Religion: What it means to you

Not religious in the least, though I don't see a reason to deny the possibility of something that's outside my abilities to comprehend.

Pretty much when shit happens to me I know it's my own fault and the only person that can get myself out of it is me. Sucks when it seems like things are happening outside of my control, but, eh, you eventually get over not having a hand in everything and realizing that things do suck pretty often.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I don't think Galileo was too down with the whole Church thing. And don't you think it's possible that many of them were just into Christianity because they were brought up that way?

Quote:

Those were not through evangelism though.
Those are all perversions of Christianity, not operating even within the most strict of interpretations of scriptures.
Let us also not forget that there ARE people who will call themselves Christians, but only to attempt to gain the support of the populace at large, or only do so because that is basically the "cool" thing to do at the time.

I like how when it's another religion being violent, they're following it completey. But when a Christian goes and burns some teenagers at the stake, they're not following the tenets of the religion at all.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

And don't you think it's possible that many of today's scientists are not into Christianity because they've been indoctrinated into thinking science has made it obsolete and as such, it's embarrassing for them to be spiritual in the scientific community?

Of course, it's why I think pointing to it for either reason doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Religion doesn't have anything to say about science and science doesn't have anything to say about religion (well, I guess "shouldn't" would be better word choice there since people try to make it seem like they do anyway).

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

Well... somehow I don't think that anyone will deny that the Aztec religion was a big fan of live human sacrifices.

And of the tribes that were in what's now America and Canada? They may have been violent, but that was over land disputes and issues similar to what Europe went through for, what, a couple thousand years?

I'm curious as to how the Catholic Church has never been involved in violent acts, though. I mean, if they've never done any of that stuff, how'd they manage to build up such a fantastic reputation?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Do you think there are people out there that think just because something's independent of religion it's scientific? I don't know of many people that think the UFO chasers or that timecube guy are among the scientific elite.

Fyodor, as far as I remember, the tribes that lived on the plains and further in the south tended to be more violent. However, the ones that lived in the Northeast were pretty laid back as far as things go. I think a lot of them just get a bad rap because the Europeans would have tribes fight against each other so they wouldn't do the actual clashing, kinda like what happened back in Korea.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So debate is considered harassing?

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think most people feel it's a fair move because one book probably doesn't invoke things which are outside of our universe.

Not saying that how they're expressing their opinions doesn't make them sound like a douchebag, but it doesn't remove the validness of their belief over any other.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

As an agnostic (since I feel atheism, the denial of a god, is just as presumptuous as any sort of strong religious belief) I feel I live along a similar code of ethics to Soulzar. I just try not to be a dick to anyone I meet. It's pretty much just the golden rule which has been pretty popular for, what I imagine, is just about forever).

FELIPE NO

How about organized religions such as Quakers where there's no defined head of the church and during their gatherings everyone has an equal say?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by dragon_87

Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to belittle the efforts of those who feel the call to spread the Word. I just don't see it as a requirement of being a Christian. This is where some people would refer to James 2:20, which says: "But will thou know, vain man, that faith without works is dead?" As I said earlier, I believe that my lifestyle demonstrates my faith, and people see that. As long as its visible to others but not in a holier than thou fashion, I believe my faith is just fine. In the end, I feel that people should believe what they want because they want to. If they want to become Christians, they will. If they do not, then they will not. Its that simple.

We need more of you guys around.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by DragoonKain

That reminds me of an issue that could arise with a significant other. Should I get married and have kids, I would want to raise them to be atheists. If my wife is a religious person then there could be trouble. So I really only look for women who may believe, but not really practice on any level. I wouldn't want to get my kid baptized either.

How would you even raise a kid atheist? Take him to the laboratory on weekends and say HERE'S YOUR GOD!? Why not just let the kid make his own decisions instead of indoctrinating him into your way of life like so many other religions do?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I hate staunch atheists even more than I hate fanatical religious people.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

If you feel the need to identify your beliefs as who you are.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by GameInfarcer

It would be impossible to abandon religion completely anymore. I would like to think that we could just ignore it and religion would go away completely, but people are wasting more and more time and money on nonsense such as a creationism "museum." Teaching atheism would enlighten the world.

What harm does religion, in the broadest sense of the word, do to the world? Why would you ever want to play the thought police?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by GameInfarcer

You mean besides the senseless bombings in the name of Allah the Almighty? Or the corruption of morals by allowing people to pay the church to forgive their sins? What about all the religious wars?

I hear godless Communist Soviet Russia was a pretty utopian place to be living. You know, no fear of war, no fear of famine, no fear of a brutal corrupt government.

Oh, wait.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by GameInfarcer

Oh, you're so right, if they would've had Jesus they would've been just fine.

Wasn't your point that without religion the world would be a better place?

(I also think you completely misplaced where my allegiances lie.)

FELIPE NO

Seven of your posts after mine and not even a reply.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Isn't there equal evidence towards the nonexistence of something outside the universe as evidence towards the existence of something outside the universe?

I think you're forgetting a little bit of what seems to be human nature to have faith in thins that don't seem probable. It's the whole reason a character like Spock was so novel and alien.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

What evidence is this?

None for both.

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with my argument, could be so kind as to explain.

It goes back to an earlier post you made: "I would say that is the definition of a non-Christian. I would define an atheist as anybody who understands what 'burden of proof' and 'evidence' means." I'd just say an atheist is someone who has faith in a different concept than typical religious people.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What sort of reason believes that we can understand what's going on outside our universe?

And, as I was trying to intimate with the faith statement, talking about burden of proof with proving the unprovable is slightly ridiculous.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

But religion takes this further by making a horribly ingenuous claim and says, without a celestial dictatorship to invigilate our every action and private thought we would have never known murder and theft and lying were immoral.

Do you really think that religious people feel there was a massive change in the way people behaved before Moses came off the mountain with the Ten Commandments than after?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Again, you are contending that there is something outside our universe, a position that I have seen no evidence for, and until there is any evidence for it a nothing serves just as well as a something and requires no unproven assumptions; however if you have any evidence please post it. If there is something outside our universe, is there any reason why we shouldn't be able to understand it?

I'm not contending there's something outside the universe; I'm stating that there's no way to know, and to have such vehement hatred towards people who may think there is borders upon absurdity to me.

Quote:

I'm afraid I really didn't get that from your posts, as the first one said that people have always have faith in the improbable, and the second one said that the only difference between atheists and others were that they had faith in different concepts (I'm still not too sure what you meat by this, what concepts do atheists have faith in?)

Sorry, I did a poor job expressing my point in my original post since I wanted to respond to an early post of yours, but by then the conversation had changed a bit, so I wanted to try and fit it to both things.

Quote:

If something is unprovable then there is simply no reason to even think about it, for example there is no point thinking about whether the only reason the laws of physics work is because of an undetectable race of beings who make them work through a serious of magic spells, and if they do something wrong then the universe will instantly turn inside out.

Aren't there entire fields of mathematics dedicated to the study of equations and problems which are considered impossible to solve? If unsolvable things are worthless in thinking about, why are the fields of philosophy and ethics so ingrained into our society?

Sure, it may not necessarily be possible to prove the existence of a god, but I at least hope you'd realize the side benefits that people can obtain through introspection and self-study while engaging in their quest for religious meaning.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

At the expense of sounding silly, as it is implied in scripture yes the Israelites got to the foot of Mt. Sinai under the assumption that murder was acceptable before being told no dice by Moses. All of us can see this notion even today by how often the religious ask the unbelievers, if not from God then where do we get our morality from?

As for whether I believe this, of course I don't. The Israelite could not have made it to that point as a society had they been slaying eath other in the thousands thinking the whole while it was just fun recreation. Obviously they knew murder was wrong which entirely defeats the purpose of Moses chiseling it into a slab of stone.

I think when they say our conscience and all that jazz comes from God, they mean it as part of the package of being made in his image, or something to do with God's spirit being in us and that's what the "voice in the back of your head" is.

The ten commandments could have been the sort of thing like when your parents get really pissed at you for doing things you know you shouldn't be doing, so they'll put up a formal list of rules for things you're not allowed to do (such as putting a sign on the cookie jar that says NOT UNTIL YOU'VE FINISHED DINNER).

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I don't know where you got the impression that I have any hate towards people who hold that position, as far as I am aware I have been entirely civil in my posts, however if you feel otherwise please point out where I have been less than polite. The only feeling I have towards people who think that there is something outside the universe is confusion, since as far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence to support such a view.

My bad on that front, I was getting you mixed up with the boatloads of anti-religion people we have coming in here all the time that think because they don't belong to a religion then they're better than everyone else. I'm just not used to talking with someone that isn't a complete asshole on here.

Quote:

I'm afraid I wouldn't know much about that sort of thing, however if there are fields like that I assume there is some benefit to it in a mathematical context. However in my opinion to speculating on whether there is something outside our universe is the same as speculating on the idea that we are merely brains in vats.

I'm personally still philosophically stuck on the brains in a vat problem. I don't get how any philosopher has thought they've solved it yet.

And, actually, another fun thing I was reading today in a journal that reminded me of an old argument is how the entirety of science is circular. How do we prove something in science is right? Well, we make observations and say that every other time has to be the same. Why do we believe this? Because it's worked so well in the past it should keep working in the future too! (Point being that there's no absolutes in anything. We can never know for sure the sun is going to rise tomorrow, there's always a chance it could just not be there.)

Quote:

In philosophy and ethics people present evidence for their beliefs and then debate on various points, but in the case of whether something exists outside the universe, there is no evidence either way and I doubt there ever will be, so it is incorrect to claim that they are the same.

Even in debates of what is absolutely good/evil, right/wrong, or those kinds of things?

Quote:

I don't see why people can't engage in introspection and self-study without religion, I know I don't need a religious quest in order to gain insight in to myself.

I don't either, but I feel if it helps them find a better life, then how can I say it's not a good thing? I mean, just as there are religious people that turn non-religious, there are non-religious people that will turn religious. Maybe we just haven't felt that divine spark yet.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

I know you don't actually mean to infer that antitheism necessarily leads to assholery. After all, if you happen to be anti-nazism are you not worried you may offend people sympathetic to nazism? It's not my business to respect what I believe to be at its core something evil. But my attacks remain polite and towards religion not the individual believer.

If those believing in Nazism are willing to fit into society and behave as society in general seems to deem fit, then I don't see why I should act as the thought police against racist or nationalist people.

Quote:

You're talking about David Hume and his skepticism towards mathematical induction. My question however is, if empiricism can't answer our epistemological questions why would an ancient text like the bible fare any better? Which incidentally also relies heavily on empirical data. There isn't much a priori knowledge that I am aware of held within the text.

I don't think either can answer our questions, but both can be a path towards self-fulfillment. I just don't get why one was has to be better than the other if they have the same final result.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

The final result is that there's a bunch of religious people who are bigots and hate anyone who doesn't conform to their worldview. I'm not saying this is EVERYONE that practices religion, it just seems like a rather large number of them.

Even people who aren't openly hateful, or even conscious of the fact that they support--whether directly or indirectly-- such people and policies.

I've even noticed this in practitioners of extremely passive eastern religious philosophies. They think so highly of themselves that egotism, indifference and apathy becomes commonplace.

And you don't notice this in atheists at all?

Jam it back in, in the dark.