymore, do I care as much? Not really. I just want to do what I want to do, get on with life and do what I enjoy. Only thing I absolutely believe is I have a disgust for those who criticize others for what they believe, because I have been there, many of us have.



My guitar teacher was pretty much the reverse. He was a druggy growing up, ended up on the street, then found a way to get to GIT after high school. After that he realized his life was just really messed up so he devoted his life to Christianity and he seems very happy now, has a nice family and great kids. Life has a way of making those kinds of decisions for you that's for sure and I respect him all the more for it.



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> LaVeyan Satanist.
> 
> As to why? It seems to be the most common sense and logical religion. The religion is one of those things where you either agree with it or you don't..those who read the book fall into one of those categories. I'd pretty much lived my entire life as a Satanist even when I didn't know it



Interesting, I know nothing about the faith other than the "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, but if you don't leave me alone I will destroy you policy". (correct me if I got that wrong) What else is there to it? I could look it up, but if your interested in telling I'd be glad to listen.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> My guitar teacher was pretty much the reverse. He was a druggy growing up, ended up on the street, then found a way to get to GIT after high school. After that he realized his life was just really messed up so he devoted his life to Christianity and he seems very happy now, has a nice family and great kids. Life has a way of making those kinds of decisions for you that's for sure and I respect him all the more for it.



My father was the same way as well. Maybe one day I will go back to it as well, churches in my area have some great youth programs. Many people I know are Christian and in all honesty they are some of the best people I know, same with my Islamic and Jewish friends. That being said I know some people who are not religious and are good people...Can't we all just get along?


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 3, 2012)

I was also raised christian, well catholic to be exact, but I rejected that faith. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me, none of the stories and concepts in the bible are believable. In fact the whole concept of "faith" is silly to me, because it's essentially believing in something without any proof or reason to believe in it. And yet religious people act like it's a noble thing to have faith. I think part of what drove me away from it was having religion forced upon me my whole life so, although I don't dislike religious people at all, I do find the kind of christians who try to force their faith on everyone to be very annoying.

I suppose I would call myself Atheist or Agnostic, I only say Agnostic though, because I don't want to claim that I know for sure there's no god, as if I somehow have solved one of mankind's greatest questions, but I really don't believe it's very possible that there's any kind of god, so I'm really more Atheist. However, I do have a lot of respect for Hinduism and I find it very interesting and I find a lot of religion, mythology, demonology, etc. to be very interesting.

The thing is though, that the really early polytheistic religions, long before christianity or even judaism existed, were formed as a means of controlling people and creating a society. In those times it was survival of the fittest and a lot of the heathen tribes were cannibals and raped and pillaged each other. The only way the weak could survive was to convince people that they would be punished for those actions and rewarded for their good actions, so in that sense it's good that religions were formed. But I think that's a pretty strong indicator that none of the other religions are right either. And as it's been mentioned on this thread already, Atheists don't kill or steal because it's against our personal morals and it hurts other people, but christians don't do those things because "it's against god's laws" and they'll be rewarded in heaven if they don't. So who is the better person? And the christian's stance on homosexuality is so disgusting. Why would god be a bigot?

Again, I'm not anti-religion and I don't hate religious people, we're all entitled to our own beliefs. These are just my personal thoughts on religion. Religion is good for a lot of people and if it makes you happy than great, just don't force it on anyone else.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

Church2224 said:


> My father was the same way as well. Maybe one day I will go back to it as well, churches in my area have some great youth programs. Many people I know are Christian and in all honesty they are some of the best people I know, same with my Islamic and Jewish friends. That being said I know some people who are not religious and are good people...Can't we all just get along?



Ya churches do have good youth programs.Things like that are also a good way to get kids off the street. I wish we could all get along alas some faiths by their very definition just don't allow it, it seems. Albeit I know plenty of people who get along just fine as well. I don't think I'll ever traverse back into Christianity as a faith (could be wrong I suppose), but as I added to my original post I do think I would be willing to live by buddhist principles.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Mar 3, 2012)

I was raised Roman Catholic, but I'm atheist agnostic. It's simply because I'm a skeptic, I question everything and want proof for everything. God can't be proven in a tangible way, so I am inclined to believe he doesn't exist, though I'm open to persuasion by concrete proof. I also hate all the ill will and hate that religion creates. It all seems like too much of a hassle, so even if I believed I'd probably be a deist or something.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> I was raised Roman Catholic, but I'm atheist agnostic. It's simply because I'm a skeptic, I question everything and want proof for everything. God can't be proven in a tangible way, so I am inclined to believe he doesn't exist, though I'm open to persuasion by concrete proof.



At the heart of it that is basically how I feel.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Interesting, I know nothing about the faith other than the "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone, but if you don't leave me alone I will destroy you policy". (correct me if I got that wrong) What else is there to it? I could look it up, but if your interested in telling I'd be glad to listen.



Well there's a lot to it. churchofsatan.com, and various wikis and whatnot can give you deeper info. That is one of the "rules of the earth". It's pretty much a religion that focuses on the self. You're accountable for your own actions, take full responsibility for your life. Be your own god instead of praying and wishing for things to happen, make them happen. The main thing is about personal fulfillment. Understanding that man is just another animal, you go about achieving your goals and fulfilling desires without the guilt of a god. As long as you aren't harming anyone who doesn't deserve it (and that has limitations obviously) then have fun.


----------



## Fiction (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe the mind is a great tool, the ability to develop ideas, novels, music... Religion, all through thought is amazing. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Well there's a lot to it. churchofsatan.com, and various wikis and whatnot can give you deeper info. That is one of the "rules of the earth". It's pretty much a religion that focuses on the self. You're accountable for your own actions, take full responsibility for your life. Be your own god instead of praying and wishing for things to happen, make them happen. The main thing is about personal fulfillment. Understanding that man is just another animal, you go about achieving your goals and fulfilling desires without the guilt of a god. As long as you aren't harming anyone who doesn't deserve it (and that has limitations obviously) then have fun.



Sounds more like a philosphy than a religion. It's pretty interesting. Does it actually have anything to do with satan??? I'll read the links when I get a chance.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 3, 2012)




----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


>




Haha good to know...Catchy song 

I used to believe in a thing called love, but


----------



## ImaDjentleman (Mar 3, 2012)

wow, a we gots a lot of smart people on this website, such a refreshing change from my high- school reality of know nothing kids who will do anything, say anyhing, then call you disgusting when you say that you aren`t a christian. i basically agree with all the pointers you gave in your first post, and, while there are many many other arguments against organized religion that we`ve all heard a million times before, your theory about the tower of Babel really made me laugh . and to whoever asked if christians would give any counter arguments, they never will. being 15, i guess i`m a little too over zealous about my discovery of the corruption of religion, so i volunteered to talk to 2 pastors when i told my faith fanatic mother that i was an atheist (and was basically disowned by her). Anyway, i made a list of my fights against christianity and any organized religion. i mainly talked about biblical stories and science, and when i was finished, on both accounts, the preachers wouldn`t speak to me. they cursed me, calling me a demon, a heathen, anything you would expect, so both times, i just left. i apologize if i`ve offended anyone, but honestly i am very passionate about this topic.


----------



## Fiction (Mar 3, 2012)

^ and this is why I'm not a fan of religion at all.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Ya churches do have good youth programs.Things like that are also a good way to get kids off the street.



Right! It seems many people are steered to do good things due to belief in god and religious teachings. If only we could eliminate the crooked, warmongers, perverts, etc.

My thoughts - belief in a god makes my life better and sets my mind at ease. I see many people doing great things and turning their lives around based on faith, So if its all fake - so what? Its working! Its good for the "spirit."

To digress for a minute, there is a scientific theory that states we are 99.99999% likely living in a simulation based on....

1. one day humans will create simulations indistiguishable from reality
2. they would run many of such simulstions for research, leisure, etc..even millions
3. If point 1 is true, then there is only a 1 in x million (number of sims) chance we are in the real world, so we are almost CERTAINLY living in a simulation.

within said simulation, my NPC does better believing in a god. 

but yeah, the scriptures are just stories AFAIC


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

ImaDjentleman said:


> wow, a we gots a lot of smart people on this website, such a refreshing change from my high- school reality of know nothing kids who will do anything, say anyhing, then call you disgusting when you say that you aren`t a christian. i basically agree with all the pointers you gave in your first post, and, while there are many many other arguments against organized religion that we`ve all heard a million times before, your theory about the tower of Babel really made me laugh . and to whoever asked if christians would give any counter arguments, they never will. being 15, i guess i`m a little too over zealous about my discovery of the corruption of religion, so i volunteered to talk to 2 pastors when i told my faith fanatic mother that i was an atheist (and was basically disowned by her). Anyway, i made a list of my fights against christianity and any organized religion. i mainly talked about biblical stories and science, and when i was finished, on both accounts, the preachers wouldn`t speak to me. they cursed me, calling me a demon, a heathen, anything you would expect, so both times, i just left. i apologize if i`ve offended anyone, but honestly i am very passionate about this topic.



Ya I err on the cautious side when I'm dealing with family about religion. my grandfather is a pastor so he obviously isn't going to be told I respect him too much to crush his spirit that way. People don't like talking about for a couple reasons I think;one is they think they are being sacrilegious, the other is people are worried I think that they will find the fallacies to be true eroding the bedrock of their beliefs and some just think it is rude. glad to see you liked my theory. It is a shame more strongly religious people won't have a good discussion about it with someone since they could in fact clear things up and retain membership of a few skeptics if they did. The best argument I have heard in favor of Christianity is that pretty much everything in the bible is a moral lesson and a lot of it is fact metaphors and didn't happen. That would make many of my discrepancies disappear. I feel for you in your situation, but not all religious people are like that, many in fact are easy to talk to you just got to meet them in the middle. if you sound like your attacking they will more than likely feel provoked and attack back. You have to approach such things in an inquisitory fashion in all discussion pretty much. What I've learned is you can't presume you're right and they are wrong. I find religion as a topic very fascinating and the notion of an afterlife is favorable to just not existing at some point.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

vbshredder said:


> Right! It seems many people are steered to do good things due to belief in god and religious teachings. If only we could eliminate the crooked, warmongers, perverts, etc.
> 
> My thoughts - belief in a god makes my life better and sets my mind at ease. I see many people doing great things and turning their lives around based on faith, So if its all fake - so what? Its working! Its good for the "spirit."
> 
> ...



Thats a cool thought and I totally agree with you if it makes your life better more power to ya. why take that away from someone if it makes them happy. Depending on the branch of Christianity some believe it is just stories others think they are literal. I lean towards stories with moral centered themes. Although I don't know what killing your kid for a God would prove IMO. We all live in SIM's That is an awesome theory.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 3, 2012)

I see human behavior as an extension of primate politics, as demonstrated by all other primates on the planet: love the things you perceive as most like you, hate or be indifferent to all other things. 

"This ape is like me! Attack the strangers from the other troop!" 

Because we have warm fuzzy feelings about those whom we view as being like us, all religions contain good treatment of others as a logical expression of our primate politics. 

Because we will have hostile feelings about those whom we view as not being like us, all movements against such individuals and groups attempt to remove all true points of similarities.

So, we have groups which claim to love their neighbors as themselves, but who also vilify, say, homosexuals. Primate politics at their finest. 

----

Anyone who studies Biblical exegesis eventually runs into the problems of authorship and Biblical error, and I saw a lot of cognitive dissonance among those who refused to reach the logical conclusions in such circumstances. 

The removal of Scriptural books which are definitely of the canon, but which supported beliefs to which the Protestants were hostile, was a funny development, especially given that the books which remain refer to those removed books. I've always been fascinated by the thought that the Bible was the product of intercine politics. 

Anyway, started out as Christian, but the inconsistencies brought out in serious study of how sausage gets made removed inerrancy as an option, and after one is just left with philosophy, there was no reason to think the philosophical points outweighed the wrong points and the errors which were supposedly fact.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Sounds more like a philosphy than a religion. It's pretty interesting. Does it actually have anything to do with satan??? I'll read the links when I get a chance.



Religions have ritual and dogma..Satanism has both. As for the Satan thing it does to some extent. Satanists are atheist and don't believe in Satan as a real figure, more as a figurative being that represents the darker/primal side of humanity that other religions try to shy away from. Since those ideas are given the devil's name as it were, Satanists feel it's only right to give themselves that label instead of shying away from the negative connotation


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Depending on the branch of Christianity some believe it is just stories others think they are literal. I lean towards stories with moral centered themes. .



Hmmm i would be interested to know which branches so i could check it out myself. That was one thing that pushed my away from church - people directly believing and preaching some of this stuff . I used to play in a church band and it was good times, wouldnt mind doing it again in a "less literal" setting.

but yeah that sim theory is a mind bender - i saw it on history or something and looked it up - the guy that came up with it is convinced!! lol seems farfetched but it does make sense.


----------



## Necris (Mar 3, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Anyway, started out as Christian, but the inconsistencies brought out in *serious study of how sausage gets removed* inerrancy as an option, and after one is just left with philosophy, there was no reason to think the philosophical points outweighed the wrong points and the errors which were supposedly fact.


 
That sentence is hilariously surreal.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Religions have ritual and dogma..Satanism has both. As for the Satan thing it does to some extent. Satanists are atheist and don't believe in Satan as a real figure, more as a figurative being that represents the darker/primal side of humanity that other religions try to shy away from. Since those ideas are given the devil's name as it were, Satanists feel it's only right to give themselves that label instead of shying away from the negative connotation



Makes sense. In fact it makes me wonder why Christians behave so fearful of the group. I hear it all the time strange considering.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

vbshredder said:


> Hmmm i would be interested to know which branches so i could check it out myself. That was one thing that pushed my away from church - people directly believing and preaching some of this stuff . I used to play in a church band and it was good times, wouldnt mind doing it again in a "less literal" setting.
> 
> but yeah that sim theory is a mind bender - i saw it on history or something and looked it up - the guy that came up with it is convinced!! lol seems farfetched but it does make sense.



I don't have any specific denominations off the top of my head, but I know plenty of people don't take it literally. Thats the best I can do for you.


----------



## shredguitar7 (Mar 3, 2012)

Religion was just an idea that got blown way out of proportion... Just my 2 cents.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

shredguitar7 said:


> Religion was just an idea that got blown way out of proportion... Just my 2 cents.



that's definitely always been one of my theories.

Similar to stories like el chupacabra (probably spelled that wrong) or even Santa Clause. From a moral perspective I see no difference we use Santa as a means to make kids behave which is what religion tries to do for others. Can't help, but leave room for me being wrong though. Like I said everything moves so perfect that it isn't outright impossible, however, I find that if there was a God I don't know why he'd care about the Earth when the Universe is so big.


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe any thing could be the case, and it's often dangerous to discount every idea except for one


----------



## Jason_Clement (Mar 3, 2012)

I r atheist. Hear me RAWWWWRRRRRR!


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 3, 2012)

Sorry guys, but this myth has already been busted.



You can all go home now.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 3, 2012)

I've always been an atheist in the strictest sense of the word -without belief in god. I was raised Catholic, but I never felt or heard anything from God. It was a bit tough, actually. I remember being in Sunday School, getting ready for Communion, praying to God to make me believe, to help me "feel" his presence, but it never happened. That was when I was 9 years old, I think. 

I have this opinion where if someone starts a sentence with "I believe" I don't trust them as much as if they say "I think." Even worse is the "I know" camp. My roommate says "I know there is no God," which I think is just as erroneous as saying "I know there is an Invisible Purple Unicorn." I think, looking back through time, as people figured out more and more of the mysteries of the world, and life, there was less and less room for higher powers. If we know how rivers form, and why they flood, why is there a need for a god of the river? Furthermore, if we can show how random molecules can start reproducing themselves (and in a limited sense, we _have_) what room is left for a higher power? If we can see the basis of our 'morals' in primates, what place does religious dogma have in our lives? 

I think the possibility of there being a higher power is very low. If there is, I'd suggest that it is a product of evolution, just as we are, and most objects in the Universe, if you think about it, and that makes me wonder what cause it would have to be worshiped. I call myself atheist, but I make the distinction of the 'without belief' part, to distance myself from the dogmatic, "My parents hate me so I hate God" kind. I like to say that I don't know what the real truth of the matter is, and neither do you. It gets people's goats.

Also:

*Can God create a rock so large that he can't lift it?*

Answer that question, and I'll give you a dollar.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Makes sense. In fact it makes me wonder why Christians behave so fearful of the group. I hear it all the time strange considering.


 
Well they still relate the word Satan to it's context in the old testament, which is basically the opposition to god.

Old testament is an entirely different discussion than the new testament becuase they deal with time periods thousands of years apart and were written obviously by different people.
The Hebrew's old testament consist of many stories that are direct reflections (some believe) of older societies' stories including those of the babylonians, hitites, assyrians, akaddians (I'm spelling these wrong I know), egyptians and sumerians.

Anyways most religions now have a view of Satan which stems from the Sumerian creation stories (as have been interperted by some) concerning a split between two factions of the anunaki, one led by Enki (son of Anu), and the other led by Enlil(the other son of Anu) who chose to oppose Enki's decision to withold from the humans the imformation of a looming physical catastrophy.
Some believe this was begining the original flood story.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well they still relate the word Satan to it's context in the old testament, which is basically the opposition to god.
> 
> Old testament is an entirely different discussion than the new testament becuase they deal with time periods thousands of years apart and were written obviously by different people.
> The Hebrew's old testament consist of many stories that are direct reflections (some believe) of older societies including the babylonians, hitites, assyrians, akaddians (I'm spelling these wrong I know), egyptians and sumerians.
> ...



good info. i'm in the camp where if there is such thing as a god Satan and God are probably one in the same, but that doesn't coincide with Christianity in the slightest. I enjoy theorizing the impossible puzzles of life though.


----------



## broj15 (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe in God but i do not classify myself as a christian. I guess i call myself a non denominational believer. God's okay but i don't want to associate myself with his fan club. There is so much hypocrisy that goes on in any religion (not just christianity) that makes going to any kind of "church" or being involved in any kind of religious "community" just unbearable for me. The movie "Saved" staring Mandy Moore sums it up pretty acurately.
I was born into a christian family and was forced to go to church and was never shown other schools of thought until i got into school when i learned that there was something outside of religion. It's always been my thought that if your shove religion down your children's throats that when they get older they will reject it completely and rebel against it.

Edit: to the above question about the New and Old testament: for the old testement think of god as like your pissed off dad that likes to rain hellfire and damnation on to all sinners, where as the new testement god is like your cool old grand pa that always has mints and is always nice.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

broj15 said:


> I believe in God but i do not classify myself as a christian. I guess i call myself a non denominational believer. God's okay but i don't want to associate myself with his fan club. There is so much hypocrisy that goes on in any religion (not just christianity) that makes going to any kind of "church" or being involved in any kind of religious "community" just unbearable for me. The movie "Saved" staring Mandy Moore sums it up pretty acurately.
> I was born into a christian family and was forced to go to church and was never shown other schools of thought until i got into school when i learned that there was something outside of religion. It's always been my thought that if your shove religion down your children's throats that when they get older they will reject it completely and rebel against it.
> 
> Edit: to the above question about the New and Old testament: for the old testement think of god as like your pissed off dad that likes to rain hellfire and damnation on to all sinners, where as the new testement god is like your cool old grand pa that always has mints and is always nice.



Sounds like having a kid toned him down. 

I was never strong in faith, but it did take exposure for me to realize I didn't belong. i think that is why a lot of Christian parent have begun to home school.


----------



## wlfers (Mar 3, 2012)

The biggest thing about christianity which I disagree with is the notion that virtue is not inherent to humans, and must be obtained through a request/prayer to god.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

athawulf said:


> The biggest thing about christianity which I disagree with is the notion that virtue is not inherent to humans, and must be obtained through a request/prayer to god.



Yeah that disgusts me an a fundamental level. he society we live in does play a big part in morals though. For instance some people are disgusted by the notion fo killing animals and some aren't. That usually depends on where you grew up and what you parents did/do. Morality is just complicated the notion that it all boils down to religion is ridiculous. my philosophy class pretty much pointed out that it was impossible to connect on a general level morality to religion.


----------



## Stealth7 (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe in nothing..


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

I was truly hoping to hear the thoughts from the other side on this one


----------



## Asrial (Mar 3, 2012)

By definition, I'm a christian, but I don't believe in a deity far above the sky: That's just plain silly, eh?

IMO, Jesus was a cool dude that told people to love and care for each other, and him preaching about god? Just a nickname for love.
God for me is an omnipresent bond between humans, where to show care and mercy for each other, to love and respect each other. He's not an entity in any shape, way or form, he's just a pseudonym for me for universal love and caring.

And from what I can see, that's what religion in general is about: love your next, don't mess up society, live like a sane person and whatever you do, don't eat xxx (referring to halal/haram here ).


----------



## ZEBOV (Mar 3, 2012)

After spending half a fucking hour typing it, I clicked on Submit Reply, and all I got was this:


> Forbidden
> 
> You don't have permission to access /forum/newreply.php on this server.
> 
> ...



I clicked back, copied what I typed, clicked on Previous Post. Same fucking thing. Clicked back, deleted everything, typed some random keys, Preview Post.... Well, that works. Why can't I tell people what I've been through?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 3, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> After spending half a fucking hour typing it, I clicked on Submit Reply, and all I got was this:
> 
> 
> I clicked back, copied what I typed, clicked on Previous Post. Same fucking thing. Clicked back, deleted everything, typed some random keys, Preview Post.... Well, that works. Why can't I tell people what I've been through?


 
I got the same thing when I tried to type nasty things on the Snookie thread .


----------



## ZEBOV (Mar 3, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I got the same thing when I tried to type nasty things on the Snookie thread .



But I didn't post anything nasty. If I could post what I typed (I still have it copied), you wouldn't think that I left out any details, but there were some HUGE details I left out. If I didn't leave them out, I wonder how the server would react.


----------



## Edika (Mar 3, 2012)

I consider myself an atheist. I grew up in a religious relaxed environment of orthodox christianity. Events in my life from grade school got me thinking that something is wrong with religion and/or with the people enforcing it. Growing up and learning history (from the cristian point of view) I began to question things more. What we were told didn't add up. My fascination with science helped me break off from religion all together.

After this small personal background I will say some facts on the matter. This is not to convince anyone to reject their religion but give them some food for thought. The belief in religion is based on the environment which one grows up. Any new born from any religious background can be raised in another cultural environment and adopt the traits of that culture/religion. The depth of belief and attention to detail depends on how strict the religious environment is. There are of course exceptions of people coming from very religious environments rejecting faith and very liberal environments finding faith. This has to do with experiences and interpretation of events along with the knowledge one acquires, how it is processed and what situations life provides people.

Truth is as humankind's intelligence evolved the fear of the unknown intensified. One way of explaining all the weird things observed were the creation of stories to sooth the collective mind. The examples are too many of the absurd notions passed through the various religions as they were evolving as we see them through a modern perspective. Christianity, that was an "improvement" of Judaism, was considered a very revolutionary religion/theory for the time and was not easily accepted as most of you remember. After it's establishment as the new prominent religion it became (as most religions) a way of controlling the masses. If you defied your masters, the chosen by god, you would spent in eternity in hell. This was the fate of the angels that defied god according to chrisitianity, imagine what would happen to mere folks. Not that the other religions were any better but I have no knowledge of their exact teachings. And this was the one of the initial use of religion, aside from giving explanations about the hardships of life, to maintain order and suppress our primal instincts. Do you think that all those wealthy tyrants would last so long if they haven't indoctrinated the masses (and hiring lots of soldiers to protect them)?

Of course the scriptures of religions if read and understood by people do not necessarily drive people to these behaviors. Most of them are nice stories and have a moral to give. One big problem is interpretation and the way it is portrayed by the "experts" of religion, ie priests. If a figure of authority gives a certain official interpretation most people will accept it because they haven't given the time to read the religious documents or read them without thinking. I haven't read the whole bible or the all the testaments but I can't bring myself to do that. What I do know that in an almost infinite universe with countless of galaxies, stars and planets the possibility of a deity would create all of this just to have only one planet with life and devote all of it's attention to it is kind of ludicrous. To think that it would follow, care and have plan for every life form on this planet (well humans only because these are the ones that "count") is the definition of narcissism.

As every part of society there are various degrees of belief. From people using religions as a positive way of influencing their lives to actually hurting other people. Even though I don't agree with following religion I don't tell other people not to. I will discuss this subject if asked, I will defend my point of view and that is that.

I managed to write a wall of text again and I'll be lucky if someone actually reads it hahaha!


----------



## Varcolac (Mar 3, 2012)

Roman Catholicism seems to be really good at producing godless sceptics. I include myself in that group.

Explorer's post essentially outlines the process of my lost faith. As a teenager I started to become very interested in history. Not the WW2 tank-porn, ancient astronaut, Mayan 2012 dross they show on the History Channel these days: the academic discipline. The questions that a historian must ask - assessing not only what we can learn from a source but how far we can trust it, how it interacts with other sources, and its own history of use and abuse, discovery and loss - became so entrenced into my being that I can scarcely read an advertisement in a newspaper without automatically applying higher criticism. 

Applying that to the Bible, I found it didn't even have internal consistency, let alone supporting evidence from non-Christian sources. Exit Catholicism, stage left. Enter undergraduate and postgraduate history degrees, stage right.

I try not to believe. I try to _know._ 


I allow myself one belief though: I believe in humanity. I believe that the human race deserves the stars, and that we should, we can, and we will break the shackles of our earthbound existence and venture into the galaxy. I believe that in everyone's mind is a world of potential and a galaxy of dreams. I believe that every human life from pauper to prince, heretic to hierophant, genius to gibbering idiot, is one of the most valuable things on Earth, and in the universe. We are matter arranging itself into new forms. We are life shaping its own evolutionary path. We are the universe examining itself with the most sophisticated and adaptable piece of hardware ever developed. I believe in the human brain.





(Some might say, based on that, that I believe in Carl Sagan. Not quite true. I just agree with him.)


----------



## SenorDingDong (Mar 3, 2012)

I believe that religion is an industry. And a pretty shitty and corrupt one, at that. 

I believe there is some higher power, but I'm not sure what that power is, whether it is a god or just our subconscious on some higher level.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm a firm atheist.

I wasn't raised religiously and I have to commend my parents for allowing me to make my own choices. I did, however, go to a Church of England-run primary school, so we had to sing hymns and pray in assembly and so on. I was young and impressionable and I went along with it to an extent, certainly. Then, when I got to no longer being in a religious school, I began to question that a bit more. By the time I got to 14 or 15 I was considering myself an atheist, and I think I've found organized religion (especially Christianity) to be steadily more repugnant since then. I just believe it's truly awful as something to base your life around. Religion, in all its forms, is responsible for so much unspeakable evil on this planet, and I think the world would be generally much better off without it.

Just to clarify, though - I don't have the slightest problem if you believe in it, I just don't understand why anyone would choose to. I'm very tolerant of religious people, just not of the religions themselves.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm a Christian myself. I also denounced the Catholic church long ago, for many reasons, that include historical manipulation of religious text, political promiscuity, a moral code that would look fine in a random VIII Century castle where beheading random plebe was a national sport, and utter refusal to assume the fallacy that is to create an institution in which the believer in Jesus is to assume the infallibility of random dude who supposedly knows, via divine inspiration, what God REALLY wants.

Erm... no?

My vision of christianity is quite detached from institutions, formal precepts, and removing the individual journey of self-discovery is a complete no-no in my book. A benevolent creator doesn't enslave the creation, nor would he require one to enslave and manipulate, and I don't believe in some sort of divine punishment executed by God himself - I have a strong notion of cause and consequence, and if I make a terrible choice that harms others, whatever comes my way isn't a heavenly slap on the wrist.


----------



## SirMyghin (Mar 3, 2012)

Like Fred, I am no longer a catholic, but still Christian. I am very keen on consequence also, and am a stickler to rational thought (you damn well better have a erason for everything you do). 

I also don't feel like expounding, so here we are.


----------



## bhakan (Mar 3, 2012)

I would like to applaud sevenstring.org for managing to have a 3 page rational discussion on religion without anyone attacking each other. In real life, any religious conversation last about 20 seconds before someone insults me or ends up thinking less of me as a person.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 3, 2012)

I have a lot of opinions and ideas about God and religion, but I feel they would be too inflammatory to post here. If anyone gives a shit and wants to know, I'd be happy to respond to a PM.

Short view: I don't believe in God, and I feel that organized religion is one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against society.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 3, 2012)

I think having faith and unwaivering belief have their place in the human psyche, but I also think that there should be universal understandings, such as respect for others, goodwill toward others and the seeking of a social aesthetic. If we can all strive for these things collectively then quite frankly I don't care if people believe there's a World Government who turn into reptiles behind closed doors.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 3, 2012)

@Necris - I accidentally dropped the word "made" from the phrase "how sausage is made," instead making it about unmanning. I can see how that would be disturbing. *laugh*

@Scar Symmetry - Although I can't argue that faith and belief are not part of the human psyche (remember, that's how babies and little kids can take their parents' word on the dangers of fire and of talking to strangers), sometimes the extension of that propensity is a bit negative.

It's definitely nice to think of being kind of those of your particular primate troop being extendible to other troops of primates, but it rarely happens. That's why the majority of court cases in the US filed against Christian groups for imposing their beliefs are filed by Christians of other sects. If they can't even extend tolerance to other Christians, they're demonstrating primate politics at its finest.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> After spending half a fucking hour typing it, I clicked on Submit Reply, and all I got was this:
> 
> 
> I clicked back, copied what I typed, clicked on Previous Post. Same fucking thing. Clicked back, deleted everything, typed some random keys, Preview Post.... Well, that works. Why can't I tell people what I've been through?



Sounds like a conspiracy dude. Feel free to try again though I'd like to hear your opinion 

Edika:
Yeah from just a life perspective in general I feel that all things alive are precious by no means am I a flower child, but we all contribute in some form or fashion. Spiders and bats keep the bug population down, beavers build dams, we all play our part in the food chain/ecosystem.

Varcolac
Yeah I think that turns a lot of people away or it least forces them to look at if from a different perspective. We humans do have an amazing gift of an intelligence. I mean we have essentially exited the cycle of nature and created a sanctuary for ourselves. I'd call that impressive.

JWGriebel
I leave room for such possibilities

BucketheadRules
Things like the crusades and even what the conquistadors did to native americans did play a part in my decision that the human aspect couldn't be trusted.

Fred the Shred
That is the kind of belief system I could get behind. Why? Because it makes perfect sense and functions as a solid life philosophy, then if you are a ogod person and there happens to be a God he would base it off your life whether you went to heave. that was always the thing that through me when I was young. Would God through a little girl who has done nothing wrong into hell just because she didn't believe? Especially when some people of the faith believe that people who were just never taught can get into heaven, it seems a bit inconsistent to think that way. That question came up in the book/movie a Bridge to Terabithia 

SirMyghin
Exactly my thoughts if I were to lean further into the supernatural side of things.

bhakan
Some people are impossible to talk to about it. Like my mom fears being damned to hell so badly she avoids the topics against it (fear). Sometimes though it is approach. I said it somewhere else on here, but you definitely have to come across it as if you could believe they are correct otherwise it isn't a debate it's a I'm right no I'm right kind of conversation. That being said it is hard to find people who are cool about discussing the ins and outs of faith.

HaMMerHeD
If you'd rather PM me go for it I'll read it. 

Scar Symmetry
A universal understanding is very important and acceptance of others as well. I agree that sometimes religion really helps people in their life and there is no reason in this world why anyone should destroy that for them.

I'd like to see the reptiles thing happen though.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 3, 2012)

vbshredder said:


> Right! It seems many people are steered to do good things due to belief in god and religious teachings. If only we could eliminate the crooked, warmongers, perverts, etc.
> 
> My thoughts - belief in a god makes my life better and sets my mind at ease. I see many people doing great things and turning their lives around based on faith, So if its all fake - so what? Its working! Its good for the "spirit."
> 
> ...



Two things about the whole simulation hypothesis.

1. Would be that if we were being run in a simulation than it is possible that the people who are running our simulation are in a simulation run by some one else and so on and so on, which would mean that there would be an infinite amount of simulations, like an infinite amount of parallel universes.

2. If we are in a simulation then I want to wake up and kick the ass of those who put me in this thing because they are jackasses ! Seriously them and I would have a lot of words once I get out of this.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

Something to think about from the simulation perspecitve or even a deity perspective (Could they be one in the same? ) I always find the idea a little creepy that someone is always watching me.  When I was more religious it creeped me out.


----------



## wayward (Mar 3, 2012)

Well since this hasn't really been covered. I'm completely unreligious.
I denounce religion and try to keep it as far out of my life as possible (Though I do respect it, I just don't care if you have a religion). Some of my best friends for YEARS UPON YEARS (And past bandmates for 5 years) are devout Christians, and I just look at them as regular people. We played in a Christian Worship band, and I just looked at it as music, and I played with them every night and didn't think of religion once. I just don't want to have my life include several groups of people who have to have an excuse for existing, and what happens after existence ceases it's cycle. I just live, and die. I complete a cycle that countless humans, animals, and other life has done.

That's just the way things work. I don't need an excuse for why I exist. I EXIST, why question it? I'm not afraid of death, or care what happens to me when I stop my life cycle. EVERYONE will die, no matter what. I don't need a "higher being" or "science" to tell me that I'm living, why I'm living, why I'm dying, or where I'm going to be after I die.

I don't have enough time in my life to live a life of worshipping other people that actually exist, let alone worshipping a "Higher Being" or "Scientific Theory" that there's no actual existence of. I don't care if I'll ever be in "Heaven or Hell" or trance across The Universe. I'm on Earth now, and it's where I need to be in my physical body and my mind.

Just sharing.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 3, 2012)

ZEBOV said:


> After spending half a fucking hour typing it, I clicked on Submit Reply, and all I got was this:
> Quote:
> Forbidden
> 
> ...



The same thing happened to me once when I was talking about the name of a sandwich. For some reason it wouldn't let me say "McGangBang"  for some reason it let me say it this time though.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

wayward said:


> Well since this hasn't really been covered. I'm completely unreligious.
> I denounce religion and try to keep it as far out of my life as possible (Though I do respect it, I just don't care if you have a religion). Some of my best friends for YEARS UPON YEARS (And past bandmates for 5 years) are devout Christians, and I just look at them as regular people. We played in a Christian Worship band, and I just looked at it as music, and I played with them every night and didn't think of religion once. I just don't want to have my life include several groups of people who have to have an excuse for existing, and what happens after existence ceases it's cycle. I just live, and die. I complete a cycle that countless humans, animals, and other life has done.
> 
> That's just the way things work. I don't need an excuse for why I exist. I EXIST, why question it? I'm not afraid of death, or care what happens to me when I stop my life cycle. EVERYONE will die, no matter what. I don't need a "higher being" or "science" to tell me that I'm living, why I'm living, why I'm dying, or where I'm going to be after I die.
> ...



All good points for sure. Part of what you said has been covered here, but you're definitely right people should be more focused on the here and now. It seems people always have the natural desire to ask the question why? It's the only reason the string theory exists and to me the idea of it even seems pointless it is literally not provable. As most things people talk about.

However, some topics that can't be proven are worth while like talking about morality. We have the old ways of thinking that get discussed, but then new ones get added that could if willing change someones entire way of living. Like the utilitarian theory, Kant's, egoism, etc. And this is a good thing because it could reshape perceptions and even laws like drug use, euthanasia, victimless crimes, or even how to decide between to equally right options. (Do I save the girl or do i save the boy) Is it based on who has more potential, who is less risky to save, what they have accomplished, who you know better. Topics like that fascinate me even though there is no definitive "right" answer which in some peoples eyes makes it pointless.


----------



## wayward (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> However, some topics that can't be proven are worth while like talking about morality. We have the old ways of thinking that get discussed, but then new ones get added that could if willing change someones entire way of living. Like the utilitarian theory, Kant's, egoism, etc. And this is a good thing because it could reshape perceptions and even laws like drug use, euthanasia, victimless crimes, or even how to decide between to equally right options. (Do I save the girl or do i save the boy) Is it based on who has more potential, who is less risky to save, what they have accomplished, who you know better. Topics like that fascinate me even though there is no definitive "right" answer which in some peoples eyes makes it pointless.




I appreciate every single one of these points! Really puts some thoughts on the old brain, I'm really enjoying this discussion.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 3, 2012)

Fred the Shred said:


> I'm a Christian myself. I also denounced the Catholic church long ago, for many reasons, that include historical manipulation of religious text, political promiscuity, a moral code that would look fine in a random VIII Century castle where beheading random plebe was a national sport, and utter refusal to assume the fallacy that is to create an institution in which the believer in Jesus is to assume the infallibility of random dude who supposedly knows, via divine inspiration, what God REALLY wants.
> 
> Erm... no?
> 
> My vision of christianity is quite detached from institutions, formal precepts, and removing the individual journey of self-discovery is a complete no-no in my book. A benevolent creator doesn't enslave the creation, nor would he require one to enslave and manipulate, and I don't believe in some sort of divine punishment executed by God himself - I have a strong notion of cause and consequence, and if I make a terrible choice that harms others, whatever comes my way isn't a heavenly slap on the wrist.



I like this post. Very much.

I myself am a Christian, but for purposes of this thread I'd rather focus on some of my philosophy instead of the definitions of my religion.

Philosophically, I tend to reside somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum as Laveyan Satanism (as I understand it). I see living only for self-fulfillment as a fallacy. God or no god, I believe that there is a greater sense of purpose for man, and that it is larger than living for ourselves. Outside of my Christian world-view, I cannot define that purpose for man. I value structured society and believe there must be law and order. I'm also realistic and I know that any social, religious, or political construct will have varying degrees of corruption, and I see that as a reality that must be accepted. From a purely objective point of view, religion does a great deal of good for the world and to focus solely on the bad it has done is a fallacy IMO.

Being a Christian, I believe in God and I tend to understand God in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense. That said, I also believe that it's not my job to try to argue or debate with people with the intent of converting them. I'm still on my journey of faith, how can I possibly think I have a right to dictate anyone else's?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I like this post. Very much.
> 
> I myself am a Christian, but for purposes of this thread I'd rather focus on some of my philosophy instead of the definitions of my religion.
> 
> ...



Ya I see what you're saying. So you mean that we should behave in a way that benefits society as a whole. It least I think that is what you are saying. That is pretty much the topic of the time right now in politics; health care, welfare, insurance, starvation, poverty. And I also agree completely that there is nothing 100% bad about religion. Everything has its problems. And I also appreciate your perspective 

Just to avoid confusion by definition what would the traditional Judeo-Christian God be?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> I was also raised christian, well catholic to be exact, but I rejected that faith. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me, none of the stories and concepts in the bible are believable. In fact the whole concept of "faith" is silly to me, because it's essentially believing in something without any proof or reason to believe in it. And yet religious people act like it's a noble thing to have faith. I think part of what drove me away from it was having religion forced upon me my whole life so, although I don't dislike religious people at all, I do find the kind of christians who try to force their faith on everyone to be very annoying.
> 
> I suppose I would call myself Atheist or Agnostic, I only say Agnostic though, because I don't want to claim that I know for sure there's no god, as if I somehow have solved one of mankind's greatest questions, but I really don't believe it's very possible that there's any kind of god, so I'm really more Atheist. However, I do have a lot of respect for Hinduism and I find it very interesting and I find a lot of religion, mythology, demonology, etc. to be very interesting.
> 
> ...



That is the root reasoning of why people typically become atheists or agnostics. The only thing I will disagree with is that not "all" religious people do these things you have mentioned. I know plenty of religious people who are pro gay rights and aren't preachy. The development of many religions over time has also caused me to wonder and think as well.



Fiction said:


> I believe the mind is a great tool, the ability to develop ideas, novels, music... Religion, all through thought is amazing. Nothing more, nothing less.



When you think of Greek mythology and roman mythology the people back then believed it whereas today we call it a myth. In some sense I find that to be hypocritical when you view the parallels. Which always leads back to my biggest concern about religion which is just how many different forms there are/been.


----------



## skeels (Mar 3, 2012)

I've got issues. 
I find that the more questions I have in my life, the less faithful I feel.
Can I be Christian and something else too? I mean, wasn't Jesus Jewish?
I used to have a pretty good relationship with Satan too and I din't feel as though this harmed me. In fact I feel as though people who are intolerant and unloving are doing the opposite of what is taught in most religions; "Love one another" and all...
Lately I have been returning to the basic tenets of Zen Buddhism which are "Shut up!" and "Quit your bitchin'!"


PS I'm really not trying to be a troll- I'm just all screwed up right now and everything I say seems to come out weird. Reading the Tao Te Ching a lot always makes me feel peaceful. That's a good one.


----------



## groph (Mar 3, 2012)

I was baptized without my consent as Catholic to prevent my sinful infant body from being cast into the eternal fires if something bad should have happened to me.

Then, at around 5 or 6 I was a Jehovah's Witness without my consent for a few months, then I became a Mormon, where I was again baptized without my consent at age 8 or 9 or 10 or whatever. That was my last baptism, so I assume the Mormon one overrides the Catholic one. I'm saying it was nonconsensual because I was young and I was surrounded by older men, authority figures who were basically telling me that I had to. If I stayed a practicing Mormon, I would probably be just getting back from my mission now (its basically expected of young men to go out and spread the word for a few years) and would be ready to begin my delayed university education. 

Luckily, my parents stopped going to church when I was around 10 or 11 and since then there's been no looking back as far as I was concerned. Back then, you're a fucking kid so you believe everything an older person tells you so that's where my beliefs came from.

Now, I do not think that there are any forms of omnipotent ultimate reality sorts of deities out there however I will also concede that our perceptions are limited by our senses, empirical knowledge and logic work only as far as us humans are concerned (take that with a grain of salt, I can think of some exceptions to this "rule"), so it could be possible that a "God" exists, we just can't perceive it.

Even if there was a God, I'd defy him because I take serious issue with a being who thinks it's better than me and uses that as justification to tell me what I can and cannot do. I don't need a holy text to provide me with a moral compass and I'd prefer to derive meaning out of my own life on my own terms. I'm a badass like that.

I do, however, believe in religion, and by that I mean that I believe that A) religion exists, it's all around us in its various forms and B) it can serve a positive purpose in the lives of some people. I just don't think that religions are ACTUALLY about a "real" being somewhere, and the way religious people go on, it really sounds like they are talking about a real, actual being. The meaning religion has is there and I think it's totally fine, I just don't think there's actually a God. The whole concept of a God is ludicrous to me.

Politically, I don't subscribe to a rigid ideology; I see no point in doing that as the world is fluid. Your country's constitution will become obsolete, "conservatism" is a relative term, "liberalism" has changed dramatically, the West is slowly becoming more and more egalitarian, shit just changes too much. I don't think people should be obstructed in their self-expression or beliefs as long as their beliefs and expression don't harm anybody else, so that's kind of a libertarian standpoint and I think that's as dogmatic as I'll allow myself to be.

I guess I'm pro-human and anti-dogma. Reflexivity and honesty are key.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

groph said:


> I was baptized without my consent as Catholic to prevent my sinful infant body from being cast into the eternal fires if something bad should have happened to me.
> 
> Then, at around 5 or 6 I was a Jehovah's Witness without my consent for a few months, then I became a Mormon, where I was again baptized without my consent at age 8 or 9 or 10 or whatever. That was my last baptism, so I assume the Mormon one overrides the Catholic one. I'm saying it was nonconsensual because I was young and I was surrounded by older men, authority figures who were basically telling me that I had to. If I stayed a practicing Mormon, I would probably be just getting back from my mission now (its basically expected of young men to go out and spread the word for a few years) and would be ready to begin my delayed university education.
> 
> ...



This has little to do with the discussion on hand, but if the republican candidates the US has in its primaries right now wins the whole thing we will revert back to some bizarre conservatism based on their campaign. Saying that I think they all shot themselves in the foot.

It is a fair assumption that we aren't able to perceive a God and having said that if a God doesn't meddle with anyone on a personal level you could actually say in a bizarre sense that the way the universe works scientifically in and of itself is God. Just another bizarre way to look at it.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Just to avoid confusion by definition what would the traditional Judeo-Christian God be?



Essentially, I use the term to mean the God described in what is now the widely-accepted biblical cannon- the trinitarian (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. Although some of the finer points are debated, most of the mainline Protestant denominations- along with Catholics and Jews would probably say that they worship the same God even though their theologies for other things may differ drastically.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 3, 2012)

Regarding the three hypothesis which supposedly prove we're almost certainly living in a simulation...



> _A technologically mature &#8220;posthuman&#8221; civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:_
> 
> _The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;_
> _The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;_
> _The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one._


... basically says this:


If we are close to extinction, then we're probably living in a simulation (no proof given for the dualistic argument).


If we're only one of a minute number of civilizations to make it beyond a certain point, then we're probably living in a simulation (again, no proof given).


Combining those two ideas, we also get this:


If either we're going to go extinct, or we're going to make it beyond a certain point, we're probably living in a simulation.


That unsupported either/or, what's up with that? "If we live or die, we're simulated" is a silly statement without support, as the conclusion doesn't follow from the antecedents. It's even more illogical than "If there's an unproven Intelligent Designer, it is clearly the Christian Yahweh."


----------



## sage (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm a 4th generation atheist. My kids are 5th gen. My parents allowed me to explore religion. I went to sunday schools, took eastern religions in university, read lots about theology. But nothing really struck me as being a better explanation for life, the universe, and everything than physics. I've always felt that religion is a double edged sword. It makes some folks "better" people than they would be otherwise and it helps other folks oppress and destroy entire populations. 

However, I am a positive dude. I believe in the power of the human mind and its ability to triumph over adversity. I believe in the human desire and capacity for peace. I believe that we can be giving and loving and empathetic without the hammer of the gods held over our heads forcing us to do the right thing lest we perish into everlasting fire.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

sage said:


> I'm a 4th generation atheist. My kids are 5th gen. My parents allowed me to explore religion. I went to sunday schools, took eastern religions in university, read lots about theology. But nothing really struck me as being a better explanation for life, the universe, and everything than physics. I've always felt that religion is a double edged sword. It makes some folks "better" people than they would be otherwise and it helps other folks oppress and destroy entire populations.
> 
> However, I am a positive dude. I believe in the power of the human mind and its ability to triumph over adversity. I believe in the human desire and capacity for peace. I believe that we can be giving and loving and empathetic without the hammer of the gods held over our heads forcing us to do the right thing lest we perish into everlasting fire.



Sounds like your parents had the right idea. It's much better to be given a choice and allowed to explore different beliefs, rather than to be forced into a religion, which ultimately just pushes you further away from it.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Sounds like your parents had the right idea. It's much better to be given a choice and allowed to explore different beliefs, rather than to be forced into a religion, which ultimately just pushes you further away from it.



My biggest issue with the forced part is when you ask some people why they are religious they say it's because that is how they were raised and what they were taught. IMO you need a better reason than that. If you went through hardships or self discovery and ended up there great, but not even questioning why seem like a very passive path to take. After all if you can answer the question your better for it i would think.


----------



## Miek (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm the kind of person who doesn't separate the personal from the political from the religious, so it's all one thing to me. All I believe in is the equality of all human beings, and the construction of an egalitarian society engineered to shelter, aid, feed, and otherwise compassionately support us all. I suppose that's religion enough to me - believing that other humans are worth as much if not more than I am. 
I wasn't raised to believe anything, and I was only given a love of science and the world around me by my parents whether they aimed to or not. I don't believe in any god, but if I'm wrong, that's okay, I don't think believing would change the way I see the world or how I act in it. I find many religious texts fascinating and in some cases inspiring and reassuring - doubly so since I am of the opinion that they are the works of humans, and that humans could profess such compassion for one another that Jesus did is something that gives me no small amount of hope.
Nowadays I don't really ascribe to specific subsets of it, but I'm a staunch socialist...and feminist and envirogalitarian and moonbutt skittergooj whatever

It would be nice to see all my loved ones after death though.


----------



## KingAenarion (Mar 4, 2012)

Oh my... post of the century to come?

Before you read this, I am not aiming to offend or start arguments... I'm just trying to show my rationalised viewpoints and respond to what I at times feel are misconceptions.


So the best way for me to describe myself is a religion hating Christian.

I attend a theologically conservative, culturally liberal church plant. I classify "religion" as a set of rules and dogmatic principles by which one might attain enlightenment/heaven/redemption.

Jesus, who I believe based on evidence (which I'll get into in a minute) was God, spurned that kind of idea. He made it quite clear that there is one way to heaven only...

and that way is not by doing a whole lot of specific things... it has NOTHING to do with being a good person. It has EVERYTHING to do with accepting your sinful nature and accepting the fact that nothing you do will ever be good enough... and that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.



That is my belief. It's not the clearest explanation I have ever given, but it's one of the shortest 


Now on to a couple of questions/misconceptions I've noticed in the thread. The first one that actually had me a little bit  was this.




Varcolac said:


> Applying that to the Bible, I found it didn't even have internal consistency, let alone supporting evidence from non-Christian sources. Exit Catholicism, stage left. Enter undergraduate and postgraduate history degrees, stage right.



I'm not going to start a complete historical debate with you, because you have full degrees in the subject, but I will put forward my LIMITED knowledge on the subject

Which part of the bible are you talking about particularly? I've read a good 20+ books on historical Jesus, and debunking the most important aspect of Christianity - Jesus Christ - doesn't seem to be a majority scholarly historian thing. (I can name the books I've read if you like)

Off the top of my head, there is corroborative historical evidence for the following:

- The name Yeshua ben Josef (Jesus)
- The place and general timeline of his ministry (Palestine during Pontius Pilate's governorship AD26-36)
- The name of his mother
- The ambigous nature of his birth
- The name of one of his "brothers" (James)
- His fame as a teacher
- His alleged performing of miracles/sorcery
- The attribution by followers of the titles Messiah or Christ
- The Time and manner of his execution
- The involvement of both the Roman and Jewish Leadership in his trial/execution
- The coincidence of an eclipse at the time of his execution
- Reports of followers claiming to have seen him reappear after his death (in one interpretation of Josephus)
- The growth of a movement of followers after his death

I could write a few paragraphs on this, but if people are more interested. The following names are something you want to look into with reference to Jesus.

This one is slightly convoluted: Thallos' _Histories_ being mentioned in _History of the World_ by Sextus Julius Africanus which is mentioned by Georgius Syncellus in _Chronicle_ (had to dig out an old essay to get that one right)

Mara bar Serapion (i'm not sugar coating this, he doesn't directly reference Jesus, just "wise king"... but there were no other Jewish figures around that time who fit the description)

Tacitus

Pliny the Younger

Suetonis

Lucian of Samosata

Celsus

Josephus

The Talmud


Now these references do not corroborate EVERYTHING in the new testament, of course... but they do provide some points of reference... 

That's the end of my very rough scholarly analysis.


So on the assumption from these texts, Jesus did exist, and people believed he was God. Next step: The 4 major gospels. Very briefly, the reason that so many Gospels are excluded, is because these 4 all corroborate each other... the others have significant deviations that don't make sense among themselves or with these 4. It's basic eyewitness testimony.

All 4 Gospels were eyewitness accounts. Not necessarily written by eyewitnesses, but taken from eyewitness accounts. Lots of people have written PHDs on this subject. People much smarter than all of us combined too, So I'm not going to attempt to summarise the whole argument for inter-gospel reliabilty. 

There are a few things to consider such as the many similarities between Matthew and Luke, thus the inference that they either copied each other or had a common source. The differences between the two seem to be better evidence that they were using a common source. The Q source as they call it. Then there's the "L" source which was Luke's own source. There's the fact that Mark was written before Luke or Matthew but Luke and Matthew both contain much more (yet from different sources with different viewpoints). There's this whole thing called Markan Priority which I haven't looked at for a long time. There's the signs source.

I don't really have the time to write a 4000 word essay on the matter... but I do know and understand the evidential arguments used to show the bible as reliable within itself.

I've heard this term called the 6 criterion bandied around a bit before. As I understand it, they are as follows.

The criterions of: coherence, dissimilarity, archaic style, embarrassment, memorability, and I think the last one was date.

I can't remember the evidence from all of them, but the one that stands out is the criterion of embarrassment. The idea is that events that were recorded that would have embarrassed the people writing them tend to be given great weight. The idea being that humans tend to make themselves look good if possible, so the willingness to write down something that embarrasses you... it's given more weight to be true.

In the New Testament's case, Mark 8:33 is pretty good at this (I can't remember other verses off the top of my head.



> But when Jesus turned and looked at the disciples, he rebuked peter. 'Get behind me Satan!' he said. ' You do not have in mind the things of God by the things of men'.



The other one that I remember is the fact that Jesus (apparently) showed himself to his female disciples after his resurrection. Not such a big deal? Except this is a time when no one cared about a woman's testimony. These are books written to convince people about Jesus Christ, yet they keep this embarrassing detail.


There's all sort of things like this. I have a really good description of the rest of them. I'll dig it out if anyone want it.



As to the changing of the bible over time, the gap between Jesus' ministry and the writing of the Gospels and a whole lot of what tend to be somewhat un-researched questions/answers. I can deal with oral traditions if people are interested, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other little details.




Onto a few other questions/misconceptions





athawulf said:


> The biggest thing about christianity which I disagree with is the notion that virtue is not inherent to humans, and must be obtained through a request/prayer to god.



Sorry, but that's not in any bible I know of. It is not that humans do not have virtue, it is that they are sinful... and sin corrupts everything. You are still accountable for your actions as a Christian. Praying that God will just make you a good person without you trying is lazy and doesn't show any desire to change. You are sinful, you cannot stop being sinful. You must accept it and repent. Romans 3:10 "there is none righteous, not even one."





The Reverend said:


> Also:
> 
> *Can God create a rock so large that he can't lift it?*
> 
> Answer that question, and I'll give you a dollar.



THIS is a dumb question, with a logical fallacy for a premise.
My answer to this is that, when dealing with a God who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent... he can create a rock so large he can't lift it... then lift it anyway.

Omnipotent is all powerful... there isn't ANY limitation to the power. I don't think we can understand how that would be... but when you premise the question as to whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who supposedly created the Universe and all the laws of physics and maths and quantum mechanics that govern it can do this... you would have to infer that he is beyond that kind of question before you even get to the fallacy of the question itself.





STILL going 

To the OP, here are my responses to some of your initial statements/questions that I may not have answered yet. As to your initial statement about the reliability of translation... just look up the dead sea scrolls, and the reliability of the bible's translation and transcription.




flint757 said:


> Now, the other thing that always bothered me was the notion that my branch of faith was the only group going to heaven. We are taught that God is loving and righteous and yet he would condemn people on a superficial level like that just seemed bizarre to me. Then I was told later on that only people who knew of Christianity would be condemned if they did not accept it which makes the crusades, and conquistadors a little twisted when you think about it. (telling them about it when they know they won't abandon what they were told all their life thus condemning them to hell ).



You are right to dislike this, as do I. It is an interesting struggle the nature of sin and condemnation. I could definitely talk more about this if you're interested.



> The straw that broke the back for me was when I learned the history of the faith and how it progressed. When you find out that some of the most influential people in the faith had used their power to take advantage you can't help, but assume they could have even altered historical religious facts as well. Like the middle ages with the "coupons" for redemption as an example.



Not trying to be rude, but a little bit of research into the source progression of the bible, and the changing nature of the bible would debunk this fear.



> Last but not least what is happening now confounds me when you hear stories of the bible like the tower of babel. We build huge skyscrapers, fly planes and have been in space and yet according to this story this is how different languages were formed because he didn't want us to reach up into the skies. To boot we have begun to reinstate a more global language as well. Assuming this story is what genuinely happened it doesn't make sense why there would be a change of heart.



 It wasn't the building of a tall building, it was the sinful thought that they could be more powerful and more mighty than God.



> As a whole it is just a bunch of dots that don't connect all that well to me and the fact that many religions exist (making me believe if it was true they could be just as right or more right than the others). This leads me to 3 possibilities; one religion is right, all religions were derived from the same religion or in fact they were all wrong and invented to help understand/explain the world around them.



Pretty sure that the exclusive nature of all religions saying that they are the only way eliminates your second possibility. Pluralism is self-contradictory and self cancelling. There can't be the singular truth that there are many truths. It's a self cancelling argument. Either one is right or they're all wrong, they can't all be right (if only because they all so vehemently disagree with each other).


One of the things I love about Christianity, is that is the only religion where your salvation has nothing to do with what you do... no balancing of the scales. You know for sure if you are saved or not.



bhakan said:


> EDIT:
> Would any Christians mind putting their opinions on some of the contradictions brought up in the OP? I myself have always wondered:
> -If God is all loving, why would he punish the majority of the population based solely on which culture they were born into?
> -Many ideas shown in Christian beliefs/the Bible have been disproved (sun does not revolve around earth, earth not created in seven days, etc.) If these are incorrect what makes the others correct?



1) Sin... we are all separated from God by Sin... it is not punishment, just separation. The only way we can be with God is if we are sinless. The only way for us to BE sinless was for Jesus to take the punishment for our sin for us. I'm sorry I can't give you a more satisfying answer than that. It's late, I'm tired and It is something I still struggle with myself. (but it doesn't reduce my belief at all)

2) Sun revolving around the Earth was the CHURCH (made up of people, who are flawed), Earth created in Seven Days is in Genesis. Genesis is a) Poetic in its nature. b) not MEANT to be a scientific description of the start of the world, but to describe that it was God who did it AND c) written for people who barely had an understanding of the leaver.

As to the others... there is a LOT in the Bible that is VERY easy to misinterpret if you don't have the understanding of context. It's also harder to understand because it is translated. There is only one "you" in English. So "to you I say" could be to 'all of you', 'you Johnny' or other combinations of such... there are multiple words in the Greek for different tenses whatnot for you... so translating can cause problems (exacerbated by the fact that English really is a nonsensical language)






As a final note, I am sorry to all those people who have been hurt by the Church and people doing things in the name of "Christianity" such as the awful gay hate that goes on. It truly hurts me that people do such sinful and awful things in the name of Christ. Disgusting really...


----------



## Tyler (Mar 4, 2012)

I was raised a Christian, but didn't know exactly what it was all about. 
I would never use the word brainwashed, because I just don't believe in that. I came to accept everything how it was and I believe my faith has been strengthened by personal experiences where I have made it out of things that I definitely shouldn't have. 

I would never judge anybody by what they believe, and am willing to converse over anything. But for me, the bottom line is I consider myself a believer in Christ and live up to my morals as best I can.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 4, 2012)

KingAenarion said:


> ...I'm not going to start a complete historical debate with you, because you have full degrees in the subject, but I will put forward my LIMITED knowledge on the subject.
> 
> ...Off the top of my head, there is corroborative historical evidence for the following:
> 
> ...



Although this thread won't be the appropriate place to discuss these claims, I'm interested in your sources regarding the corroborating historical evidence. I suspect you have fallen victim to "sources" which are biased and which are overstating the historical case.

Start a new thread, or send me a PM, if you're interested in exploring this.


----------



## KingAenarion (Mar 4, 2012)

I didn't say it was substantiative  Corroborative in the sense that people outside the bible, who aren't Christian Historians mention these details in passing. I'll pm you in the next couple of days man  Look forward to the discussion


----------



## bhakan (Mar 4, 2012)

KingAenarion said:


> 1) Sin... we are all separated from God by Sin... it is not punishment, just separation. The only way we can be with God is if we are sinless. The only way for us to BE sinless was for Jesus to take the punishment for our sin for us. I'm sorry I can't give you a more satisfying answer than that. It's late, I'm tired and It is something I still struggle with myself. (but it doesn't reduce my belief at all)
> 
> 2) Sun revolving around the Earth was the CHURCH (made up of people, who are flawed), Earth created in Seven Days is in Genesis. Genesis is a) Poetic in its nature. b) not MEANT to be a scientific description of the start of the world, but to describe that it was God who did it AND c) written for people who barely had an understanding of the leaver.
> 
> As to the others... there is a LOT in the Bible that is VERY easy to misinterpret if you don't have the understanding of context. It's also harder to understand because it is translated. There is only one "you" in English. So "to you I say" could be to 'all of you', 'you Johnny' or other combinations of such... there are multiple words in the Greek for different tenses whatnot for you... so translating can cause problems (exacerbated by the fact that English really is a nonsensical language)


Thank you for answering, and I definitely see your perspective. While I agree that you can work out the contradictions, the thing that holds me back from believing is that if one part of the Bible is poetic and not literal, how do we know that the whole thing isn't a metaphor of sort. If genesis isn't a literal explanation, maybe God isn't actually a literal omnipresent being, but more our conscience, and the Bible is only trying to explain it in a tangible way? Basically, if one part is admittedly not fact, what separates the facts from the metaphors?


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

@KingAenarion

While I may not agree with you, I do like you're approach to your religion. It sort of reminds me of the Gnostics, who educated themselves on many religious texts and then decided for themselves what they believe and don't believe. And at least we got to hear from someone on the other side lol.

I don't think anyone is denying that Jesus existed, just that he was the son of god. It's not hard to believe that someone was named Jesus and that he claimed to be the son of god and people believed him, but I think most of the miracles and other such more outlandish claims were either twisted or fabricated. I'm not sure if the other historians you listed mentioned Jesus or not, because I haven't looked into that, but I know you're right that Josephus mentioned him and he is one of the most renown historians of his time. So I don't doubt that there was a guy named Jesus who convinced people that he was the son of god, and then rumors probably spread from there.

Having been raised catholic, I understand what they really believe and the way most of them view things, and I also find it annoying when other Atheists don't even understand what christians believe and ignorantly argue against it, saying things like "So you expect me to believe that there's a giant bearded man in the sky?" or "If heaven is always perfect and peaceful, wouldn't that get boring?". Those kind of Atheists make the rest of us look stupid.

So anyway, I don't agree with you but I do admire your intelligent, educated approach to christianity and the fact that you don't agree with the homophobic and bigoted side of the christian belief.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

I believe that we're all right and that every religion is just another perspective on the same exact thing, but that we get so caught up in specifics that we miss the point.


----------



## Vinchester (Mar 4, 2012)

In my opinion,

I believe that human are responsible for, and capable of, understanding the world, taking care of their own problems and coming to term with themselves. For one to always rely on an outside entity/institution for purpose/answer/happiness implies a weak character.

That said I'm perfectly fine with whatever people believe as long as they have basic decency and not hurting others (and not taking their faith too far). While "decency" may be quite a volatile term, I think it is achievable if people just be less self-centered and exercise rational judgement.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

KingAenarion
What I meant by they were all right was not so much they they were literally all right, but that they may have had a "very" similar source in the beginning. However, that is not even remotely substantiated by anything. it is the old testament that confuses me more than anything and it is definitely hard to separate fact from metaphor. The New Testament while IMO "will" have errors just by the mere fact of how long it took many of them to write their stories. I find that many of the stories are probably true like someone else said, but does that immediately imply that they lead to the ultimate conclusion that God exists and Jesus is the son of God. Couldn't Mary had an affair and to explain it say immaculate conception, in the books about Moses the egyptians were able to perform similar tricks as Moses so is it too farfetched to assume that Jesus was just a good magician or in fact that people weren't being literal when describing him. 

And as far as the Tower of Babel goes I knew that that was why, but heres the thing I would argue we live in a far more sinful society today than back then (maybe not since Christianity wasn't as widespread) so why nothing.

From a historical error (can't remember the source) The flood supposedly only flooded the middle east it was not a world flood which would make all the animals a silly occurrence. And when Moses split the sea there is in fact a land bridge underneath that shows itself when the tide falls. (This doesn't necessarily dispute the hand of God, but it leaves room for fallacy).


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

Ahh fuck it... Da interwebz just ain't worth it...


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Don't waste your time explaining it to him. I already made this same exact thread before and he Bible thumped the fuck out of it...
> 
> "Then why does God say he's the only one?"
> 
> It's difficult to discuss things w/ ppl who interpret religious texts literally...



Yeah I suppose, but he gave a decent rebuttal though whether it was right or not I don't know I'm too busy to substantiate even my own claims . I'm legitimately interested in everyone's perspective, wrong, right, liberal, conservative I don't care, but yes it is harder to clear things up when that is the case. It's nice to see the world from the other side of the fence because it is hard to gain that perspective on your own.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

I think the problem is that we all assume that we can be discernibly right or wrong on the matter... 

It very well may be that we can, but it's something that can't be fully known until it happens. Further, I find it odd that we can be so sure that we know what's going to happen when we die... Saying that we serve gods that preach love all the while pointing out all the reasons why someone else won't make it to the same place you will based on something YOU (not your god or gods) don't agree with.

This is why I feel if such a place as heaven truly exists, very few of us will ever get there bc it seems we're so concerned with what others do in some vain attempt at putting ourselves in the shoes of our so-called maker that we forget we're to be held to the exact same standards to which we hold our peers and thus not fit to judge one another.

Humans seem to have this annoying "crabs in a pot" mentality.

This is why I choose to believe we're all right. 

If what you believe tells you to be the best you that you can be w/o stepping on others to achieve it then I say your path will lead you in the overall correct direction whether you make a few different turns than your neighbor or not.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2012)

When Genghis Khan was conquering the world he said we all worship the same god and cast no laws against religious beliefs.

Best...
Tyrant ...
Ever.

Hurray!


----------



## Xiphos68 (Mar 4, 2012)

Hey Guys, I'd love to help if I can.
 

I'm a Christian and I'd love to answer some of these questions for you guys. 

It might be a while, I'll have to look over the thread and what not.

But I'll try to get to it!

God Bless, Xiphos68


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yeah I suppose, but he gave a decent rebuttal though whether it was right or not I don't know I'm too busy to substantiate even my own claims . I'm legitimately interested in everyone's perspective, wrong, right, liberal, conservative I don't care, but yes it is harder to clear things up when that is the case. It's nice to see the world from the other side of the fence because it is hard to gain that perspective on your own.



Now we just gotta get some hindu, muslim, jewish and other reiligious people to weigh in on this. I would like a scientologist to explain a few things to me lol.


----------



## Ninetyfour (Mar 4, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I believe that we're all right and that every religion is just another perspective on the same exact thing, but that we get so caught up in specifics that we miss the point.



The best example that springs to mind which demonstrates your point:



This is an extremely good documentary for those who haven't seen it. Maher is a fair bit disrespectful in it, but it's decent nonetheless.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Now we just gotta get some hindu, muslim, jewish and other reiligious people to weigh in on this. I would like a scientologist to explain a few things to me lol.



I haven't seen too many people post on here in general from those beliefs, but yeah that would be awesome.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

Ninetyfour said:


> The best example that springs to mind which demonstrates your point:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an extremely good documentary for those who haven't seen it. Maher is a fair bit disrespectful in it, but it's decent nonetheless.




I love that movie! So funny yet also very insightful.



flint757 said:


> I haven't seen too many people post on here in general from those beliefs, but yeah that would be awesome.



Yeah it seems we're mostly a forum of atheists with a few satanists and chistians sprinkled in lol.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Mar 4, 2012)

I'm not religious, however I am somewhat spiritual. I think the closest thing that describes what I am is an agnostic deist. I believe in the possibility of a deity (not the God we necessarily recognise, but some kind of underlying higher power/force throughout the universe), but that by nature that deity would be infinitely complex and we would not be able to comprehend it. To think that any God or comparable force could be described by man in any book does not make sense to me. Therefore, I do not concern myself with it. I trust in science, and things I know and see. If there is a God so be it, but I'm not going to spend my life contemplating a question way beyond any human's understanding. We should just figure out the universe step by step, try to be good, responsible people and go on what we know.


----------



## Necris (Mar 4, 2012)

KingAenarion said:


> THIS is a dumb question, with a logical fallacy for a premise.
> My answer to this is that, when dealing with a God who is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent... he can create a rock so large he can't lift it... then lift it anyway.
> 
> Omnipotent is all powerful... there isn't ANY limitation to the power. I don't think we can understand how that would be... but when you premise the question as to whether an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who supposedly created the Universe and all the laws of physics and maths and quantum mechanics that govern it can do this... you would have to infer that he is beyond that kind of question before you even get to the fallacy of the question itself.


That's sort of the beauty of the question, if he can create a rock so large that he can't lift it and then proceeds to lift it anyway because well... "god" then it stands to reason that the answer is "No, God cannot create an object so big that he cannot lift it." Which calls in to question his omnipotence just as an answer of "Yes" would.



KingAenarion said:


> 1) Sin... we are all separated from God by Sin... it is not punishment, just separation. The only way we can be with God is if we are sinless. *The only way for us to BE sinless was for Jesus to take the punishment for our sin for us.* I'm sorry I can't give you a more satisfying answer than that. It's late, I'm tired and It is something I still struggle with myself. (but it doesn't reduce my belief at all)


John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" 
1 Tim 4:10, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." 
1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." 

Depending on how you view your own statement and those quotes it could be argued that the entire world is already sinless. 

Amusingly 1 Tim 4:10 presents a logical fallacy, "especially of believers" seems to imply that believers in Christ are somehow more sinless than non-believers which is it's own logical fallacy. In your own words Sin is the one thing that separates man from god, if the death of Christ cleansed the world of sin ("saved mankind") then being a believer or not makes no difference, you can't have less than nothing so a believer wouldn't be any more "saved" than a non-believer.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I'm not religious, however I am somewhat spiritual. I think the closest thing that describes what I am is an agnostic deist. I believe in the possibility of a deity (not the God we necessarily recognise, but some kind of underlying higher power/force throughout the universe), but that by nature that deity would be infinitely complex and we would not be able to comprehend it. To think that any God or comparable force could be described by man in any book does not make sense to me. Therefore, I do not concern myself with it. I trust in science, and things I know and see. If there is a God so be it, but I'm not going to spend my life contemplating a question way beyond any human's understanding. We should just figure out the universe step by step, try to be good, responsible people and go on what we know.



Liked and repped.


----------



## caskettheclown (Mar 4, 2012)

It all depends on who I am talking to.

Most people I just tell them I am nondenominational Buddhist. 
I'm actually Buddhist and I practice Shamanism.


Buddhism mainly though, its basically the way I live my life.
I practice Shamanism cause of the things i've seen and experienced and would like to continue to experience those things.
(No I don't use drugs of any sort)


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

caskettheclown said:


> It all depends on who I am talking to.
> 
> Most people I just tell them I am nondenominational Buddhist.
> I'm actually Buddhist and I practice Shamanism.
> ...



Cool! Finally something besides christian god vs no god lol. Care to share more? I'd especially like to hear more about your shamanistic practices.


----------



## Diggy (Mar 4, 2012)

I;m not rally sure.. 

sometimes...

I believe my perception is my reality.

I believe that thought is alot more powerful than most understand it to be. I believe that things can be "thought" into existence.. if not in real-time/here sense of things, then somewhere and at some time.

I believe that because I come from the same stuff that everything comes from, I will always be connected to everything somehow.. and possibly have influence on all.. and vice versa. 

I believe it is quite possible that I am in control of every aspect of the reality I experience.

I believe.. just as science has discovered that some particles flicker in and out of perceivable existence.. so does everything. 

Because of this (and much more that quantum theory/physics has to offer) everything we can perceive to exist, will exist, or has existed.. does exist; 

1) all at the same time.. in some manner of reality or consciousness that is yet to be discovered. 
2) all in the same space.. in some manner of reality or consciousness that is yet to be discovered.

I believe that just because we cannot see, feel, hear, taste, touch, sense things doesnt mean they arent there. Anything we can think of exists.

Having said all of that, I believe there could very well be a single "god".. but to understand anything about it, we would have to be something that we are not and most likely (as the humans we are) could never be... all knowing, all seeing, all sensing... 

That is, unless we truly are making our reality.. and for every consciousness that exists, there also exists a corresponding reality. Then we all already have the power to be gods. It's funny too.. "reality" feels "real".. but only because of the chemicals in our "reality" that govern how we perceive/sense things.. and these chemicals could be some type of BS conjured by our thoughts. So then, what came first.. the thought, or the thinker.

Ok, so.. I'm back to not having a real clue of what to believe.. same ol' scenario.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

caskettheclown said:


> It all depends on who I am talking to.
> 
> Most people I just tell them I am nondenominational Buddhist.
> I'm actually Buddhist and I practice Shamanism.
> ...





AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Cool! Finally something besides christian god vs no god lol. Care to share more? I'd especially like to hear more about your shamanistic practices.



Ya I'd be curious to hear more as well.


----------



## Necris (Mar 4, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> I like this post. Very much.
> 
> I myself am a Christian, but for purposes of this thread I'd rather focus on some of my philosophy instead of the definitions of my religion.
> 
> Philosophically, I tend to reside somewhere on the opposite side of the spectrum as Laveyan Satanism (as I understand it). I see living only for self-fulfillment as a fallacy. God or no god, I believe that there is a greater sense of purpose for man, and that it is larger than living for ourselves.


Self-fulfillment is not the same thing as hedonism and you seem to have the two confused. One can strive for self-fulfillment and through achieving their goals serve others thus serving a greater purpose.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 4, 2012)

Necris said:


> Self-fulfillment is not the same thing as hedonism and you seem to have the two confused. One can strive for self-fulfillment and through achieving their goals serve others thus serving a greater purpose.



This. Self fulfillment is about being all you can be and striving to enhance your life and yourself..not just doing whatever feels good, which actually tends to have negative effects down the road


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

Ya it would have been better stated if he hadn't made an unnecessary comparison. I try and tell my grandad that. He gives away things when he doesn't have it to give. My logic is make more money that way down the road I can not only give more if I wanted too, but not give away the families food for the evening doing it. Bill gates gives more than anyone on this planet and he doesn't have to suffer doing it. Not related, but a good point I think.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 4, 2012)

Regarding what Scientology believes (although one doesn't learn this until one has invested enough money in classes and auditing):

The evil alien ruler Xenu killed millions of aliens (Thetans) from around the universe by kidnapping them, bringing them to earth in golden DC-8 &#8220;space-planes&#8221;, stacking them around volcanoes and blowing them up by dropping &#8220;h-bombs&#8221; into the volcanoes. The souls of these aliens (called "Body Thetans" by Scientology) were then captured, brainwashed (including being shown films of made-up religions like Hinduism and Christianity) and then released; they then attached themselves to our ancestors (and according to Scientology&#8217;s belief in Thetan immortality, they also attached to us during &#8220;past lives&#8221 and cause many of our mental & physical ills to this day. Auditing is said to &#8220;clear&#8221; us of these Body Thetans as well as the &#8220;mental implants&#8221; they supposedly impose on our minds.

----

I believe a case was made for Biblical inerrancy. At most, one can only claim the Bible was written to the best of the authors' understandings. Here's why:

Jesus states in Scripture that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, not that it is the smallest seed known. 

The mustard seed is not the smallest seed.

If Jesus had said "the smallest seed known," and it made it into Scripture incorrectly, then Scripture is an inaccurate record.

If Jesus did say it was the smallest seed, because his listeners wouldn't have known of other, even smaller seeds, then Scripture was limited to the understanding of the listeners and writers, and would be factually incorrect when they didn't have better understanding. 

Lastly, if it were literally correct, Jesus would have been born twice, once under the rule of Herod the Great, and then again under the rule of Herod's son, Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, quite a few years later. This would be a novel definition of "born again," but cannot be literally true.


----------



## caskettheclown (Mar 4, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Ya I'd be curious to hear more as well.



Well I was Buddhist for two years before I began practicing the Shaman thing. I learned it from my ex's aunt. She is a Shaman Healer, a damn good one at that, she had been practicing since she was a child. She has taken migraines away from me before, its crazy. She found out I was Buddhist and meditated daily for a couple years, she found out that I had opened my third eye and thats why she taught me.

I'm a Shaman Healer. I heal people physically and emotionally. I was already one of those people to "Fix" peoples problems with their lives for some reason. People would just ask me instead of someone else. Drove me nuts for a while but now its not so bad.

I'm a Shaman Healer because that is what comes naturally to me though i'm able to do other little things as well.

Basically what I do with physical pain is I hold the persons hand in one hand and place my other hand on the place of pain and meditate/chant/focus on the pain , its kind of doing it all at once in a way. Depending on how strong my connection is with the person and the amount of pain and how focused I am, I can take extremely little pain from them or ALL of it. I've made my godmother's horrible toothaches go away many times. When I do it, I feel my hands start tingling and then my arms and they feel the place of pain tingling and slowly it feels like its transferring into me. Usually I only experience a little bit to none of the pain. Sometimes though I can keep all the pain I take from someone, though i've learned to get rid of it very quickly (Or give it to someone else though I usually don't do that).
If all the variables are right or I meditate/chant/focus on the pain long enough I will start trembling very badly and it gets hard to breath. I have blacked out because of it before, though only once and that was because I was taking my mom's back pain away and I pushed myself way to long because I wanted her to finally be pain free even if only for a while.
There are many things that help me take the pain away as well. Before I go to something else, i'll end with this. If the connection with the person is strong enough I can sense when they are feeling great emotion of some kind, i'm still figuring out what is what at the moment though.

Onto a different subject a little bit. 
My power or spirit animal is the white owl. Its more true/accurate to me than the zodiac signs. To keep it short, I won't go into too much detail about that.

After a while I learned to astral project, I haven't mastered it yet by any means and its still very difficult to do but I have done it multiple times. Whenever I do it, I almost instantly seeing the world through the eyes of an animal. Take a guess which one? If you guessed, the white owl then you would be correct. Basically what happens is I see through the eyes of the owl and can usually control what it does to an extent. For instance, my stepsister has nightmares a lot, so one night when I was in the body of the owl, it flew to her window while she was asleep and I could hear her mumbling in her sleep having a nightmare. So I/the owl pecked on her window and she woke up and saw the owl. I then flew away.
The next day she was telling me about how this owl woke her up from this nightmare. Thats when I knew that I wasn't just dreaming.


I'll end with the bad things about the practice.
Main thing is, people who think i'm some sort of nutjob because of it and treat me as such. Thats why I don't talk about it much but I figured this is SS.org and I can open up about it to those who are willing to listen.
Another bad thing about it is when I transfer someones pain into me and it gets really difficult to get rid of.
Also I get REALLY hungry when I finish healing someone.

I could go on but I feel like i'm rambling.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 4, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Necris said:
> 
> 
> > Self-fulfillment is not the same thing as hedonism and you seem to have the two confused. One can strive for self-fulfillment and through achieving their goals serve others thus serving a greater purpose.
> ...



Indeed, self-fulfillment is not the same as hedonism- which is not the same as self-indulgence (the difference being the degree of extremity). That's the term I should have used in place of "self-fulfillment", my mistake. What you seem to be describing, however, is humanism- which I did not find to be among the facets of satanism at the time that I researched it.  I'm not expert on satansim- theistic or athestic.

The gist I got when I researched atheistic Satanism was that it contrasts from Christianity by embracing the carnal self and 'human nature', as well as an 'eye-for-an-eye' world-view- all of which are opposite of what a Christian's world-view should look like. Is that an accurate assessment, albeit possibly limited in scope because of my lack of exposure to it?

In any case, I don't have a problem with the philosophy of humanism and the concept of self-fulfillment. It's a generally self-centered world-view that I philosophically reject- one that concerns itself with mostly itself and care little (or not) for the world and the people around it as long as it is not directly affected.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 4, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> Indeed, self-fulfillment is not the same as hedonism- which is not the same as self-indulgence (the difference being the degree of extremity). That's the term I should have used in place of "self-fulfillment", my mistake. What you seem to be describing, however, is humanism- which I did not find to be among the facets of satanism at the time that I researched it.  I'm not expert on satansim- theistic or athestic.
> 
> The gist I got when I researched atheistic Satanism was that it contrasts from Christianity by embracing the carnal self and 'human nature', as well as an 'eye-for-an-eye' world-view- all of which are opposite of what a Christian's world-view should look like. Is that an accurate assessment, albeit possibly limited in scope because of my lack of exposure to it?
> 
> In any case, I don't have a problem with the philosophy of humanism and the concept of self-fulfillment. It's a generally self-centered world-view that I philosophically reject- one that concerns itself with mostly itself and care little (or not) for the world and the people around it as long as it is not directly affected.



That's pretty much it..although I always feel the need to clarify. Eye-for-an-eye is a general term but Satanists do believe in revenge. This doesn't mean physical violence or doing something that would in turn backfire (The first Satanic Sin is stupidity..and any action that threatens total enjoyment of your life due to being scorned is definitely stupid)..but there are many ways to retaliate be it through ritual (curse throwing essentially) or even succeeding despite your enemy trying to hinder your progress. Sometimes the best revenge is thriving despite the opposition.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2012)

Necris hit the nail in the head. God is a paradox. 
How can we as finite beings understand the infinite.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 4, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Regarding what Scientology believes (although one doesn't learn this until one has invested enough money in classes and auditing):
> 
> The evil alien ruler Xenu killed millions of aliens (Thetans) from around the universe by kidnapping them, bringing them to earth in golden DC-8 space-planes, stacking them around volcanoes and blowing them up by dropping h-bombs into the volcanoes. The souls of these aliens (called "Body Thetans" by Scientology) were then captured, brainwashed (including being shown films of made-up religions like Hinduism and Christianity) and then released; they then attached themselves to our ancestors (and according to Scientologys belief in Thetan immortality, they also attached to us during past lives) and cause many of our mental & physical ills to this day. Auditing is said to clear us of these Body Thetans as well as the mental implants they supposedly impose on our minds.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I know that much about scientology, but supposedly there are some secrets that only higher level scientologists are allowed to know. Some kind of well kept secrets that they don't let anyone talk about. That's what I've heard anyway.

I don't think Jesus said it was the smallest seed. I think all that was written was "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Right? Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's the only thing regarding the mustard seed that I remember. I haven't had to look at a bible for a long time though.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Yeah, I know that much about scientology, but supposedly there are some secrets that only higher level scientologists are allowed to know.



Yea... That's how they get you to keep paying.


----------



## Necris (Mar 4, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Yeah, I know that much about scientology, but supposedly there are some secrets that only higher level scientologists are allowed to know. Some kind of well kept secrets that they don't let anyone talk about. That's what I've heard anyway.
> 
> I don't think Jesus said it was the smallest seed. I think all that was written was "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Right? Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's the only thing regarding the mustard seed that I remember. I haven't had to look at a bible for a long time though.


Maybe it's how to get a cut of the cashflow? 


The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."

Is the exact quote Explorer is referring to.

"And He said to them, Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there, and it shall move; and nothing shall be impossible to you." 

Is the one you're thinking of.

In regards to the first quote he very well could have been talking about the smallest seed in that region, but it could be interpreted from multiple angles since he didn't specify whether he was speaking in terms of the local plant life or globally. I believe the context of that specific quote is that of a harvest, the line before it seems to make that clear. He also said the mustard seed grows into a tree, in modern botany it would not be considered a tree, but back then it's understandable people might consider it one.


----------



## Sicarius (Mar 4, 2012)

I've been an Atheist from a very young age, my mother's side of the family is very Baptist. 

I wasn't forced to go to church, I wasn't baptized (afaik), but it didn't make sense to me, as a kid going into 6th or 7th grade. I didn't even know what an Atheist was. I remember telling my mom one day, "I don't think there's actually a God." and that didn't really make her happy.

Anyway; it's who I am, and while as I've gotten older I've become something akin to a Nihilist, I've never understood why religion is continuing. I believe in the abilities a human being possesses, the things we've managed to accomplish as a species I see as human feats, and nothing to do with divine intervention or anything divine. 

Not to say I trust or believe in human kind, that's absurd, we're completely destructive, and terrible for this planet, and I welcome the day the Earth wipes us off as it did other species millennia ago. But, what we've done is our own, not something to do with a God or anything else giving talents to people.

On the other hand, I know what a religion can do for people, I understand what it does for them. I know there are churches, synagogues and mosques that really help their communities, and their followers with whatever they may need. But at the same time, how can a church or any religion tell a person they can't receive a blood transfusion, or receive vaccinations, or see a doctor, because a higher power told them to write it down? 

The Divine Plan and Free Will are incompatible. You can't say, "I have everything planned out for you, but I'll give you free will, so long as you'll be my servant for the entirety of your life, and I will let you be with me in Heaven, unless you make a wrong choice that I've still seen you do, and have put it in your divine plan, and then I'll send you to hell, because I'm infallible, and no matter what you do it's still what I want you to do."

That may be an immature way to look at it, but when you look around at some of the religious sects out there, there's really no other way to think about it..


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Sometimes the best revenge is thriving despite the opposition.


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Mar 4, 2012)

If you try to make a ducks legs long, you will only cause it pain, but if you make a Crane's legs short, you will only cause it grief. Uniformity is not nature, so why do all laws, morals, institutions, and governments enforce uniformity, which is not natural? Nature gave the horse its four legs, while man gave the horse its saddle. I'm not arguing that man has negative intent, just that the good intention of wanting to share what works for you with others is not necessarily a wholly admirable approach.

Chuang Tzu says that most men do not realize their perspective is based on a finite point of view, and begin to think of others as wrong. What is truly wrong is the veneration we as a race have put on finite perspectives. I look to the formless nameless force beyond form and features as the basis for my actions, as it does not change, and with inaction comes a breed of content that does not allow me to over extend myself in situations where my way may not be the best way for all.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

"Chaos is the way of nature. Order is the dream of man."


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 4, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I believe a case was made for Biblical inerrancy. At most, one can only claim the Bible was written to the best of the authors' understandings. Here's why:
> 
> Jesus states in Scripture that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, not that it is the smallest seed known.
> 
> ...



Don't you think you're drawing some stark conclusions in your logic? I mean, I think I see where your logic is coming from. If you assert that a work of literature must be 100% inerrant in order to be divinely inspired then yes your logic holds ground. If a divine work can have a margin of error- apparent or literal, then your argument does not hold ground. Obviously that's a whole different debate. I guess my point is that I do not think the Bible has to be inerrant to be divinely inspired, and thus I disagree with your assessment.

I'd like to hear you expound on your last paragraph and where in scripture you're getting Jesus being born in two different time periods. I don't think I've heard that argument before.





Konfyouzd said:


> "Chaos is the way of nature. Order is the dream of man."



As cool as this statement is, I disagree. I see the way of nature as a balance between chaos and order- an equilibrium.


----------



## Edika (Mar 4, 2012)

The problem is not so much the teachings of the various religions, as they try to create moral foundations, but the exploitation of the people adhering to a religion by corrupt members of power in that religion. Some people may think that people following religions more "passionately" are stupid and uneducated which may apply in third world countries and some parts of the civilized world. From my understanding, observations and some discussions (in the western world), it boils down to fear of the unknown and self assurance. The way we are raised in the western civilization creates the ground for some kind of belief as any of you can attest just by thinking of your personal experiences. You may not follow the religion you have grown up with but do you follow other religions or have put your faith in other parts the human intellect, humanity or even animals. Some do this with the same passion and drive as religious fanatics.
It is difficult for most people to imagine that they are not special, the hardships they endure is not some divine plan to provide for an afterlife but the tolerance of forces that exploit them, sickness is something that occurs to all life forms and for some we are to blame, when we die we just die. This kind of thinking would lead to depression for a part of the population and probably rebellion for a whole lot. 
What I find "funny" is people believing that people in power (political, religious, economical and a combination of the above) actually believe in god or any form of deity. They may appear so but would gladly sacrifice the freedoms, rights and dignity of the citizens they are supposed to serve for power and money. These are the deities they worship and serve.


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Mar 4, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> "Chaos is the way of nature. Order is the dream of man."



It shows a bit of bias when what is nature is considered to be Chaos, and what is regimented and instated by man is considered Order. Why must we worry about and take sides on finite issues, when we can all together forever enjoy what is infinite? If Chaos is indiscriminate and allows men to cultivate their individual natures fully and freely, why do men dream of order?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> Don't you think you're drawing some stark conclusions in your logic? I mean, I think I see where your logic is coming from. If you assert that a work of literature must be 100% inerrant in order to be divinely inspired then yes your logic holds ground. If a divine work can have a margin of error- apparent or literal, then your argument does not hold ground. Obviously that's a whole different debate. I guess my point is that I do not think the Bible has to be inerrant to be divinely inspired, and thus I disagree with your assessment.
> 
> I'd like to hear you expound on your last paragraph and where in scripture you're getting Jesus being born in two different time periods. I don't think I've heard that argument before.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's chaos per se in the sense that we generally think of it. The way I interpret the statement is that we try far too hard to control things that are simply beyond our control. The uniformity previously referenced is the "order" in that quote--at least as far as my interpretation goes.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2012)

PyramidSmasher said:


> Why must we worry about and take sides on finite issues, when we can all together forever enjoy what is infinite? If Chaos is indiscriminate and allows men to cultivate their individual natures fully and freely, why do men dream of order?



A thought that crosses my mind rather regularly...


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 4, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I don't think it's chaos per se in the sense that we generally think of it. _ The way I interpret the statement is that we try far too hard to control things that are simply beyond our control._ The uniformity previously referenced is the "order" in that quote--at least as far as my interpretation goes.



I like that interpretation.

On a side note, if I didn't believe in God I would probably venerate music. Somehow that related to the topic of order and chaos in my head.


----------



## bhakan (Mar 4, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> Don't you think you're drawing some stark conclusions in your logic? I mean, I think I see where your logic is coming from. If you assert that a work of literature must be 100% inerrant in order to be divinely inspired then yes your logic holds ground. If a divine work can have a margin of error- apparent or literal, then your argument does not hold ground. Obviously that's a whole different debate. I guess my point is that I do not think the Bible has to be inerrant to be divinely inspired, and thus I disagree with your assessment.


What I think his logic is (which is mine, as I've stated in this thread) is that if some of the information from a book that is supposedly the word of God is false, it had to be written by someone who wasn't God himself, and then how do you know which parts are the direct word of God and which are only the words of normal people? 

Sorry I've posted this idea a number of times, but I've just always curious as to how you can answer this question. Whenever I've asked in life, people just avoid my question and tell me to go to church.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

bhakan said:


> What I think his logic is (which is mine, as I've stated in this thread) is that if some of the information from a book that is supposedly the word of God is false, it had to be written by someone who wasn't God himself, and then how do you know which parts are the direct word of God and which are only the words of normal people?
> 
> Sorry I've posted this idea a number of times, but I've just always curious as to how you can answer this question. Whenever I've asked in life, people just avoid my question and tell me to go to church.



That was the answer I always got and I got the feeling ti wasn't so my question could get answered, but that they thought I was being consumed by darkness. Like when you commit a crime and someone says you should go to church kind of attitude. After all, they could just say they don't know or something more useful. that has happened to me a lot in my lifetime.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 4, 2012)

JPhoenix19 said:


> If you assert that a work of literature must be 100% inerrant in order to be divinely inspired then yes your logic holds ground.



I thought that a claim of inerrancy had been made, which is why I even stated that I believed a claim of inerrancy had been made. 

I have no problem with the idea of imperfect deities being unable to correctly get their message out. However, if they *can't* get their message out correctly, one can't credit them as being all-powerful, as they didn't have the power to communicate correctly. 

As I said, I think that when religions develop, a lot of other principles get hung around the primate political principles (believing that primates really want to extend tribal love beyond their own tribe), even if those principles don't really get extended in the real world. That's why religions need apologetics, and why so many religions which claim to be about love are used to justify attacking the other primate troop.



JPhoenix19 said:


> If a divine work can have a margin of error- apparent or literal, then your argument does not hold ground.



Quite possibly, especially if one assumes that whatever gods are being discussed aren't really all-powerful, and therefore aren't really the creators of everything. 

Unless... they really don't want to communicate correctly with their believers, and are deliberately garbling the message. I don't think any revelatory religion claims that, but it's a novel idea. 



JPhoenix19 said:


> I'd like to hear you expound on your last paragraph and where in scripture you're getting Jesus being born in two different time periods. I don't think I've heard that argument before.



It's not an argument. It's in Scripture.

There are two stories of the Nativity in the Bible. One takes place under Herod the Great, King of all Judea, Slaughterer of the Innocents. The other takes place under Quirinius, Roman governor, and has, as ruler of a quarter of Judea, Herod Antipas, Tetrarch (which means, not surprisingly, "Ruler of a Fourth"), and son of Herod the Great. The two stories are separated, using real people mentioned in real-time documented history, by at least a few years. 

Scripture recognizes Herod the Great and Herod Antipas as two different people, which they were.

Herod Antipas didn't become Tetrarch until after the death of his father, Herod the Great.

For both stories to be literally true, Jesus would have had to be born first during the reign of Herod the Great, and then again after Herod's death. How to make this work?

Most fundamentalist Christians, needing for the Bible to be inerrant to still have faith, start arguing that there is a misunderstanding about which Herod is which, but Scripture is very clear, and the authors know the difference.

Using outside sources doesn't help, because outside sources show how the Romans ran things, and Quirinius, the Governor over Herod Antipas, would never have been Governor while Herod the Great was King over a client kingdom of Rome, as Judea was while Herod the Great was still alive, and there would not have been a census in such a client kingdom according to historical sources. Besides, Scripture is clear that the census was under Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, not under Herod the Great.

Outside research and textual analysis, used for all kinds of of other historical writings, indicates that the parts of the Bible dealing with the Nativities were not written by those familiar with the facts, but only put down much later. Those later writings tried to prop up claims of Jesus' divinity by showing how he fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, and therefore added all kinds of invented detail to support such. 

(Incidentally, if you consult the actual Jewish Scriptures, instead of the revisionist versions of the Christians, Jesus didn't actually fulfill the conditions by which one knows the Jewish Messiah. It's interesting that a bunch of Gentiles would assert with a straight face that they know more about Jewish Scripture than the Jews, and it's even weirder when you realize they're undermining the very Scripture which supposedly gives Jesus his divinity. No harm done, though, because without undermining the Jews, Jesus would just be another false Messiah, something the Jews have seen arise on many occasions. That's why the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.)

Anyway, that's what you find when you do the reading and research.


----------



## decypher (Mar 4, 2012)

(I like the "no trolling" remark in the headline (it made me think twice ;-) )

Anyway, I am 100% Atheist, although even that label seems one step too much to me as I admit that I have absolutely no idea how someone can truely consider any other alternative or concept, based on the physical evidence and therefore a "nothing" would describe my belief best. Atheist already implies too much information as it's based on the conventional "belief system". but thats ok, I can work with it.
I grew up in Germany with protestant baptised parents that never went to church and they left it up to me to decide. School on the other hand didn't. They only had Catholic, Evangelican/Lutherian and Islam education and as the Evangelican was the minority western education, we were stuffed into those classes, had to read and learn about their beliefs and other stuff.
I know it's very Metal and cool to say "I'm Damien and I get hives when someone drags me into a church" - but seriously, I always was spooked by churches, the rituals, the clothing and the crucifixes, I never understood how someone could find it comforting. Our class went to church once a month and it was the most obscure and embarrasing moment for me when they started singing with their books and I just did not know what do do with myself as it was extremely awkward. So many rules, so much "don't do this" , "be quiet" ...this place is fucking depressing. On the other hand, I was 10 or 11 and didn't know what else to do, so I just stood there, try to be as invisible as possible as I didn't like the songs or the singing. It was crazy. The only positive thing was that the evangelical school classes changed the major subject around 7th grade and we did get into more social discussions, I really enjoyed that, while the Catholics still had to endure endless bible verses lol.

One thing that did happen over the years was that my mom, who kept religion far away from me as a kid, did get sick with cancer, my bavarian grandmother and my aunt came up with this amazing plan to organize a pligrim trip to Lourdes/France, they said that god will help her and cure her. He didn't. She died. My grandmother and aunt accepted it and said that god wants my mother to be with my deceased grandfather. fucking freaks. 

I almost envy religious People for their ability to excuse pretty much anything by saying that it's gods will. "I have cancer" - "god is testing you". "I can't feed my kids" - "God is testing you". "I was born in Canada and have to shovel snow every day" - "God is testing you". 

It just doesn't make sense to me. I try not to judge others, at least not under 2 vodkas, as xiphos knows - "god" "bless" you bud 

Edit: It's ironic to read how people argue about the bible and pretty much confirm my own view about all that cra.. *cough* stuff..


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 4, 2012)

flint757 said:


> So do you mean that you just believe in a super being of some sort or in fact the christian faith with some exclusions?
> 
> I do agree things "can" work smoothly together for sure. In fact things in the universe work so well together it is one of the few reason I still believe that it is possible that their is in fact a "God" of sorts. This isn't related entirely, but I had read a somewhat joke list that was talking about bible omissions about Jesus. According to the list not only did he do the things mentioned, but was a dragon slayer of sorts. Don't know if that was every really written, but it was funny to think about in terms of the wizard stuff you mentioned.



Sorry it took a while to respond. Anyways, here is a more, explained way of saying what I believe.

I believe CERTAIN things from the Christian Bible. Yes, I do believe that there is a Christian God and that there is a man out there named Jesus and that he is the son of God. I do NOT however believe the "wizardy" things in the bible like the Ark and parting the sea. I know that many would argue the entire bible as wizard non-sense and I can agree with that point of view. A good majority of it does sound like a movie. I just think that there are a lot of things within the bible that science can explain. I also think the bible is an excellent book on morals and being an overall good person. I just refuse to be so heavily invested in the bible that I think the Earth is 2000 years old and that the entire world flooded and killed off all living things except a man, woman and two of every animal. 

That is where science comes in to play, to weed out some of the hokey pokey in the Bible. Our scientists know AMAZING things and can and have accurately told us what has happened in the past. I feel we would have record of something as devastating as a world wide flood. Hell, we can tell you ancient rituals of deceased peoples because we deciphered their pictures. We know a lot about extinct animals and their habits. Looking at microorganisms I am almost certain scientists would be able to tell a deviation in something as a direct result from an event like a massive flood. 

On the flip side, the birth of Jesus unto the world is something I feel strongly about. I once saw a documentary (forgot name) that matched up the star patterns of the sky around the time that Jesus was supposedly conceived and born (conceived used lightly obviously). It showed what different formations tied into religion where present at the time and made a really convincing argument towards the birth of Jesus. 

That is why I can't say no to Christianity as a whole. Honestly, it would be a much better religion if the churches got real and began preaching messages of science in relation to religion. For one, it might get people thinking in a more scientifically literate way and for two, if all religion utilized science as a way to try and put across points, we would see leaps and bounds in science.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

decypher said:


> (I like the "no trolling" remark in the headline (it made me think twice ;-) )
> 
> Anyway, I am 100% Atheist, although even that label seems one step too much to me as I admit that I have absolutely no idea how someone can truely consider any other alternative or concept, based on the physical evidence and therefore a "nothing" would describe my belief best. Atheist already implies too much information as it's based on the conventional "belief system". but thats ok, I can work with it.
> I grew up in Germany with protestant baptised parents that never went to church and they left it up to me to decide. School on the other hand didn't. They only had Catholic, Evangelican/Lutherian and Islam education and as the Evangelican was the minority western education, we were stuffed into those classes, had to read and learn about their beliefs and other stuff.
> ...



Yeah that has perplexed me too. i think the quote goes if something good happens it's God's doing and if something bad happens it is your fault. then they have a deviation where all things are cause by God which is contradictory to free will.

Glad you found my trolling statement amusing. It has seemed to work so far though. No one has been over the top or offensive it least IMO.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

Blind Theory said:


> Sorry it took a while to respond. Anyways, here is a more, explained way of saying what I believe.
> 
> I believe CERTAIN things from the Christian Bible. Yes, I do believe that there is a Christian God and that there is a man out there named Jesus and that he is the son of God. I do NOT however believe the "wizardy" things in the bible like the Ark and parting the sea. I know that many would argue the entire bible as wizard non-sense and I can agree with that point of view. A good majority of it does sound like a movie. I just think that there are a lot of things within the bible that science can explain. I also think the bible is an excellent book on morals and being an overall good person. I just refuse to be so heavily invested in the bible that I think the Earth is 2000 years old and that the entire world flooded and killed off all living things except a man, woman and two of every animal.
> 
> ...



I can honestly say if Christianity was more like that I would have less of a problem with it.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 5, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I can honestly say if Christianity was more like that I would have less of a problem with it.



I agree. Blind theory makes a lot of sense with it and that was what I believed essentially when I was more Christian. But then my cynicism got the best of me.


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 5, 2012)

I was thinking about this thread today at work because I needed something to think about other than the tasks I was doing .

I came to the conclusion that I do not believe in much, there is so much grey area in the world it is hard to put faith in anything, but the following I do believe in

Catholic School Girls, past, present, and future, while hot as hell, are the most evil entities on the face of this planet.

Most Guitar companies' high end production guitars are just as good as their custom shop guitars and small luthier equivalents. 

Ford makes the best damn pickup trucks period. 

Kim Kardashian's popularity and personality may be questionable but damn she is hot. 

There are few, if any, absolutes in this world. The world is not black and white, or even grey. Much of it includes the entire color spectrum. 

The only true wrong is doing harm to another human being for one's own personal gain. What truly defines "harm" "personal gain" and "human being" is a matter of much debate amongst all people.

Just because some one else has a different opinion does not make it wrong, just different. Even if you disagree with it entirely they are entitled to it. 

Both sides of every argument make very valid points, you just have to choose the ones you agree with the most. 

All I really strive for in life is a beautiful and good-hearted woman to love, a few dogs to keep me company, a reliable truck to get me to where I need to go and help me get the job done, Rob_l status of gear to create my music, and a place to finally call home. 

That you can say...is my religion. Again this is just all of my personal opinion.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

Church2224 said:


> I was thinking about this thread today at work because I needed something to think about other than the tasks I was doing .
> 
> I came to the conclusion that I do not believe in much, there is so much grey area in the world it is hard to put faith in anything, but the following I do believe in
> 
> ...



Sounds like a good way to live. I drive a Chevy and sir...you might be right . I wish I could defend my truck, but it has had it least one electrical problem each year. That being said it is a decade old sooo....I'll probably down size eventually though not worth the extra gas. Wait where am I posting this 


I shall derail my own thread 

So any other opinions lol


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 5, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Sounds like a good way to live. I drive a Chevy and sir...you might be right . I wish I could defend my truck, but it has had it least one electrical problem each year. That being said it is a decade old sooo....I'll probably down size eventually though not worth the extra gas. Wait where am I posting this
> 
> 
> I shall derail my own thread
> ...



I believe Chevy has not made a good truck sine 1987


----------



## Fiction (Mar 5, 2012)

Actually because of this thread, I decided to pick-up a book on Buddhism, some interesting stuff that really catches my interests, a few stuff I'm still hazy on as the book is focusing a lot on context to begin with before going into details, so I've got the basics and the context prior to Budda. One of the first things that struck me a few pages in, was a comment on how the Mind is Mans most powerful tool, which I stated earlier in this thread. I'm interested so far, so I'll keep reading I'm about 1/5th through so far.

Amazon.com: The tree of enlightenment: An introduction to the major traditions of Buddhism: Peter Della Santina: Books

That's the book, does anyone know any other Entry Buddhism books? This one is okay but its very contextual, where as to garner interest I think I'd prefer to read more about the teachings.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Actually because of this thread, I decided to pick-up a book on Buddhism, some interesting stuff that really catches my interests, a few stuff I'm still hazy on as the book is focusing a lot on context to begin with before going into details, so I've got the basics and the context prior to Budda. One of the first things that struck me a few pages in, was a comment on how the Mind is Mans most powerful tool, which I stated earlier in this thread. I'm interested so far, so I'll keep reading I'm about 1/5th through so far.
> 
> Amazon.com: The tree of enlightenment: An introduction to the major traditions of Buddhism: Peter Della Santina: Books
> 
> That's the book, does anyone know any other Entry Buddhism books? This one is okay but its very contextual, where as to garner interest I think I'd prefer to read more about the teachings.



It varies there is actually more than one type of Buddhism. you can go online though, most places that serve as Buddhist temples have some basic info on Buddhism. Book sounds interesting I might pick it up.

As a refernce to what I'm talking about this is a temple near my area and some info they have up on their web page:

Frequently Asked Questions | Chung Mei Buddhist Temple Houston, Texas


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 5, 2012)

Church2224 said:


> Kim Kardashian's popularity and personality may be questionable but damn she is hot.



 As much as I want to dislike her, I can't deny that her ass is like two hot cinnamon rolls pushed together risen to perfection. And I mean the really big cinnamon rolls. Like from cinnabon.

Did I say Atheist? I meant I'm an Asseist. 

Wow all those good points he made and that's what I took away from that? Haha I'm so sorry flint757, your thread is never gonna get back on track at this rate lol.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

I think it's kinda lame to give someone a pass as a human being simply for being easy on the eyes... 

... but I still kinda see where you're coming from.


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm an atheist because believing doesn't make sense in any way. At all. I've come to a point of viewing it as a trait of ignorance. This isn't atheist elitism or whatever, I don't go around preaching, but I have very little respect for someone who is willing to go through that much rationalization instead of simply changing their mind.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> I'm an atheist because believing doesn't make sense in any way. At all. I've come to a point of viewing it as a trait of ignorance. This isn't atheist elitism or whatever, I don't go around preaching, but I have very little respect for someone who is willing to go through that much rationalization instead of simply changing their mind.



Not to pick at you, but I find your last statement a smidge ironic... 

Why is it that your mind couldn't be changed? Or could it?

To come to the conclusion that something makes no sense it seems you'd have to do a fair amount of rationalizing yourself, no?

Bear in mind I'm defending no one... I simply seek to understand your POV.


----------



## Genome (Mar 5, 2012)

If God exists... why did he make me an atheist?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> I'm an atheist because believing doesn't make sense in any way. At all. I've come to a point of viewing it as a trait of ignorance. This isn't atheist elitism or whatever, I don't go around preaching, but I have very little respect for someone who is willing to go through that much rationalization instead of simply changing their mind.



(knowing that I am an Atheist)You should realize that there is no reason to assume someone is ignorant for believing, but having little respect is your choice. I do however ask that you tone the edge down a bit. you assume the other sides perspective without knowing it which is overly general IMO.

The way you have worded your post comes off as elitism honestly because you just assume that "you're right", proper way of conversing and/or debating with people requires a touch of delicacy otherwise people just ignore you. None of this is meant to be condescending either.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

genome said:


> If God exists... why did he make me an atheist?





"Bc you have free will." 

The golden loophole.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

genome said:


> If God exists... why did he make me an atheist?



Haha the million dollar question


----------



## jeremyb (Mar 5, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Actually because of this thread, I decided to pick-up a book on Buddhism, some interesting stuff that really catches my interests, a few stuff I'm still hazy on as the book is focusing a lot on context to begin with before going into details, so I've got the basics and the context prior to Budda. One of the first things that struck me a few pages in, was a comment on how the Mind is Mans most powerful tool, which I stated earlier in this thread. I'm interested so far, so I'll keep reading I'm about 1/5th through so far.
> 
> Amazon.com: The tree of enlightenment: An introduction to the major traditions of Buddhism: Peter Della Santina: Books
> 
> That's the book, does anyone know any other Entry Buddhism books? This one is okay but its very contextual, where as to garner interest I think I'd prefer to read more about the teachings.



I'm a bit confused why you feel like you need to get religion?


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 5, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Not to pick at you, but I find your last statement a smidge ironic...
> 
> Why is it that your mind couldn't be changed? Or could it?
> 
> ...


My mind could be changed if there was any proof. But the problem is that I've had to do no rationalizing to be an atheist. I haven't had to sweep any evidence under the rug or ignore anything or explain away ridiculous things to come to my point of view. Any believer has done that already.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

I think we may be using the word rationalizing differently.

Why do they have to have swept some evidence under the rug? That sounds more like a politician to me. Perhaps their eyes simply haven't been open to every possibility... There are so many. Perhaps by way of different life experiences certain points of view are more difficult for some to perceive. It sounds as though you think those who believe in something have gone through great lengths to hide truths from themselves in some strange self-brainwashing madness. I'm not sure it's that's complex. I wouldn't put it past those who originally wrote (and rewrote and rewrote and rewrote and...) some of the holy texts might have hidden some things and/or added in their own personal values, but I can't confirm that for sure. I can only assume. But I've told to be wary of such actions as it ends to make an "ass" out of "u" AND "me." 



/pseudoprofoundjibbajabba


----------



## Fiction (Mar 5, 2012)

jeremyb said:


> I'm a bit confused why you feel like you need to get religion?



I'm a bit confused why you're questioning why i'm reading into a topic that I feel is interesting?

Is it no different to listening to a new band out of curiosity or buying a game you wouldn't normally play.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 5, 2012)

Fiction said:


> does anyone know any other Entry Buddhism books? This one is okay but its very contextual, where as to garner interest I think I'd prefer to read more about the teachings.



Several books written by the Dhalai Lama were my introduction to Buddhism, and at the same time they're not exactly Buddhist. He has a beautiful way of explaining most of his ideas in a number of different religious contexts, IE "Here's the idea. Now let me break down how that works in science, and in Christianity, and in Buddhism, and in Hinduism, etc".. 

In other words, Universal ideas, but presented first through a (Tibetan) Buddhist perspective. When my mom died in 2002 - not quite 2 weeks shy of my 22nd birthday - a book he wrote (that she gave to me) ended up being extremely helpful to me in terms of processing the loss: Amazon.com: An Open Heart: Practicing Compassion in Everyday Life (9780316989794): Dalai Lama, Nicholas Vreeland, Khyongla Rato, Richard Gere: Books 

Anyway, just wanted to get that out there before I forgot. I still have a few more pages of this thread to read through before I can add my own 2 cents.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Mar 5, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> I'm an atheist because believing doesn't make sense in any way. At all. I've come to a point of viewing it as a trait of ignorance. This isn't atheist elitism or whatever, I don't go around preaching, but I have very little respect for someone who is willing to go through that much rationalization instead of simply changing their mind.





Omarfan said:


> My mind could be changed if there was any proof. But the problem is that I've had to do no rationalizing to be an atheist. I haven't had to sweep any evidence under the rug or ignore anything or explain away ridiculous things to come to my point of view. Any believer has done that already.



This is why we can't have nice things, like threads about what we believe.  I really hope you can step back and see how easily a believer would be offended at your posts. I also hope we can continue healthy discussion without insulting or belittling other people's viewpoints.


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, sounds like you're konfyouzd. 

I'm using rationalizing to mean someone coming up with a complicated explanation that makes it possible but unlikely for their viewpoint to still be valid. It's ridiculous when being an atheist requires none of that.


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, you edited that, so I'll take this to task as well.



Konfyouzd said:


> Why do they have to have swept some evidence under the rug? That sounds more like a politician to me. Perhaps their eyes simply haven't been open to every possibility... There are so many. Perhaps by way of different life experiences certain points of view are more difficult for some to perceive. It sounds as though you think those who believe in something have gone through great lengths to hide truths from themselves in some strange self-brainwashing madness. I'm not sure it's that's complex, but I've already accepted that I know nothing so take what I say with a grain of salt.


I say they've swept evidence under the rug when I hear things like "the world is only 6000 years old." That's sweeping scientific fact under the rug to make their beliefs seem valid.

I say ignorant, not stupid, for the exact reason you say here. People who believe may not purposefully be ignoring strong evidence to the contrary of their beliefs, they may simply be unaware.


----------



## bhakan (Mar 5, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> Well, you edited that, so I'll take this to task as well.
> 
> 
> I say they've swept evidence under the rug when I hear things like "the world is only 6000 years old." That's sweeping scientific fact under the rug to make their beliefs seem valid.
> ...


First, I am an atheist, but I think you're over generalizing. While their are Christians who believe that, the vast majority believe it is 4.5 billion(?). What you're saying can be offensive to all the Christians who believe in all the science you do, but also believe in a God. 

Just for the sake of curiosity, anyone here go from being an atheist to being religious. We have a lot of ex-Christians, but anyone the opposite way around (and why if you don't mind). This thread is really interesting for me, as I find religion fascinating, so hopefully we can keep it going ina civil manner.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> Well, you edited that, so I'll take this to task as well.
> 
> 
> I say they've swept evidence under the rug when I hear things like "the world is only 6000 years old." That's sweeping scientific fact under the rug to make their beliefs seem valid.
> ...



Sounds like you're talking about fundamentalists. They're of a different breed, me thinks.


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 5, 2012)

Fundamentalists and average religious people are very different. Fundamentalists are the ones who I'm saying are doing the rug sweeping. Most average religious people are much more rational about the realities presented to us by science but they often believe ignorant things due simply to no one ever explaining to them how they're wrong.

But I will say a great deal of people, fundamentalist or not, will clam up when challenged on their beliefs and simply refuse to change their mind regardless of evidence. When they have no more arguments, they just say "I have faith." Well you can just as easily have faith that you can levitate, but that doesn't make it true. So add in a third category for smart people employing willful ignorance.

No matter what though, nobody really ever has anything more concrete than "faith" and that's why I don't respect people's beliefs all that much. Faith is utterly meaningless, especially when it's thrown around so flippantly and has been proven wrong time and time again.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Sounds like you're talking about fundamentalists. They're of a different breed, me thinks.





-----------------------------
@Omarfan
And calling someone ignorant is offensive. You may not see your post as such, but I have and told you so, so please tone it down. 

You can say you are an Atheist because it doesn't require any proof or it coincides well with science and you didn't feel like that jived well with the christian community that "you" encountered. See how that is not offensive. Stereotyping is pretty much ALWAYS offensive.

Mind you it is a problem because if you haven't noticed since your post the entire tone of this thread has changed, so please don't poison the well.

[edit]
And thank you for it least clearing up your comments


----------



## synrgy (Mar 5, 2012)

I do want to share some thoughts, but I've run out of time for this evening. In the meantime, I'll just leave this here:


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2012)

synrgy said:


> I do want to share some thoughts, but I've run out of time for this evening. In the meantime, I'll just leave this here:



love it. That would be some crazy music.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 5, 2012)

I think you mean incredible music. That's the most harmonious shit I've ever seen.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Mar 5, 2012)

I believe that we should all be good to one another.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 5, 2012)

Here is the gist of what I have come to think:

Faith is normal and natural. We could not function in the world without it. Everyone, including atheists, invests some degree of faith into the things they believe. Religious people have faith that there is a better world waiting for them, if they can only do what's required to gain admittance. Atheists have faith that there is not. Neither group can prove the veracity of either case, so yes, it does require faith to be a disbeliever.

Science itself requries faith. If one looks in the right place, one can find and endless amount of information supporting the various theories about how our world, and the universe in which it is contained, works. Whether they are correct or not is a separate issue. The truth is that, for most of us, believing any of them requires an investment of faith. I am not a physicist, or a chemist, or a geologist, or any other kind of ist. I don't automatically understand the language involved in the explanation of many of the theories which scientists promulgate. Just as with religion, it is up to the reader to do fact-checking and read up on these things. And again, just as with religion, most people don't. Many atheists I know are just as guilty of accepting scientific theory as many religious people are of their dogma. And even if you do your background reading and fact-checking, in order to understand any of it to the point where it defeats faith, you almost have to become one of those various scientists.

So we have faith in things we can't all individually prove, but which make sense to us given our limitations in understanding the information that is presented to us. As many scientific theories make sense to me (evolution, big bang, dark matter, etc.), I understand why they don't universally make sense to everyone, so I don't just people for having doubts. They make sense to me because I have good resources in my family to explain many of the ideas and mechanics to me. I guess most people don't have such ready access to knowledgable folks.

Faith is good, normal, natural, and healthy. There's nothing wrong with it. We would never get anything done without it. Where faith becomes unhealthy is when it is manipulated and weaponized by institutions in search of wealth and power. It's been abused by so-called 'scientists' and clergy alike, but VASTLY more frequently by legions of charlatans disguised as priests, monks, clerics, prophets, messiahs, etc.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in any one God, or any system of Gods. In my opinion, mythology has lost its place in human consciousness. It's just a matter of purging the inbuilt narcissism that causes religious to propagate. People seem to have a problem understanding that they aren't special, that the Earth and its bounty was not made for them, nor were the innumerable stars planted in the sky for their enjoyment. I understand how comforting God myths can be. The world is a cold, dark, and cruel place even on its brightest days. I can understand why it is comforting to believe in a benevolent creator who cares for us and guides us, and wants us to be happy (or, depending on which Christian you ask, who wants us to all die in pain and suffer eternally in Hell). Sadly, I just can't accept the idea just because a manky old book says that it is so.

I was born in Utah to a mormon family. As such, I was raised in the church. I was baptised when I was 8, like most other mormons. I didn't really understand the ritual, but I was fucking TERRIFIED that now God was watching me and preparing to judge me upon my death. Like most 8 year olds (I think) I had never "felt" or "heard" the presence of God in my life. As years went on, His continued silence gave me cause for concern. People around me seemed to have very real, palpable experiences with the divine. When asked to give an example of an answered prayer, I never had an answer. I was embarassed and ashamed, so I just made shit up.

When my dad died, the silence was deafening. I had real problems with a God who would allow that to happen, so I began to think and read about it more objectively. When I opened my eyes to the possibility that the doctrine was wrong, I felt better about myself and my life. I wasn't a defective, rejected person. I was just being fed a prefectly intoxicating tonic of bullshit. God didn't hate me. He wasn't ignoring me. He simply wasn't there. When I went in for my Aaronic priesthood interview with the 1st counselor, I asked him a number of pointed questions about his faith. We went around and around a few times with a lot of frustrating questions and answers. There was one moment when he had a look on his face that told me everything I needed to know. I asked him how he knew, how he could *possibly* know that anything in the KJV Bible or the Book of Mormon was true. A flash of doubt crossed his face, and that was all I needed to know. He didn't _know_. He just _believed_. My error became clear: I was trying to rationalize the irrational. I wanted to _know_ that God existed, not believe. That's why I felt wrong and rejected by God for so long. You can't know the unknowable.

After that interview, I felt immediately better and more focused. I walked out of the church that sunday afternoon and never returned. That was 19 years ago.

Edit:
So now, 19 years later, there are a few things I know. I know our understanding of the natural world is imperfect and evolving. I like to think that it is improving, but I could be wrong. I know that there are things we will just never know. I'm OK with that. I know that the answers to the big questions ("Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go when we die?") are only valid in context, and everyone's context is different, so then the answers are thus truly unimportant. I *know* that there is no God. I also know that I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Faith is normal and natural. We could not function in the world without it. Everyone, including atheists, invests some degree of faith into the things they believe. Religious people have faith that there is a better world waiting for them, if they can only do what's required to gain admittance. Atheists have faith that there is not. Neither group can prove the veracity of either case, so yes, it does require faith to be a disbeliever.



I agree with most of what you said, except this part. Atheists don't have faith that there isn't a heaven or a god, we just don't believe it because, there is no evidence that so much as suggests that it's a possibility. We believe what we see proof of. If there was some kind of evidence of it, than atheists would believe. It's not like most of us have some blind faith that there is no god, like if angels descended from the sky we wouldn't say "my faith will not be shaken! You're not real!" it's just that there's nothing to suggest that any of that is real, but there are strong indications that it's not.

But other than that I agree with you and I enjoyed your story and perspective from a former mormon. It was very interesting.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> I agree with most of what you said, except this part. Atheists don't have faith that there isn't a heaven or a god, we just don't believe it because, there is no evidence that so much as suggests that it's a possibility. We believe what we see poof of. If there was some kind of evidence of it, than atheists would believe. It's not like most of us have some blind faith that there is no god, like if angels descended from the sky we wouldn't say "my faith will not be shaken! You're not real!" it's just that there's nothing to suggest that any of that is real, but there are strong indications that it's not.
> 
> But other than that I agree with you and I enjoyed your story and perspective from a former mormon. It was very interesting.



Good point...clumsy wording I suppose. What I meant was that that, I believe, is the most fundamental difference between the two belief systems (as I see it): Atheists that we are alone and that the Earth is where we make our stand, for better or worse, and Judeo-Christians that there is Someone and Something better.

(Not alone in the sense of intelligent life in the universe, but in the "is someone watching over us" sense.)


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Good point...clumsy wording I suppose.



Yeah, my dad literally thinks that though. He thinks that atheists are stupid because we can't see that god is real.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Yeah, my dad literally thinks that though. He thinks that atheists are stupid because we can't see that god is real.



It is all too easy to hold those with whom we disagree in contempt. I do my best to avoid that, as I believe it is a part of what makes organized religion dangerous to begin with.

I think compassion, not disdain, is the most elevated form of human emotion. Christianity 'teaches' the same thing, but often acts to the contrary.


----------



## AnarchyDivine88 (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> It is all too easy to hold those with whom we disagree in contempt. I do my best to avoid that, as I believe it is a part of what makes organized religion dangerous to begin with.
> 
> I think compassion, not disdain, is the most elevated form of human emotion. Christianity 'teaches' the same thing, but often acts to the contrary.



 Very true. A big part of why I admire hinduism. They have a similar view about this.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

AnarchyDivine88 said:


> Very true. A big part of why I admire hinduism. They have a similar view about this.



And yet India has the Dalit....untouchables. People of low class, for whatever reason, whom are openly discriminated against, and have been for centuries, even though such discrimination has been outlawed (to be fair, it's not just India, though the problem is most pronounced that country). In theory, it's a generally positive system. In practice, it is easy to abuse.

Again, I think it's a part of the narcissism that we are all born with. Almost all of us feel like we're meant for something greater than your average person, we all think we're better than average drivers, and we all think we're smarter than average. It makes it easy to look down on others, especially those who challenge us on any basically any level.

I try really hard to avoid that trap, sometimes with less success than other times. Compassion is not a very natural state for me, so I have to consciously think about it.


----------



## Omarfan (Mar 6, 2012)

flint757 said:


> -----------------------------
> @Omarfan
> And calling someone ignorant is offensive. You may not see your post as such, but I have and told you so, so please tone it down.
> 
> ...


Well, see my later comments on ignorance. Ignorance is not offensive. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I am ignorant to 99.9% of things in the world, simply because I have never been educated on them. The human experience only allows for true understanding and education in a very limited amount of things. I think when it comes to a touchy subject like religion, many are easily irritated. If I said that someone who had never known anything of toilets except how to take a shit in them was ignorant to plumbing, would that touch a nerve? No, because the person would readily admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, except for a basic knowledge of how to use it.

In the same way, many reasonable and intelligent people I know have relied on faith to govern their religious beliefs and been unaware of evidence to the contrary of what they believe. They have essentially the same understanding of their own religion, as well as the science contradicting it, as the person in my example has of the innermost workings of a toilet.

As stereotyping goes, you're putting words in my mouth. The example of the earth being 6000 years old was a Christian example, yes, but I say this of all religions, not just Christianity or those that believe in Christianity. Christianity is an easy go-to because it's the dominant religion in North America, but all religions suffer from the same crucial flaws in faith vs. fact. And I later specified that there are many different types believers. Not everyone's a fundamentalist, but everyone that does believe has their own way of ignoring evidence, whether they are offended by it and call it lies, whether they do not even know about or understand it, or whether they willfully ignore it because it doesn't fit their world view. So I don't feel like I'm stereotyping anyone, but outside of those three categories there's hardly any other explanation for belief.

No attempt to poison the well on my part, but I also don't want to sugarcoat my opinions. A healthy debate is worth a world more than aggrandizing your own beliefs, wouldn't you agree? The key is ultimately civility. The thread title said "no trolling," which I certainly do not feel like I am doing. I'm engaging, there's a difference. I simply would like everyone to think. On the other hand, trolling would be "you guys are all gonna burn in hell because you don't agree with me, you godless piece of shit faggots" or "you're all fucking retarded, there's no god." Not my aim in any way.

You are very welcome for clearing things up.

Furthermore, while we're stating our beliefs, I'll put out a controversial one just for the sake of the thread. I believe that of all the religions in the world at the current time, Scientology is the only one doing anything halfway right. I have issues with their monetary system, though it isn't far removed from the way Catholicism operated at one point in history. More than anything though, I think they stick closer to the real point of religion than any others today. Religion is essentially a collection of Aesop's Fables, a way to police yourself in every day life. It's a guide to how to be a good person, in essence. This is warped by so many today as they try to impose their beliefs on what a good person is on others. Scientology, however, has a tremendous self-help text and for some can be a great way to better themselves. Their exclusivity necessitates that they abstain from preaching or trying to convert others, so they keep their beliefs to themselves instead of trying to impose them. They have an excellent rehab program for drug addicts which is far more successful than your average AA or NA program, most of which are sponsored by Christian organizations. While there are dangerous sects within Scientology, other religions also suffer from this. The majority of Scientologists do not engage in the shady business you read about on the internet. Finally, as I understand it, they mostly don't take their teachings literally in the way other religions do. The science fiction aspect of it is understood to be a metaphor, whereas if you believe in other religions, it's a sin to disbelieve any works of God, no matter how ridiculous. So that's why I actually have a great deal of respect for Scientology, aside from it being as ridiculous as any other religion.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

Omarfan said:


> I'm an atheist because believing doesn't make sense in any way. At all. I've come to a point of viewing it as a trait of ignorance. This isn't atheist elitism or whatever, I don't go around preaching, but I have very little respect for someone who is willing to go through that much rationalization instead of simply changing their mind.



I think it is the over generalization only that irked me from this post. Not all religions are inconceivable and not all Christians feel the discontinuities are relevant and then there are some who fall into the camp that a God/God's are possible, but we couldn't conceive it. And then there are some who just leave room for the possibility. That is why Konfyouzd said you in fact considered a lot of rationalizing to come to that conclusion. Also, some christian's have posted throughout this thread and pretty much all of them had said that they believe in a Christian God, but that the bible in fact is either a metaphor or just straight up wrong so in a sense nondenominational type believers. My point to this is it doesn't take more rationalizing to believe in the idea of a God than it does to not. Either way read through the thread there is a wealth of information. I may have overreacted initially, but I wasn't the only one who noticed the edge that we have avoided for 8 pages now and have gathered lots of great information. that being said your last post was more polite which probably has to do with the fact that you explained your thesis rather than just leaving your thesis to be interpreted by others.



Omarfan said:


> Well, see my later comments on ignorance. Ignorance is not offensive. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I am ignorant to 99.9% of things in the world, simply because I have never been educated on them. The human experience only allows for true understanding and education in a very limited amount of things. I think when it comes to a touchy subject like religion, many are easily irritated. If I said that someone who had never known anything of toilets except how to take a shit in them was ignorant to plumbing, would that touch a nerve? No, because the person would readily admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, except for a basic knowledge of how to use it.
> 
> In the same way, many reasonable and intelligent people I know have relied on faith to govern their religious beliefs and been unaware of evidence to the contrary of what they believe. They have essentially the same understanding of their own religion, as well as the science contradicting it, as the person in my example has of the innermost workings of a toilet.
> 
> ...



Like I said above I have nothing against this post. It was polite and explained your perspective very well while still coming to the same conclusion.

Okay that being said I'm interested to hear what you know of Scientology because I know next to nothing other than the media's perspective on the subject.

EDIT

Also, I didn't mean that you intended to poison the well, but that the way your inital post came across it was aggressive enough (or it least seemed so) that it did derail the thread for like 1/2 a page and could have potentially offended someone. Mainly because while you are right that ignorance by itself isn't offensive typically when you say someone is ignorant and leave out the specifics to why you think that it comes across as you are calling someone stupid. no harm though like I said you last couple post have been fine and appreciate your comments. Feel free to add or to elaborate further on Scientology if you wish it'd be useful to know.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Faith is normal and natural. *We could not function in the world without it.* Everyone, including atheists, invests some degree of faith into the things they believe.



I disagree completely with this. 

Reducing it to absurdity, does that meant that spiders, ants and amoebas have faith? How about trees and mustard plants? What about an octopus taking a land stroll? Crows dropping pebbles into a container of water to raise the level, allowing them to drink?

You're mixing up empiricism with faith. Empiricism is learning from past experience and evidence. Faith is believing without evidence. 

Atheists would believe in all kinds of things if there was actual evidence. Their experience has led them to not expect that evidence, but if Yahweh performed some supernatural, observable and unmistakable miracle, they'd have no problem with that evidence.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

Explorer's post answered my qualms with the whole "atheism requires faith, too!" argument.

I'd like to further comment on what I see as a huge disparity in the viewpoint of taking the Bible as metaphor, or even blatantly saying some parts are wrong. If you are Christian, and believe in the Judeo-Christian god, your higher power is only defined and given attributes in a book you find contradictory, by your own admission. How can one have any certainty as to the qualities of this power if some descriptions may not be right, or some are embellished? You have to pick and choose which qualities to endorse or deny as part of your version of God. 

It'd be as if one tried to become a physician using only medical texts from the 16th century. Some information is correct, but by and large it would be inaccurate at best.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Explorer's post answered my qualms with the whole "atheism requires faith, too!" argument.
> 
> I'd like to further comment on what I see as a huge disparity in the viewpoint of taking the Bible as metaphor, or even blatantly saying some parts are wrong. If you are Christian, and believe in the Judeo-Christian god, your higher power is only defined and given attributes in a book you find contradictory, by your own admission. How can one have any certainty as to the qualities of this power if some descriptions may not be right, or some are embellished? You have to pick and choose which qualities to endorse or deny as part of your version of God.
> 
> It'd be as if one tried to become a physician using only medical texts from the 16th century. Some information is correct, but by and large it would be inaccurate at best.



What I take from that perspective is that they feel the "human" aspect of the religion is corrupted. So really they don't technically believe in a Judeo-Christian God, but the notion of a God in general. It would be in a similar sense of what some Agnostics believe. The only difference being is that said person might also agree with some of the ethical message in the bible. I'm just speculating because I'm not one of those people so take with a grain of salt.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I disagree completely with this.
> 
> Reducing it to absurdity, does that meant that spiders, ants and amoebas have faith? How about trees and mustard plants? What about an octopus taking a land stroll? Crows dropping pebbles into a container of water to raise the level, allowing them to drink?
> 
> ...



Anything can me made to seem ridiculous when taken to an illogical extreme.

And I'm not confusing empiricism with faith at all. I understand the difference, but I also understand that it is impractical (if not flatly impossible) to acquire all of the knowledge and information that would be required to understand all of the evidence presented by any given scientific world view, as it challenges religious doctrine.

The point is, when you accept something that someone tells you because you either lack the resources or the knowledge to investigate and verify it for yourself, you are placing faith not only in that person, but in the information that person has presented. Whether that person is telling you that God planted dinosaur bones to test your faith, or that the whole universe came from a singular point, doesn't really make a difference.

Call it something else if it pleases you, but it's still faith.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Anything can me made to seem ridiculous when taken to an illogical extreme.
> 
> And I'm not confusing empiricism with faith at all. I understand the difference, but I also understand that it is impractical (if not flatly impossible) to acquire all of the knowledge and information that would be required to understand all of the evidence presented by any given scientific world view, as it challenges religious doctrine.
> 
> ...



I get what he is saying. basically when you think of gravity or how plumbing works or a million other things you don't know why it works (unless you've done the research), you just trust/believe that it does. I don't know if that is the same as faith, but I could buy that it is close. It isn't technically the same though because faith means without proof, but if you take something for what it is and do not ask for proof then I suppose it would qualify. Either way I understood originally what you meant.

Edit
examples built around the idea of faith could be having faith that your car won't blow up, that the string on a bow won't snap when you pull on it, that your amp will make it through a show. You have no proof that any of those things will or won't happen, but we go through the day and believe they won't or at the very least hope.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I get what he is saying. basically when you think of gravity or how plumbing works or a million other things you don't know why it works (unless you've done the research), you just trust/believe that it does. I don't know if that is the same as faith, but I could buy that it is close. It isn't technically the same though because faith means without proof, but if you take something for what it is and do not ask for proof then I suppose it would qualify. Either way I understood originally what you meant.
> 
> Edit
> examples built around the idea of faith could be having faith that your car won't blow up, that the string on a bow won't snap when you pull on it, that your amp will make it through a show. You have no proof that any of those things will or won't happen, but we go through the day and believe they won't or at the very least hope.



Sort-of.

Look at it this way; I work in the PC gaming industry as a hardware performance analyst. More simply, I review video cards.

If you ask me which video card is best for you, given an understanding of what you do with your computer I can make a pretty good recommendation.

Assuming you know nothing (or at least very little) about video cards, and you just want to play something like Star Wars: The Old Republic, I can make a few specific recommendations. I can tell you what I think would fit your needs best, and since you lack specific knowledge (in this hypothetical...who knows, you might be an expert), you can either take my word for it or spend the time it takes to become an expert and make your own educated decision.

You can even ask me to show you why I think it's the best choice, and I can show you all the data that I have gathered on each given video card in the industry. The data, of course, is meaningless all by itself, so then some elaboration is required. Again assuming you know nothing of the subject matter, you would either take my word for it or, again, take the time required to be come a subject matter expert on PC gaming performance.

Most people I personally know who fit the situation described above just take my word for it. They have faith in what I tell them because of my position in the industry, even though I have given them no proof. They believe what I say, because I am a so-called "expert", though hardly anybody has ever asked me to justify my position. Why do they just believe what I tell them without seeking proof? I don't know. They just do. I would say they have faith in my knowledge. 

Some people become gaming enthusiasts and eventually know enough to make their own educated decisions. Anybody can do it, but most don't care enough to do so. They ask what to buy, I ask a few questions and make a recommendation, and then they buy it. 

(Readers of my reviews are a different breed entirely, as few of them are truly ignorant of the metrics involved. I'm talking about non-enthusiasts above.)


----------



## Explorer (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> And I'm not confusing empiricism with faith at all. I understand the difference, but I also understand that it is impractical (if not flatly impossible) to acquire all of the knowledge and information that would be required to understand all of the evidence presented by any given scientific world view, as it challenges religious doctrine.



It might be impractical to acquire all the evidence and knowledge, but if a source proves reliable, then one normally assumes that the source will continue to be reliable (again, empiricism). So, if your parents build a track record of being right, then you assume that they'll continue to be so. If those parents aren't reliable, then you assume they'll continue to be unreliable.

If a source was previously reliable and stopped being so, then one might be surprised, but one wouldn't necessarily automatically have faith that the source would never be wrong. One could learn from the experience and the evidence.



HaMMerHeD said:


> The point is, when you accept something that someone tells you because you either lack the resources or the knowledge to investigate and verify it for yourself, you are placing faith not only in that person, but in the information that person has presented.
> 
> ...Call it something else if it pleases you, but it's still faith.



You're really intent on making persistence and naturalistic phenomena into matters of faith. Here's a thought experiment.

Send me $200 through PayPal, and you'll learn a valuable lesson which will serve you the rest of your life.

You take a moment to think through my offer, and you'll likely find yourself making a judgment, most likely "I think he's going to keep the cash, and call that a lesson." That would be a judgment, not taking it on faith, based on your perception of me. 

In the same way, when you're told things by various sources, you judge whether or not those sources are reliable based on your experience. You give credence to the previously reliable sources, and don't give credence to untested sources, or to sources which have proven unreliable. 

To say that you'd make your decision about sending me $200 based on faith and not evidence (or lack thereof) is to misunderstand experience, learning, and faith. 

Faith is belief without evidence and experience. Judging an information source's reliability isn't faith. To claim so is a mistake.

----

Alternate short version: If you get paid to know about video cards, most people would assume you have some knowledge about it. That's not faith, but a judgment based on how jobs work and why employers pay good money to workers. You getting paid is evidence. 

If someone found out you were lying about your job, or about working with video cards, then their judgment of your likely knowledge would immediately change. Evidence is like that. They assume you're telling the truth, but you can easily disprove that... which again is about evidence.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Sort-of.
> 
> Look at it this way; I work in the PC gaming industry as a hardware performance analyst. More simply, I review video cards.
> 
> ...



Ya that was a far better example actually.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

I see your point, Explorer, and to an extent I agree with you. It's really a semantic issue. I think faith is more broadly defined than simple blind acceptance. That seems to be your definition of it (from what I've read), and from that narrow scope, you'd be right. I just disagree about the nature of faith.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

HaMMerHeD said:


> I see your point, Explorer, and to an extent I agree with you. It's really a semantic issue. I think faith can be more broadly defined than simple blind acceptance. That seems to be your definition of it (from what I've read), and from that narrow scope, you'd be right. I just disagree about the nature of faith.



OT, but...

This type of thing is the reason I engage in these debates. People have different views, not only on 'bigger picture' issues, but on the components of those issues, and being able to accept, even in part, the perspectives of others is crucial to self-development.

My disagreement, HammerHed, is that we have plenty of words that distinguish varying levels of blind acceptance and rational decisions. An all-encompassing "faith" makes certain implications that aren't necessarily clear to the discussion at hand. Muddying the waters, and all that, I suppose. That's why I love philosophy; so many of the greats defined all their terms used in the beginning of their books or essays, which makes things more digestible later on.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> OT, but...
> 
> This type of thing is the reason I engage in these debates. People have different views, not only on 'bigger picture' issues, but on the components of those issues, and being able to accept, even in part, the perspectives of others is crucial to self-development.
> 
> My disagreement, HammerHed, is that we have plenty of words that distinguish varying levels of blind acceptance and rational decisions. An all-encompassing "faith" makes certain implications that aren't necessarily clear to the discussion at hand. Muddying the waters, and all that, I suppose. That's why I love philosophy; so many of the greats defined all their terms used in the beginning of their books or essays, which makes things more digestible later on.



Certainly an understandable point. But if we go purely on what dictionaries define faith as, it's not very clear. Perhaps better language is needed to clarify one type of faith vs. another.

Dictionary.com says this:



> faith
> [feyth]
> 
> noun
> ...



Merriam-Webster says this:



> Definition of FAITH
> 
> 1
> a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
> ...



I don't have a subscription to the OED, so I can't whatever it says, but i suspect it's similar.

So it's important to have clearly defined definitions of terminology involved, and as you see, faith is not so cleanly defined.

So from the perspective of faith purely as an acceptance of unproved information as truth, Explorer is absolutely correct. No doubt. 

But from the more nebulous additional definitions that also exist, it's less clear. It's clearly a semantic argument, but semantics are important, lest misunderstandings follow (as we've seen).

So I guess the question is, are we defining faith as a simple blind acceptance? If that's the case, I would find it a destructive and lamentable thing. If that's the definition we are assuming for faith in this thread, then have my apologies for muddying the water. That's just not the way I see it. I didn't see such a pre-selected definition, though I have not read the whole thread.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

I see more definitions in common than not from those two sources, but I think we should go with the one that says "believing something without proof" as it somewhat ironically lines up with the Bible's definition of faith in Hebrews 11. "Faith is the essence of things unseen," and all that.

I also think faith, or the word 'belief' when used synonymously, is dangerous. It's a rejection of facts in some cases, and the attempt to only emphasize certain facts in others. I'm forcibly reminded of a late-night infomercial on Trinity Broadcasting Network that espoused a scientific basis for the geocentrism I thought we had gotten past in the 15th century or so. 

Faith also suggests that one is already correct, or at least doesn't need to consider any other possibilities as it would sully the aforementioned faith. That's the thing I don't like about 'faith'. If I saw Jesus, a miracle, or if there was some proof that was solid and incontrovertible, I would have to change my worldview. Those with faith, however, do not.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Mar 6, 2012)

I once had a person attempt to justify geocentrism scientifically. I let him say his bit and thanked him for his time. I'm not sure there is much that can be done for people who believe that sillyness, or that dinosaur bones exist as god's test of faith, or that the earth is really only 6000 years old. I also once had a baptist minister tell me that without his Bible as a moral compass (a laughable idea, in my opinion), he would be out murdering, raping, and pillaging. I simply replied that it is a good thing he has his bible then. I'm not sure he caught the irony I attempted to put forth.

At any rate, I agree with everything you've said, given that specific definition of faith.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 6, 2012)

JeffFromMtl said:


> I believe that we should all be good to one another.



That is far too simple while making far too much sense.


----------



## Genome (Mar 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> "Bc you have free will."
> 
> The golden loophole.



Seems a bit counter-intuitive.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 6, 2012)

So I made it through the thread so far. After all these pages, the first reply is still the most poignant, to me:



Mayhew said:


> I question anyone who thinks they have it figured out.



That's pretty much where I am, at this point.

Advanced apologies for what I expect will be my usual long winded, stream-of-consciousness style post, but I somehow feel as though I can't explain my current perceptions without giving some of my history first.

I was raised Lutheran. I am named after my paternal grandfather, who was a Lutheran minister. My Dad - who I've talked about some here before - has been a church organist and choir director for most of my life, though he tends to play wherever he's needed/paid as opposed to where his religious loyalties may lay. Anyway, point being that I grew up surrounded by Christianity, whether it was my grandfather reading passages from the Bible as we sat around the Christmas tree, or sitting next to my Dad on the organ bench during Sunday sermons. As a funny side note, I always felt closer to God when my Dad was playing the organ than I did during any sermons.

My parents split up when I was about 2 years old. When I was about 10, I left my Dad's place to move in with my Mom. My Mom was never big into any single religion, and eventually the concept of going to church on Sundays just kind of faded away. There was never a conscious decision to stop going; it just kind of happened. Before she died a little over a decade later, my Mom immersed herself in the study of Native American spirituality, which was also an influence on my own perceptions. In my late teens, I voluntarily did light studying of most of the big guns beyond Christianity; Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islamism, Wicca, etc etc.

I found then and continue to find that there aren't a whole lot of fundamental differences between them. I almost feel at this point that ALL religion is a single concept, like a guitar, for instance. There are a billion different ways to interpret the build and play of a guitar, but in the end it's still just a guitar. IE, nothing we can do to a block of wood and a few strings will produce a trombone. I simply see religion as humanity's way of trying to justify our own existence; our answer to the proverbial Chicken/Egg conundrum.

The older I get, the more I see this need for justification as humanity's greatest folly. When we justify our existence, and/or place value on an afterlife we may not ever experience, we're doing a disservice to ourselves in the one and only existence we're _guaranteed_ to experience: THIS ONE.

As my life has unfolded over the years and my perception of the World has continually expanded, I have developed an ever-increasing distaste for organized religion. Contempt may be too strong a word, but I feel that for every bit of beauty faith has added to the lives of countless individuals, the havoc and devastation that we as a species have brought upon each other and our planet in the name of religion far outweighs any theoretical benefits religion may be granting us. Is it possible that our species would have found some other way to fuck everything up without having ever created religion? I expect so. I'd even wager it'd be _probable_; not just possible. Still, I can't help but feel that when objectively looking back on the history of humanity, it's pretty difficult to make the case that religion has benefited our species in any measurable way.

While I don't want to open this can of worms completely, I do feel compelled to add that my distaste for religion grows exponentially as our political climate here in America veers ever further into absurdity. I'm fine with someone thinking they know God - more power to them - but I take great offense at the prospect of any religious dogma having any direct effect on our secular society.

At this point in my life, I put my faith in myself, and my trust in science. My personal morality may be rooted in Christianity, given that's how I was raised, but I do find that I feel closer to Buddhism than anything else. I sometimes describe my own personal beliefs as residing "somewhere between Buddhism and Quantum Theory". Now, I'm obviously no Einstein, so understand that the Quantum Theory part of that statement is absolutely based on a layperson's extremely loose and fallible understanding of the science.

What it all comes back to for me, though, is the same thing Mayhew said. To think that any one of us feeble humans - or even our seemingly infinite collective conscious - could even begin to wrap our brains around the concept or reality of any kind of omnipresence, feels wrong to me. We have yet to even be able to understand or define what our own consciousness is, so how could we possibly comprehend any divine consciousness beyond our own, especially when our entire perception of this existence is defined by our own consciousness?

My morality is defined by empathy, sympathy, and compassion. I agree with a point I read in a book by the Dalai Lama, which I'm going to have to paraphrase because I don't have the book handy to quote directly: "Every human being carries the desire for happiness". This perspective defines how I interact with the World around me. Embracing that simple statement as a basic truth has rendered me completely unable to look upon the face of a stranger and not see that they - like me - are equal parts victim and beneficiary of all the good and bad that life has to offer us. Losing my mom when I was 22 accelerated this perception, for me. Experiencing that loss made my life such that when I look into another person's eyes, I can't help but imagine that they have also experienced such loss and carry related regrets as I do. From that perspective it becomes extremely difficult to be anything but kind to the people I come across. (Arguing on the internet notwistanding! )

What's interesting about that - to me - is that one can find a very similar perspective presented in most of the 'marquee' religious texts. Think "The Golden Rule", for instance. Where I think humanity makes the big misstep is in taking religious texts as historical/literal/factual. I have no problem with religious texts from the perspective of "This is a collection of partially or entirely fictitious stories passed through the generations to provide us with some guidance", but I do take umbrage to the perspective of "These words are God's law, and must be followed to the letter". Frankly, I have quite a bit of trouble reconciling the concept that any omnipresent entity* would bother with governance. 

Where my spirituality lays is more difficult for me to explain or quantify, but in a nutshell, it boils down to energy. Looking at things from a scientific perspective, if we break everything in the Universe down to it's smallest sub-atomic structure, everything in existence is essentially made up of the same stuff. I believe that when our bodies eventually die, the energies which made up our bodies don't simply cease to exist; They disperse outward into everything else. I believe that rather than a singularly experienced afterlife, our energy sort of "becomes one with the infinite", and I'd be lying if I said I weren't greatly excited by the prospect of that potential experience.

Anyway, if you've made it this far, thanks for allowing me to share, and for reading through some of my ideas. I will gladly continue discussion to expand on any of this, and I'm sure I'll jump in to converse on some of the other ideas presented here, as well. 

* = "huh huh.. I said 'tittie'.."


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

^ That was intense. I have nothing to say now, about anything.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

@synrgy
Yeah it is my belief that the bible started out as moral story telling like when we talk about Santa Claus to get kids to behave or The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Then so much time passed, hell maybe a generation was skipped, and it became more fact than fiction. I suspect this might have happened during the dark ages since that is arguably one of our least intelligent era's.

The chicken and the egg things is perplexing to me I could see the reach for religion because an egg just appearing out of nowhere seems crazy or a lizard turning to a bird, but I suppose the overlooked fact there is it happens over a long period of time not instantaneously. Although, that contradicts a little bit with Darwin and the Gallapago's Island (probably spelled that wrong). Part of his theory was that abnormalities become the norm when they become more effective thus those genes make it on to the next generation. I would argue his theory doesn't explain how a frog ends up over time into a primate. That being said I haven't read much of his work.

Back when I was in middle school I was reading a book series called Pendragon and the last of the series explained who the main characters were. Interestingly enough it is kind of like what you described and even though it was a fictional tale I felt more stirred reading that bit than I ever did reading a bible. The idea of everyone existing together as an energy just sounds cool.

On topic with the forcing beliefs down peoples throats these republican primaries have been ridiculous. Rush Limbaugh's comments, Santorum's insanity, and all the back stabbery I have ever seen. Needless to say we will revert by like 50 years if one of them becomes president. And if we are honest Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. I for see Obama winning just on the grounds that I'd like to believe the majority of people aren't insane.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 6, 2012)

There's another fiction book touching on a similar theory which you may enjoy, called "The Celestene Prophecy". I haven't read it since I was about 18 or 19, but I recall thoroughly enjoying it. 

Frogs into apes (just used as an example) can still be explained by Darwin's theories, at least in so little as I understand them. The basic idea is that evolution is not linear; there isn't a straight line between the frog and ape. If the frog is the theoretical starting point in this context, there would be innumerable lines from that frog to other evolutionary variations, each of those variations having innumerable lines to other evolutionary points. One of these countless chains would eventually lead to an ape, by way of the seemingly infinite variations along the way. We (as a species) have a tendency to think of evolution as the straight line, when an intricate and complex spiderweb would be a more appropriate visual analogy.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 6, 2012)

genome said:


> Seems a bit counter-intuitive.


 
Yes, but I figured that was to be expected. I mean it certainly isn't surprising...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> There's another fiction book touching on a similar theory which you may enjoy, called "The Celestene Prophecy". I haven't read it since I was about 18 or 19, but I recall thoroughly enjoying it.
> 
> Frogs into apes (just used as an example) can still be explained by Darwin's theories, at least in so little as I understand them. The basic idea is that evolution is not linear; there isn't a straight line between the frog and ape. If the frog is the theoretical starting point in this context, there would be innumerable lines from that frog to other evolutionary variations, each of those variations having innumerable lines to other evolutionary points. One of these countless chains would eventually lead to an ape, by way of the seemingly infinite variations along the way. We (as a species) have a tendency to think of evolution as the straight line, when an intricate and complex spiderweb would be a more appropriate visual analogy.


 
Funny we would though considering the vast differences among members of our own species alone.

I know that it's tyipcally said in gest, but perhaps there's something more behind why we think some folks resemble animals of other species...? 

And possibly also why we're classified as animals rather than the superior class of beings some believe us to be. (Yes I'm being hypberbolic. Sue me.)

I told a friend once that we were classified under the animal kingdom and he responded with: "I don't believe that."

Well we certainly don't belong in any of the other kingdoms. And as far as I know I've never heard of a human kingdom unless it involved real kings and queens, so...?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

synrgy said:


> There's another fiction book touching on a similar theory which you may enjoy, called "The Celestene Prophecy". I haven't read it since I was about 18 or 19, but I recall thoroughly enjoying it.
> 
> Frogs into apes (just used as an example) can still be explained by Darwin's theories, at least in so little as I understand them. The basic idea is that evolution is not linear; there isn't a straight line between the frog and ape. If the frog is the theoretical starting point in this context, there would be innumerable lines from that frog to other evolutionary variations, each of those variations having innumerable lines to other evolutionary points. One of these countless chains would eventually lead to an ape, by way of the seemingly infinite variations along the way. We (as a species) have a tendency to think of evolution as the straight line, when an intricate and complex spiderweb would be a more appropriate visual analogy.



I'll check it out in the middle of reading some other things at the moment plus college, busy. 

That makes sense and I've always assumed that. I guess the confusing part is it is just hard to picture, but considering the diversity on the planet and the time span involved it makes sense.



Konfyouzd said:


> Funny we would though considering the vast differences among members of our own species alone.
> 
> I know that it's tyipcally said in gest, but perhaps there's something more behind why we think some folks resemble animals of other species...?
> 
> And possibly also why we're classified as animals rather than the superior class of beings some believe us to be. (Yes I'm being hypberbolic. Sue me.)



I lol'd


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Mar 6, 2012)

top-class post by synergy, repped

I'd class myself as a pure agnostic, I fully embrace the fact that I don't know anything about the nature of reality or existence-it doesn't mean that I'm blissfully ignorant, philosophy is very interesting, I just accept that I will not know in this life and perhaps not in afterlife(s), if such a thing exists (who's to say this is the first life, after all? The mind boggles!)

Conseqently, in my humble viewpoint as one who thinks none of us _know_ anything, mocking anybody else's beliefs is arrogant to the level of deifying oneself, and is a callous and foolhardy thing to do.

While I'm pretty centre on the theist-atheist scale, if someone forced me to make a decision, my gut tells me that this is the only life I'm going to have, and then it all ends. Maybe I rely too much on empirical evidence. I will openly say that I hope I'm wrong though


----------



## Genome (Mar 7, 2012)

Look, guys...

Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one. It's ok even to be proud of it.

But please&#65279; don't pull it out in public and start waving it around. And definitely don't force it down the throats of my children.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 7, 2012)

genome said:


> Look, guys...
> 
> Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one. It's ok even to be proud of it.
> 
> But please&#65279; don't pull it out in public and start waving it around. And definitely don't force it down the throats of my children.



That is the best thing I have ever heard 

I'm stealing this for my sig.


----------

