Are you religious?

[Thermal]

simple enough, im interested to see if anyone even believes in god anymore, or amybe it varies with culture?

[CountArach]

I'm an atheist.

Many people have put their religions here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665)

[Thermal]

I'm an atheist.

Many people have put their religions here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=100665)

interesting...this can focus more on just religion though
give your points of view if you want

[CountArach]

interesting...this can focus more on just religion though
give your points of view if you want
God (In the Judaeo-Christian sense) doesn't exist. It's as simple as that for me. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility (Though still highly unlikely) that a greater being exists somewhere.

[PBI]

I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of an higher being (although not an omniscient one, that one for me is effectively ruled out by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), but since I am a fan of Occam's razor I believe that in the absence of evidence for God I must assume the null hypothesis.

I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).

[HoreTore]

You had "don't know, agnostic" there, I couldn't find the "don't care, agnostic"....

I see all religions, from the norse and greek mythology to christianity and hinduism, as equally plausible. Shamans smoking weed to talk with spirits sounds just as good as moses talking to a burning bush IMO.

[gaelic cowboy]

I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of an higher being (although not an omniscient one, that one for me is effectively ruled out by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), but since I am a fan of Occam's razor I believe that in the absence of evidence for God I must assume the null hypothesis.

I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).

The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.

And Occams razor has been done to death its not a good one for proving or disproving anything.

MY religous views GAH cheese tatses funny

[drone]

Gah! There may be a god, there may not be a god, there may be several gods. At this point in my life, I don't really feel the spiritual need to believe in a mythos. Some people do, whatever works for them is fine. But organized religion is a plague on mankind.

[Strike For The South]

Im a Christian

[Viking]

Much of an agnostic atheist, or perhaps an apatheist, also much of a nihilist. Probably a bit of apathetic agnosticism there is in me, too.

Yeah, labels are too restricting, so combine all four things (at least, probably something is missing ~;)) and you've got my stance. Not particularly fond of religion I am, though.

[PBI]

The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.

I never said it had anything to say about the existence of God, I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).


And Occams razor has been done to death its not a good one for proving or disproving anything.

It's a matter of personal taste as to whether you accept it or not. Personally, I do. I wasn't aiming to disprove the existence of God, merely to outline why I personally do not believe in him.

[CBR]

Extraordinary claims (no matter how much they promise) require extraordinary evidence. As I have yet to see such evidence of gods I have no reason to believe in them. That seems to fit the definition of an atheist.


CBR

[gaelic cowboy]

I never said it had anything to say about the existence of God, I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).



It's a matter of personal taste as to whether you accept it or not. Personally, I do. I wasn't aiming to disprove the existence of God, merely to outline why I personally do not believe in him.

Sound I see your point boss as regards your idea on an omnisicient being you could be on to summit.

If we take it that the Gods in any religon we have are obviously not omnisicient this means they are not God however a truely omnisicient being is probably so far beyond our thinking that we just as much as the god/being are incapable of interacting on any level.

This would beg the question even if there is a god does IT care or even know were here a bit like a naturalist watching a lion eat a cow he takes no sides and has no way to really interact with either party.

[Mikeus Caesar]

There are the many unknown forces in the world, if not the universe, that could be regarded as gods. They are not life as we know it, and they can influence your life in small ways for better or worse, depending on what you do to please them. Unfortunately, that which pleases them would appear to be varied and bizarre.

I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.

Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.

Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.

Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.

Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.

No wonder they wouldn't worship Louis. Their god promised much, but couldn't defend them from the vicissitudes of cruel Fate.

It's a harsh lesson that we all have to learn.

[Sigurd]

Agnostic in the way coined by its originator.


... I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).


It depends on how you interpret omniscience.
That God knoweth all things is found in scripture and there are many that alludes to; Him who knoweth what you want before you ask it.
Two examples:

Psalms 147:5

Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Colossians 2:8 (speaking of the Father and the Christ):

In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

[Kadagar_AV]

I choose agnostic as it's the thing closest to my belief...

I do believe there is more to the world than what science can account for, however, I lean much more towards a "gaia"-belief system than church doctrine.

Church I find laughable tbh:)

[Don Corleone]

I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.

[Koga No Goshi]

I agree with Chris Rock, we are all members of the Church of ATM. That overrides pretty much any and everything else. I'd like to see some reality show offer people on the way to church $5,000 to not go that day, just to see what happened.

It's funny how Scientology is its own category. No one wants to claim them, LOL. Wouldn't they... technically... count as monotheist? They lie so much about what exactly they believe that who knows, but supposedly Xenu or something is their central figure.

[Ronin]

I was born and raised as a Catholic, which I was until I reached the age of reason (to quote George Carlin)


Now I´m a weak atheist, meaning that I do not "know" for sure there is no god, but I find it to be the most logical conclusion by a fairly large margin.

[Don Corleone]

I agree with Chris Rock, we are all members of the Church of ATM. That overrides pretty much any and everything else. I'd like to see some reality show offer people on the way to church $5,000 to not go that day, just to see what happened.

You know, I'm certain you didn't intend it that way, but you've actually inspired me for the next time I feel like "blowing mass off", and I've done it for a lot less than $5K. To go play golf or go buy tires, for 2 examples.

At the end of the day, faith is a choice. There is no proof. If there was, it would be acknowledgement, not faith. You can question why a benevolent, omniscent God would leave His own existence open for debate, but that's the way it works. Failure to prove His existence does not prove His non-existence.

[Koga No Goshi]

You know, I'm certain you didn't intend it that way, but you've actually inspired me for the next time I feel like "blowing mass off", and I've done it for a lot less than $5K. To go play golf or go buy tires, for 2 examples.

At the end of the day, faith is a choice. There is no proof. If there was, it would be acknowledgement, not faith. You can question why a benevolent, omniscent God would leave His own existence open for debate, but that's the way it works. Failure to prove His existence does not prove His non-existence.

Of course. But one can believe in a God, creator or superior power, and not be religious. Entirely different things.

[Don Corleone]

Of course. But one can believe in a God, creator or superior power, and not be religious. Entirely different things. I could not agree more. You're talking about the difference between Faith and Religion, and not enough people understand the difference between the two. I see Religion as a necessary evil, in much the same way it's entirely possible to be of sound and commendable political beliefs, and then you enter Congress....

[Viking]

I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.

Mainly because of the impact of religions. Religions today dictate modern constitutions and mind sets of entire nations; world wide.

Probably religion is (much?) more of a personal thing in the states, but it certainly isn't other places; like Norway with a state church (and a king that's Christian per the constitution). :wall:

[Koga No Goshi]

I could not agree more. You're talking about the difference between Faith and Religion, and not enough people understand the difference between the two. I see Religion as a necessary evil, in much the same way it's entirely possible to be of sound and commendable political beliefs, and then you enter Congress....

I guess as a person who has faith that there is a greater power, but never had any uses for Church, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why organized religion IS necessary. I don't mean that as an attack upon you or other religious people. I just don't understand what organized religion ... gives? ... which could not be supplied self-sufficiently on a very local basis. Most on an individual basis even.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.

It was sorta stated by someone else but.... basically, people who either live a secular life, or have a religion or belief system not part of a given society's mainstream, who have to fight the constant threat of laws that regulate behavior or lifestyle or choices one can legally make, with the only real reason being "because my religion/preacher/church says something is wrong." Not an argument with facts and figures, but just a non-negotiable judgment call from one particular religion. That's what gets people really angry. Especially when, frankly, it's things that are unfair, like going from "being gay is a sin" to "we oppose any formally recognized gay rights." That argument rests upon insisting people can choose to be gay to stay coherent, when gay people (other than a small fringe of very brainwashed ones) insist it wasn't a choice.

[Don Corleone]

I guess as a person who has faith that there is a greater power, but never had any uses for Church, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why organized religion IS necessary. I don't mean that as an attack upon you or other religious people. I just don't understand what organized religion ... gives? ... which could not be supplied self-sufficiently on a very local basis. Most on an individual basis even.

No offense taken.

Two things:

1) A universal ethos. As enlightened as your average backroom Orgah tends to be, I'm afraid in the world outside, the average Joe is not capable of consisently deciding for the higher good.
2) A framework from which to develop one's beliefs. You may have rejected the monotheistic models offered by the three religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but you at least had their teachings to build from and reject in the process of formulating your own.

and as a third function, though not a fundamental one by any means...

3) I would argue that organized religions do great good beyond restraining man's baser natures (and yes, sometimes they incite and foster those baser natures as well). Organized religion, done well, leads to things like community sharing, charity, spiritual development, and a "can't lose" argument the next time your kids ask you "why".

Okay, that last example was a bit tongue in cheek. :clown:

[Koga No Goshi]

No offense taken.

Two things:

1) A universal ethos. As enlightened as your average backroom Orgah tends to be, I'm afraid in the world outside, the average Joe is not capable of consisently deciding for the higher good.
2) A framework from which to develop one's beliefs. You may have rejected the monotheistic models offered by the three religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but you at least had their teachings to build from and reject in the process of formulating your own.

and as a third function, though not a fundamental one by any means...

3) I would argue that organized religions do great good beyond restraining man's baser natures (and yes, sometimes they incite and foster those baser natures as well). Organized religion, done well, leads to things like community sharing, charity, spiritual development, and a "can't lose" argument the next time your kids ask you "why".

Okay, that last example was a bit tongue in cheek. :clown:

Isn't divorce, abortion and crime generally higher in the "bible belt" than the "atheist blue states?" As a general statement, I mean. Don't you think what the average Joe does has more to do with sociology, class, social status, poverty, culture (alcoholism, singlemotherhood or what have you) than the presence or lack of a religion?

[Don Corleone]

Isn't divorce, abortion and crime generally higher in the "bible belt" than the "atheist blue states?" As a general statement, I mean. Don't you think what the average Joe does has more to do with sociology, class, social status, poverty, culture (alcoholism, singlemotherhood or what have you) than the presence or lack of a religion?

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I did not know that divorce rates and abortion were higher. I imagine at some level, you'd have to factor out economic determinants. For example, compare a religiously inclined population and a religiously disinclined population of similar economic means, like Fort Collins, Colorado versus Portland Orgeon or something like that.

You raise a good point. And I would argue the number one factor bringing divorce down is the presence of divorce attornies. One good sob story in the office of what some guy who got carried away at a bachelor party is now paying his wife and her new thing in alimony is enough to drill anyone, atheist or fundamentalist, into keeping it in their pants. :whip:

I didn't say that religion was a unique source of these benefits, I said it offered "a" source. For example, explain to me why it's absolutely wrong to strike somebody who's offended you?

[Koga No Goshi]

I honestly don't know the answer to that. I did not know that divorce rates and abortion were higher. I imagine at some level, you'd have to factor out economic determinants. For example, compare a religiously inclined population and a religiously disinclined population of similar economic means, like Fort Collins, Colorado versus Portland Orgeon or something like that.

You raise a good point. And I would argue the number one factor bringing divorce down is the presence of divorce attornies. One good sob story in the office of what some guy who got carried away at a bachelor party is now paying his wife and her new thing in alimony is enough to drill anyone, atheist or fundamentalist, into keeping it in their pants. :whip:

Understood. I guess I just never knew people who were part of formal religion to be more moral, to have a greater (or rather, more admirable or better) sense of right and wrong compared to anyone else, to live better lives or avoid more of the mistakes than anyone else. Depending on the particular denomination or church in question, sometimes they're visibly worse than the general population in specific regards. I went to Catholic high school, so I would listen to these extended rationalizations about how, since oral sex is not intercourse, it thus does not count as having sex outside of marriage, committing a mortal sin, or losing virginity. And here I was just some heathen without religion raised by parents without religion who knew better. ;) (Plus, doesn't that technically count as sodomy anyway? Any sex act which by design prevents any possibility of procreation?)


I didn't say that religion was a unique source of these benefits, I said it offered "a" source. For example, explain to me why it's absolutely wrong to strike somebody who's offended you?

Well, because it's illegal. And then I would have additional personal ethics about it as well, which may or may not apply to more bully minded or anger management needing individuals. But in fairness it's not illegal everywhere, some counties and such still recognize "fighting words", or at least they did, the last time I was studying law. But you can even have a universal ethos without organized religion. It's just that not everyone will agree. But then, not everyone in organized religion agrees either, right?

[Don Corleone]

I wish I had gone to your Catholic High School instead of mine. I suppose the idea of oral sex not being pre-marital intercourse would hold up. But at my school, any time you got hot and bothered and weren't intending to procreate, let alone actually releasing anyplace outside of the act of human creation, you were perverting the tenuous, difficult to understand gift of human sexuality and committing a grave sin indeed. Sexual pleasure and sexual behavior was strictly for procreation ONLY. This is why hummers, even from a spouse, were taught to be a distinct no-no.

Of course religious adherents are not necessarily more moral people. But at the very least, they can't use "I didn't know it was wrong" as an excuse. The thing about religion is that it provides a convenient way to toss all of socieity's ills in a "Do Not Do" box from which it is difficult to retrieve. As an atheist, you'd have to resort to a whole long discussion about the inherent rights of man, and how security and freedom from physical assault is a basic human right, and then proceed to explain what a basic human right is.

All I have to do is tell my kids God will get mad if they do. :logic:

This is a bit of an inane comparison, but it actually gets at the gist of the point I'm trying to make.

[Strike For The South]

The reasons for my faith can't be comprehended by all you enlightened folk. As you were educated in the finest places of rational thought and thus are above such petty beliefs that the commoners hold.

[Koga No Goshi]

I wish I had gone to your Catholic High School instead of mine. I suppose the idea of oral sex not being pre-marital intercourse would hold up. But at my school, any time you got hot and bothered and weren't intending to procreate, let alone actually releasing anyplace outside of the act of human creation, you were perverting the tenuous, difficult to understand gift of human sexuality and committing a grave sin indeed. Sexual pleasure and sexual behavior was strictly for procreation ONLY. This is why hummers, even from a spouse, were taught to be a distinct no-no.

Of course religious adherents are not necessarily more moral people. But at the very least, they can't use "I didn't know it was wrong" as an excuse. The thing about religion is that it provides a convenient way to toss all of socieity's ills in a "Do Not Do" box from which it is difficult to retrieve. As an atheist, you'd have to resort to a whole long discussion about the inherent rights of man, and how security and freedom from physical assault is a basic human right, and then proceed to explain what a basic human right is.

All I have to do is tell my kids God will get mad if they do. :logic:

This is a bit of an inane comparison, but it actually gets at the gist of the point I'm trying to make.

In either case, Don, doesn't the reason why you shouldn't strike someone come down to "because it's wrong?"

I would rather my kids not do something because they know it's wrong to do so, even if they can get away with it, than only refrain from doing something wrong if they believe a supernatural entity will punish them for it. To see the value in doing the right thing for its own sake, rather than only for a set reward.

[Don Corleone]

In either case, Don, doesn't the reason why you shouldn't strike someone come down to "because it's wrong?"

I would rather my kids not do something because they know it's wrong to do so, even if they can get away with it, than only refrain from doing something wrong if they believe a supernatural entity will punish them for it. To see the value in doing the right thing for its own sake, rather than only for a set reward.


I'm sorry there chief. I figured with all the screenwriters and sitcoms, humor was a common commodity in your neck of the woods. My mistake. :oops:

What I'm trying to get at is at a certain level, people need rules, and they need rules that they cannot justify themselves out of. Pedophiles are now copying the arguments homosexuals have used over the past 30 years and claiming that it's their natural state and by denying them access to children, we're violating their basic human rights. While I'm glad homosexuals are receiving basic protections from blatant discrimination, I'm perfectly happy creating a Devil's Island of child predators. Can you argue against the pedophiles' arguments without invoking a "because it's wrong" type argument?

[Ronin]

I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.

I have no problem with religious people, some of my close friends are religious and that isn´t a problem...

when religious people try to inject their beliefs into the laws we all have to follow, what I can read, listen to, see on tv etc, then I have a problem...last I checked the constitution of my country says we are a secular republic.

[drone]

I'm perfectly happy creating a Devil's Island of child predators.

You are stealing Adam Carolla's ideas. :2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

I'm sorry there chief. I figured with all the screenwriters and sitcoms, humor was a common commodity in your neck of the woods. My mistake. :oops:

What I'm trying to get at is at a certain level, people need rules, and they need rules that they cannot justify themselves out of. Pedophiles are now copying the arguments homosexuals have used over the past 30 years and claiming that it's their natural state and by denying them access to children, we're violating their basic human rights. Can you argue against that without invoking a "because it's wrong" type argument?

2 men playing in the mud isnt comparable to a man lying to a four year old and scarring him for life. There is no way to justify that. Don I really find this as an oddway to defend your Christian beliefs. What about your relationship with Jesus? To me that trumps all. Or are catholics and Protestants different in this regard. Im not a Christian because I need rules Im a christian because I can feel the lords presence everywhere. Trying to explain this to people who have a closed mind and already rejected Christ is an excersise in futility. Not that I personally care Im just saying I find it odd you have to conform your spiritual beliefs to a secular world....unless I misread you

[Don Corleone]

2 men playing in the mud isnt comparable to a man lying to a four year old and scarring him for life. There is no way to justify that. Don I really find this as an oddway to defend your Christian beliefs. What about your relationship with Jesus? To me that trumps all. Or are catholics and Protestants different in this regard. Im not a Christian because I need rules Im a christian because I can feel the lords presence everywhere. Trying to explain this to people who have a closed mind and already rejected Christ is an excersise in futility. Not that I personally care Im just saying I find it odd you have to conform your spiritual beliefs to a secular world....unless I misread you

It is in no way a defense of my beliefs. It is a defense of religious tradition, that you have to have moral absolutes, and I offered one example of what happens when there are none.

I absolutely, categorically am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I'm saying that pedophiles are co-opting homosexuals used in fighting for their rights, and without some form of moral absolute, it's damned hard to counter them.

Calling myself a Christian is a personal choice because of a relationship I have with Jesus Christ. That in no way reflects the need for organized religion, for which I attempted to provide a need.

I guess I'm not expressing myself properly here. Sorry.

[Koga No Goshi]

It is in no way a defense of my beliefs. It is a defense of religious tradition, that you have to have moral absolutes, and I offered one example of what happens when there are none.

I absolutely, categorically am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I'm saying that pedophiles are co-opting homosexuals used in fighting for their rights, and without some form of moral absolute, it's damned hard to counter them.

Calling myself a Christian is a personal choice because of a relationship I have with Jesus Christ. That in no way reflects the need for organized religion, for which I attempted to provide a need.

I guess I'm not expressing myself properly here. Sorry.

There are an awful lot of people out there who, in the name of "religious tradition", condemn all homosexuals to hell and argue that their mere existence is a contagious spread of immorality in our society.

There are people saying Katrina was God's punishment for a gay pride parade there, for instance.

So that's the problem, really. There are different points of view even within a so called universal ethos, and some of them are far more malevolent than yours.

[Strike For The South]

It is in no way a defense of my beliefs. It is a defense of religious tradition, that you have to have moral absolutes, and I offered one example of what happens when there are none.

I absolutely, categorically am not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. I'm saying that pedophiles are co-opting homosexuals used in fighting for their rights, and without some form of moral absolute, it's damned hard to counter them.

Calling myself a Christian is a personal choice because of a relationship I have with Jesus Christ. That in no way reflects the need for organized religion, for which I attempted to provide a need.

I guess I'm not expressing myself properly here. Sorry.

Eh my whole life Ive never been subjugated to a sermon about politics and it was never talked about in the congregation. My church mostly spent money helping the poor and building houses. If the congregation feels the need to influence politics by using there money than so be it. But thats not how I was taught. All my life organized religion has done nothing but help those in need and produce kick ass softball leagues. Oh well.

[KarlXII]

Am I religious? I believe in God. I believe Jesus was his son, and died for our sins. However, I do not take a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, and I follow it's moral lessons.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There are an awful lot of people out there who, in the name of "religious tradition", condemn all homosexuals to hell and argue that their mere existence is a contagious spread of immorality in our society.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:


There are people saying Katrina was God's punishment for a gay pride parade there, for instance.

Yes and they are idiots and represent perhaps themselves and their own tiny congregation.


So that's the problem, really. There are different points of view even within a so called universal ethos, and some of them are far more malevolent than yours.

That is because they are corrupted.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

If some higher being created this world, he left us humans long ago. The Christian "loving god" is selective in his "loving" as is Islam etc. I think it's all bullsh** to be honest, but for SOME people it gives a good guide.

For many others it gives a horrible one...

Buddhism and Hinduism are fairly decent in that they dont try to convert.

Live your life by helping others and being a kind person and you shall be fine.

My 2

[Koga No Goshi]

That is because they are corrupted.

This is, I am sure, what they would say about you. So, in answer to the question originally asked further back up, why do non-religious people react with such venom against religion, well, there are 10,000 stripes of religion even in this country alone, and half of them seem to always be trying to either insist they are the one truth, and/or that their one truth should have expression in the law. That's the answer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is, I am sure, what they would say about you. So, in answer to the question originally asked further back up, why do non-religious people react with such venom against religion, well, there are 10,000 stripes of religion even in this country alone, and half of them seem to always be trying to either insist they are the one truth, and/or that their one truth should have expression in the law. That's the answer.

Well they are acting no differently from non-religious folk with their 10,000 stripes of non-religious agenda's then. I'm pretty sure that many of the USA's dominant denominations are firmly secular, in particular Baptists.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well they are acting no differently from non-religious folk with their 10,000 stripes of non-religious agenda's then. I'm pretty sure that many of the USA's dominant denominations are firmly secular, in particular Baptists.

There's a big difference. We're evidence-based, not faith. If something is proven not to work, or proven not to be true, there are remedies for that. But tell that to the people who keep insisting on abstinence-only programs because they are religious. It doesn't work. It makes things worse. It spreads disease and it increases pregnancy. But you can't argue with someone who is dedicated to it out of the unquestioned belief it is God's will.

There is a reason that our Constitution was framed to try to keep that OUT of an active role in government.

And, I find it very cynical that religious people would respond the way you did, "who cares, everyone shoving their own opinion into law is happening anyway." So... why not you, too? Add to the problem? Very cynical.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And, I find it very cynical that religious people would respond the way you did, "who cares, everyone shoving their own opinion into law is happening anyway." So... why not you, too? Add to the problem? Very cynical.

Yes participating in politics. It's part of that crazy liberal democracy package.

[Papewaio]

The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle doesn't say that you can't be certain of your measurement at the macroscopic scale. Nor does it say you can't be fairly certain of it at the quantum scale, what it does allude to is that we can't simultaneously know a particles position and its momentum with certainty at the same time. And with all science there is always an uncertainty attached. What the Uncertainty principle did was put a minimum level of Uncertainty... the point at which even with the best tools you can't get more certain... it says there is a limit for a tools.

Well at least that is my basic undergraduate understanding... I spent more time on the probability of THACO then Quantum triple integrals.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'm an Atheist, but I have no issue with other people believing what they want to, so long as they do not impinge upon my freedom to choose my own belief.

With regard to the above discussion between Koga and Rhyfelwyr:

Everyone has their own opinion, regardless of their religious beliefs, we else are we created unique?

There are many different denominations of all religions and many people put their own spin on a religious doctrine or value.

In a liberal democratic society, everybody's opinion must be accepted and so religious people can, and have the right to, influence politics...

...Just as everyone has the right to proclaim that they are the one true faith. Even if they are not, they may believe that and we must respect their belief.

In other words, Koga, living in a secular, liberal democracy, you still have to accept the rights of religious groups to influence politics.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes participating in politics. It's part of that crazy liberal democracy package.

Christians vote all the time. You're conflating the issue. Religious people can vote. But voting on something to put religion into public schools, courthouses or government shouldn't even be something that comes across the ballot. That's the difference.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Isn't it tradition in the United States to put your hand on the Bible when you swear an oath? What are the arrangements for atheists? (I genuinely don't know)

In other words religion impacts on 'secular' society in all sorts of ways. That said religion in public schools would come under impinging on the rights of others to believe their own ideology in peace.

[Strike For The South]

Isn't it tradition in the United States to put your hand on the Bible when you swear an oath? What are the arrangements for atheists? (I genuinely don't know)

In other words religion impacts on 'secular' society in all sorts of ways. That said religion in public schools would come under impinging on the rights of others to believe their own ideology in peace.

Every Politician in the USA is religious :beam:

[PBI]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle doesn't say that you can't be certain of your measurement at the macroscopic scale. Nor does it say you can't be fairly certain of it at the quantum scale, what it does allude to is that we can't simultaneously know a particles position and its momentum with certainty at the same time. And with all science there is always an uncertainty attached. What the Uncertainty principle did was put a minimum level of Uncertainty... the point at which even with the best tools you can't get more certain... it says there is a limit for a tools.

Well at least that is my basic undergraduate understanding... I spent more time on the probability of THACO then Quantum triple integrals.

My understanding is that it is more fundamental than that. The whole point is that if you measure the position with certainty, then the momentum is not merely unknown, it is in a real sense in a physical superposition of all possible values.

That's the real point of Schrodinger's cat; it is not merely that we do not know whether the cat is alive or dead, it is that the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead. It's the key point of quantum mechanics, and is the physical mechanism underpinning stuff such as quantum teleportation, quantum computing and entanglement.

So it is not simply that we are incapable of making tools accurate enough to measure both the position and momentum with certainty. It is that the two cannot simultaneously be known by anyone.

[CountArach]

Isn't it tradition in the United States to put your hand on the Bible when you swear an oath? What are the arrangements for atheists? (I genuinely don't know)

In other words religion impacts on 'secular' society in all sorts of ways. That said religion in public schools would come under impinging on the rights of others to believe their own ideology in peace.
You are allowed to use the text of your choice - I don't believe that there is any law saying it has to be a bible.

[Papewaio]

So it is not simply that we are incapable of making tools accurate enough to measure both the position and momentum with certainty. It is that the two cannot simultaneously be known by anyone.

Which concurs with what I wrote:

What the Uncertainty principle did was put a minimum level of Uncertainty... the point at which even with the best tools you can't get more certain... it says there is a limit for a tools.

That the universe as we understand it at the quantum level is not mechanical, it is probabilistic. And that no matter how sharp the tool is, it will always be probabilistic.

[Incongruous]

I am a Roman Catholic, but do find issue with the idea of papal infalability. Something which needs to be adressed, I also dislike how the Church portrays itself. In the area I live in the Cathedral is usually shut tight. This is not how a house of God should present itself. If I walk up the steps the door should be open and a priest around who may talk with me or hear my confession.

As for the attitude of Atheists towards faith, Christianity in particular, I have found it just as arragont and as full of venom as religious findamentalists at times. Usually from my friends, there is a Christian cafe across the road from my uni, I suggested we go there for tea not because it is religious (its anglican) but simply because the tea is good and the service is great. My friends rejected the idea out of hand simply because the people who owned and operated it were of faith. Disgusting in my opinion, more so that they thought I suggested it because of my religion, when this cafe is clearly Anglican, most of them didn't even care to know the difference between our churches. At other times they will quite openly deride Christian beliefs (not that any of them were ever taught anything about any religion) and people who attend the Christian union meetings at my uni.

This kind of lack of knowledge leads to the same bigotry and hatred fundamentalist beliefs create. It is in my opinion one of the worst double standards in my society and a reason to teach children about all major religions. I was taught about every major religion at my Catholic school and we even did co-learning programs with Muslim and Hindu students, it has given me a good grasp of other faiths and other people allowing me, I believe, to be far more accepting.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What I'm trying to get at is at a certain level, people need rules, and they need rules that they cannot justify themselves out of. Pedophiles are now copying the arguments homosexuals have used over the past 30 years and claiming that it's their natural state and by denying them access to children, we're violating their basic human rights. While I'm glad homosexuals are receiving basic protections from blatant discrimination, I'm perfectly happy creating a Devil's Island of child predators. Can you argue against the pedophiles' arguments without invoking a "because it's wrong" type argument?

Yes, that's very easy. Consent. :bow:

[Thermal]

ill just put over what i think, it may already of been said, while i made the thread, i dont have time to read through it all :sweatdrop:

theres more believers than i thought, its good to see people have some faith, i guess theres no logical expanation so that ones as likely or more than any other, though i do think christianity is very hipacrittical, we have the old testament telling us 'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth etc' and the new one says 'love your enemies' the old and new testaments clash at several occasions, as if they try to cover every point of view to avoid scandal, which one should i listen to?

though in every day life i believe there should be reasonable freedom, i find sometimes the church and force its beliefs on you, says what is wrong and what is right and the line inbetween, and with political correctness it seems like everything is a crime or a risk to health or bad in there eyes, when all the public wants is the ability to do more things, i dont get why theres so much war, im more on the side of a pacisfist, the holy lands and all these wars in religion seems really stupid and to me, a pathetic excuse to just invade iraq and at the time, free them from the oppressor saddam hussein, only its continued, and i think the longer they stay there, the more trouble and deaths continue with less and less progress, there was also the 'weapons of mass destruction' i think these were a myth to as nothing was found, unless there miles underground or something, if different cultures kept themselves to themselves there would be such a better war free life, but while theres so much hatred between religions, especially in fanatical countries where religion is immensely believed in, this is unlikely, i.e isreal, the jews are just stuck inbetween islam territory, that just wont let them live there in peace :no: i think the most meaningful religion is sikhism, though it is a recent one.

however i think revenge is perfectly acceptable, perhaps to a christians distaste, if someone has heartless murdered another, or done something on an equally horrific level, a long prison sentence, and if the evidence is hard and completely sure? then the death sentence, no one person can justify taking anothers life, at least in my opinion

as far as sexuality goes, it dont bother me so much, though it obvious isnt considered the 'natural way' however i dont see why christians should feel the need to reject homosexuals, there still human, and only differ in there relationships, and otherwise function the same as anyone else

this is way off religion but i think things like cooking being introduced early in schools and the like should be established, though with the credit crunch and a horrificly stupid government, i see many problems will come up in my lifetime, immragration will come i fear, while on the subject it worries me the amount of immagrance hear to, no offense, i realize there hard workers on minimum wage looking for a better life than of there previous poverty, but the laws for immagration are so lax! the UK's population will no doubt be a muslim state in years to come, as united isnt what comes to mind anymore, instead more immagrants should move to other rich places like france and germany, only there governments have a tight law on immagration, ours dont! meaning this little island masses a bigger population than france, and probably germany, which are easily 5x the size in land mass!

phew, ok rant over, my longest post, excuse any bad spelling :beam:

[Ferret]

There is no god! /ferret appearance

[Rhyfelwyr]

theres more believers than i thought, its good to see people have some faith, i guess theres no logical expanation so that ones as likely or more than any other, though i do think christianity is very hipacrittical, we have the old testament telling us 'an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth etc' and the new one says 'love your enemies' the old and new testaments clash at several occasions, as if they try to cover every point of view to avoid scandal, which one should i listen to?

The New Testament overulles the Old Testament for Christians. I know at first glance the Bible may appear hypocritical, but this is because God made several covenants, mostly with Israel, basically because the people kept breaking them as they went along. In any case, everything changed after Jesus came along in the NT, Chrisitians follow his teachings over those of the Old Testament, which were intended for Jews before Christ's coming.


though in every day life i believe there should be reasonable freedom, i find sometimes the church and force its beliefs on you, says what is wrong and what is right and the line inbetween, and with political correctness it seems like everything is a crime or a risk to health or bad in there eyes, when all the public wants is the ability to do more things, i dont get why theres so much war, im more on the side of a pacisfist, the holy lands and all these wars in religion seems really stupid and to me, a pathetic excuse to just invade iraq and at the time, free them from the oppressor saddam hussein, only its continued, and i think the longer they stay there, the more trouble and deaths continue with less and less progress, there was also the 'weapons of mass destruction' i think these were a myth to as nothing was found, unless there miles underground or something, if different cultures kept themselves to themselves there would be such a better war free life, but while theres so much hatred between religions, especially in fanatical countries where religion is immensely believed in, this is unlikely, i.e isreal, the jews are just stuck inbetween islam territory, that just wont let them live there in peace :no: i think the most meaningful religion is sikhism, though it is a recent one.

Indeed, the Crusades were a farce. They were really more about relieving social turmoil within western Europe than anything. The idea of poor peasants marching for the Lord is a myth, in reality only wealthy sons of nobles could afford to go to the Holy Land, usually the younger sons of nobles in search of land. Indeed we didn't find the weapons in Iraq, but I don't think that invasion was motivated by religious ideals. I'm a bit surprised by your comment on cultures keeping themselves to themselves, isolation is what breeds hatred and misunderstanding in the long run. I've also got a lot of respect for Sikhism, its the only religion besides Christianity that promises total salvation for sins.


however i think revenge is perfectly acceptable, perhaps to a christians distaste, if someone has heartless murdered another, or done something on an equally horrific level, a long prison sentence, and if the evidence is hard and completely sure? then the death sentence, no one person can justify taking anothers life, at least in my opinion

I'm not sure on this. I don't think the main aim of imprisonment should be punishment, but rather rehabiliation. If that is judged to be impossible for some cases, then the death penalty would probably be less cruel than life imprisonment, which is basically just a waste of money.


as far as sexuality goes, it dont bother me so much, though it obvious isnt considered the 'natural way' however i dont see why christians should feel the need to reject homosexuals, there still human, and only differ in there relationships, and otherwise function the same as anyone else

It's a sin, same as every other sin. I believe it should be totally discouraged. However, the reason for the Christian outcry against this particular sin is that it is no longer recognised as a sin, unlike what most of society would accept as sinful.

[Koga No Goshi]

It's a sin, same as every other sin. I believe it should be totally discouraged. However, the reason for the Christian outcry against this particular sin is that it is no longer recognised as a sin, unlike what most of society would accept as sinful.

It's a sin based on the Old Testament, which earlier up in your thread you basically cast aside. While we're on the topic, hate, jealousy and judgment are also sins. I do not see the social reaction within Christian communities to any of those things that I see to gay people or the topic of gay rights.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's a sin based on the Old Testament, which earlier up in your thread you basically cast aside. While we're on the topic, hate, jealousy and judgment are also sins. I do not see the social reaction within Christian communities to any of those things that I see to gay people or the topic of gay rights.

Cast aside?! There are a number of matters in the Old Testament that are made redundant by the coming of Christ, but the nature of sin is not one of them. The difference is, in the Old Testament homosexuals would be put to death or driven from the land. Based on the New Testament, Christians would [should] try to make them see the error of their ways. In the last homosexuality-related thread we had here, various people and myself consistently argued that homosexuals should not be defined as people by their sexuality, but rather it is only a single part of their nature. People nowadays wish to make it a way of life, completely defining a person's character, all based around one unnatural sexual desire. Of course, all this is somewhat flipping the traditional stances of either side. In any case, if Koga or whoever wishes to respond to this post I think we should make it the last on the matter in this thread, I don't want to hijack it completely...

[Koga No Goshi]

Cast aside?! There are a number of matters in the Old Testament that are made redundant by the coming of Christ, but the nature of sin is not one of them. The difference is, in the Old Testament homosexuals would be put to death or driven from the land. Based on the New Testament, Christians would [should] try to make them see the error of their ways. In the last homosexuality-related thread we had here, various people and myself consistently argued that homosexuals should not be defined as people by their sexuality, but rather it is only a single part of their nature. People nowadays wish to make it a way of life, completely defining a person's character, all based around one unnatural sexual desire. Of course, all this is somewhat flipping the traditional stances of either side. In any case, if Koga or whoever wishes to respond to this post I think we should make it the last on the matter in this thread, I don't want to hijack it completely...

Briefly on the topic of gay people "being identified by their sexuality", I would submit that this occurs more, or at least as much, on the side of people who don't like it, don't accept it, or have a problem with it, as on the part of gay people themselves. But yes, this is probably a new topic.

[PanzerJaeger]

I am not religious.

[Beefy187]

Llamaism:clown:

Nah I believe in Shintoism. and from looking at the poll I seem to be the only Polytheistic person here..Arent they any Hindu around?

I also believe some idea of Buddhism. But I dont know where Buddhism fits.

[Koga No Goshi]

Llamaism:clown:

Nah I believe in Shintoism. and from looking at the poll I seem to be the only Polytheistic person here..Arent they any Hindu around?

I also believe some idea of Buddhism. But I dont know where Buddhism fits.

Hindu is kind of a highly regionalized, local, animistic religion isn't it? I think the reason you don't really see a lot of practice of it outside of India is the same reason you don't see a lot of Shinto practiced outside of Japan. It's very tied into local geography, regions, customs, etc., which can't simply be transplanted a lot of the time.

[Viking]

Hindu is kind of a highly regionalized, local, animistic religion isn't it? I think the reason you don't really see a lot of practice of it outside of India is the same reason you don't see a lot of Shinto practiced outside of Japan. It's very tied into local geography, regions, customs, etc., which can't simply be transplanted a lot of the time.

Ganges..

[Puzz3D]

THE CONQUEROR WORM
by Edgar Allan Poe

Lo! 'tis a gala night
Within the lonesome latter years!
An angel throng, bewinged, bedight
In veils, and drowned in tears,
Sit in a theatre, to see
A play of hopes and fears,
While the orchestra breathes fitfully
The music of the spheres.

Mimes, in the form of God on high,
Mutter and mumble low,
And hither and thither fly-
Mere puppets they, who come and go
At bidding of vast formless things
That shift the scenery to and fro,
Flapping from out their Condor wings
Invisible Woe!

That motley drama- oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore,
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.

But see, amid the mimic rout
A crawling shape intrude!
A blood-red thing that writhes from out
The scenic solitude!
It writhes!- it writhes!- with mortal pangs
The mimes become its food,
And seraphs sob at vermin fangs
In human gore imbued.

Out- out are the lights- out all!
And, over each quivering form,
The curtain, a funeral pall,
Comes down with the rush of a storm,
While the angels, all pallid and wan,
Uprising, unveiling, affirm
That the play is the tragedy, "Man,"
And its hero the Conqueror Worm.

[Hooahguy]

im jewish (modern-orthodox)
and proud of it! :beam:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Do I believe in God? That's not even a question for me. I feel Him everywhere, in everything, every happening... The question is, how do I get along with him? Well... We've been seemingly at odds. ~:mecry: By definition I'm probably a heretic already, yet I stand my ground for imperishable faith. :viking:
.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

As for the attitude of Atheists towards faith, Christianity in particular, I have found it just as arragont and as full of venom as religious findamentalists at times.

I object! There are many different strengths of atheism, just as there are many different branches of Christianity. The only atheists who should be compared to religious fundamentalists, are those who I would call Enlightenment fundamentalists. Basically those people who say that everything must be questioned, as loudly and publicly as possible.

I'd agree that it is a lack of understanding that prompts this however. Some people just don't get faith...


if different cultures kept themselves to themselves there would be such a better war free life

I disagree, understanding is the only thing which can bring acceptance, and understanding can only be acheived by observation and mutual contact. Isolation, I feel, breeds distrust, and misconceptions. As long as my freedom to believe what I want isn't compromised I don't mind if other religions practise in my country, state or suburb.

[Thermal]

I object! There are many different strengths of atheism, just as there are many different branches of Christianity. The only atheists who should be compared to religious fundamentalists, are those who I would call Enlightenment fundamentalists. Basically those people who say that everything must be questioned, as loudly and publicly as possible.

I'd agree that it is a lack of understanding that prompts this however. Some people just don't get faith...



I disagree, understanding is the only thing which can bring acceptance, and understanding can only be acheived by observation and mutual contact. Isolation, I feel, breeds distrust, and misconceptions. As long as my freedom to believe what I want isn't compromised I don't mind if other religions practise in my country, state or suburb.

well what i should have said was if everyone kept there religions to themselves....

[Koga No Goshi]

well what i should have said was if everyone kept there religions to themselves....

I would agree here. If not for the incessant efforts to make, and keep issues like prayer in schools and abortion everyday table discussions on the national level, religious people would not be subjected to "venom" from secularists.

Oh forgot one, "intelligent design"/"creationism." Which is even worse than prayer in schools.

[Big_John]

soem days i wake up as an atheist, some days as an agnostic. i voted atheist, mainly because i think we can know the non-existence of certain types of gods, at least.

[Rhyfelwyr]

well what i should have said was if everyone kept there religions to themselves....

The problem is that goes against the very nature of many religions.

[Koga No Goshi]

The problem is that goes against the very nature of many religions.

This is true. However, people don't like being harassed at their doorstep or aggressively salesman'd on the Book of Mormon or how nice the new Jehova's Witness fellowship hall down the street is. I just find it strange that these religions would cry something like "religious intolerance" in the U.S. when their tactics are so ill mannered and undesired.