329 replies to this topic

[nefastor]

Just a link for you all (check it out at least once, I'm sure you'll at least smile) :

http://www.christian...r.com/home.html

This site is profoundly anti-religious, with slogans like "Does the corporate world pause for god ? Don't bet your money on it." or "No hope for the christian lie".

Granted, the site is a bit extreme at times, but it makes for good reading, and you can't fault what the editor(s) write.

Jean

[greeneyed]

I choose Agnostic, because i believe it is useless to wonder about something that you may never prove. It does nothing for me at the moment but instill some set of rules to follow that may not pan out to get you anywhere, that isnt to say i dont try to lead as good a life as i can!

[bacopa]

I chose Atheist because it makes the most sense and frankly I think with all this rhetoric we're getting away from the essentials which is simply no God. It's nice to define and redefine and practice your tools of logic, but I believe there is no God...no.

[Bookcase]

*just read posts in forum since my last post here*

nefastor,

Your points of view - agreed to varying extents.

to all, some non-specifically directed views:


1/One of the main constitutions of a religion (i would say) are a set of beliefs common to all its members. What really matters fundamentally is perhaps not so much how you go about doing something (whether by belief or other), but more so whether the final goal is achieved.

Arguably, one of the goal of all (most) religions in present day society is to promote well being, good and peace (different religions will write this in varying ways...). And so which religion comes closest to achieving this? ....

Perhaps religion as a whole is nothing more than an evolutionary process... each battling it out with another until a final victor is found. Polls show the "atheist religion" to be statistically the winner so far here ....

2/ Are there other ways of achieving what religions seek to achieve? .... in my opinion ... very much so (ie atheist view)

3/Mixed views on this from different people I guess ... but what is the definition of "God", "a god" or "gods"? There are many answers to this question, but of greater certainty is that as evolution takes us further in time, as we gain more knowledge (both raw which is "data", and refined which is "wisdom/insight"), technology (ie abilities and capabilities) etc etc .... and as we bring ourselves closer to immortality (rise of lifespan.. tending to infinity?) ... surely we are bringing our existences closer to being "godlike"?

And when will this happen?
Will it ever happen?

... and if so, surely the place of religion in society will dwindle as we approach this distant future ...

[outlawpoet]

I chose a-theist, because I am not a theist. I suppose, technically, I coul d have selected a-gnostic or other just as easily, but it seems the thrust of the poll, to determine your mystic allegience. I'm unsure what secular humanism is doing in here as a choice, as it does not conflict with three other choices, but I suppose it is jjust as well.

Modern agnosticism is a kind of weak religious belief. While many dress this up as explaining that god is not explicitly disproven, I think this is disingenous. Someone who seriously took such a position is left in the unenviable position of having to sequencially consider every conception of God, all mythologies, all imaginary beings, and all theoretic constructs and abstractions, just because they 'could' exist. I have not conclusively proven that elves and santa clause do not exist, never having been to the North Pole, but it's a theory I have little time for. Someone who posits a theory is 'not disproven' is obviously suggesting that it may be true. A modern agnostic seems to be simply saying 'this being may exist, despite no evidence, therefore it changes who I am". Agnosticism also provides no mechanism for selecting which mythology may exist, but usually defaults to a weak christian protestant view of God. A logically consistent agnostic is forced to consider an Olympian pantheon, with equal care.

In fact, agnosticism must consider all possible gods and mythologies equally, leading to a meaningless position, since the possible space of mythologies is seemingly infinite. Although, in practice, if you believe in logic, you can eliminate a great deal of mythology through internal inconsistencies.

Sadly, agnosticism is becoming increasingly popular as a retreat position for threatened theists. And without a rigorous examination, it's often far more defensible a position.

[samantha]

I chose "Other". The spirituality/religion that I would identify with has yet to be invented. I am not sure it would even fit in the spirituality/religion niche at all. It would be based upon the very real possibilities of transcendence of most of what we think of as "the human condition", based firmly in science and yet full of deepest optimism - optimisim not as "pie in the sky" but as a blueprint for what we are to build and acheive. It would have room for all sentient and near-sentient beings to grow and develop, to borrow a phrase, from "glory" to "glory". Its ethics would be based in treating all persons as quite literally potential immortals. It would consider all the ills of this world as curable problems given vision, will and technology - much of the latter already present, much of the rest within reach.

[Sophianic]

samantha: I chose "Other".  The spirituality/religion that I would identify with has yet to be invented.  I am not sure it would even fit in the spirituality/religion niche at all.  It would be based upon the very real possibilities of transcendence of most of what we think of as "the human condition", based firmly in science and yet full of deepest optimism - optimisim not as "pie in the sky" but as a blueprint for what we are to build and acheive.  It would have room for all sentient and near-sentient beings to grow and develop, to borrow a phrase, from "glory" to "glory".   Its ethics would be based in treating all persons as quite literally potential immortals.   It would consider all the ills of this world as curable problems given vision, will and technology - much of the latter already present, much of the rest within reach.

Samantha, it's always refreshing to read a viewpoint that resonates deeply with my own. I, too, chose "other;" I feel that the other categories have outlived their usefulness. Your reference to spirituality/religion, within the context you mention, gives transcendence a role free of traditional constraints, and suggests to me a versatility and flexibility of mind that is all too rare in these pre- and post modern times. Thank you for sharing. By the way, what are you reading/hearing/watching these days?

[fueki]

I prefer Buddhism, Dalai Lama Tibetian leader has convinced me.

[lee27]

I chose Atheist - I would expect that the scientific views and the Christian views have clashed for so long (as for other religions, I am not so sure - I am not so knowledgeable about them), is religion all that feasible?
For example, a 17th century theist calculated from the Bible that the Earth was 4000 years old; I believe this is more than enough evidence for me.

The point here is that so far the most constructive way to view the world, life and the universe has proved to be science.

[Jace Tropic]

lee27: The point here is that so far the most constructive way to view the world, life and the universe has proved to be science.

Unfortunately, this is not how many, if not most, people see it. Science can be very limited in its power, especially when it comes to the subject of social conduct. For example, we can do demographic studies to formulate well-grounded normative solutions and there will still be people who think that the studies are biased in one way or another.

One of the greatest curses of today is that people don't need to be rational to propagate and spread their irrational values, or even participate in democracy.

[lee27]

Jace Tropic: One of the greatest curses of today is that people don't need to be rational to propagate and spread their irrational values, or even participate in democracy.

Unfortunately this is true. However in this little community, things are different - any irrational statement would surely be criticised! I am witnessing this right now..

[theprimemover]

I also chose "Atheist" because, well, I am one. Why posit the existence of a god?

[jestersloath]

I chose "christian" ,BUT I used to be an athiast actually, I just converted and as i dig deeper in the whole religion idea, all the people that are in the christian religion are turning me off by how they dicriminate. I also an starting too realize that all the so say miricales that they expirence and are so unexplanned, can easyly be explanned by 6 words "the unknown part of the brain" so iam starting to convert back to athiest but iam gonna reaserch more on it and really start looking at it on a whole.

[Bruce Klein]

Jestersloath, you are right. The "unknown part" of the brain is attracted to religion usually by way of captivating allegory. Humans are suckers for a good story. Science generally sucks at making up good stories.

[okami]

Although I was raised in the Church of Christ, I don't consider myself a member of any religion: there are no essential differences between the fundamental truths. In other words, only God exists: all the rest is commentary.

[jestersloath]

I already wrote once but i had to come back beacuse I dont consider my self a Christian anymore i have found one that suits what I think and that agrees with my oppions. it is spirtual Humanist, A religion based on the ability of human beings to solve the problems of society using logic and science (direct quote from site) I find this to be integing and as i read more I found that Spiritual Humanism fuses traditional religious behaviors onto the foundation of scientific humanist inquiry, it is immposble to get ride of reilgion on this earth but we can like I said fuse the two together and create the most logical, reasonal,rational and even comprehendable relgion in that my oppion history, well except the unforgetable reigion of Athiest.

[quadclops]

I voted atheist, because I do not believe it is necessary to posit the existance of any god to explain the nature or origins of the universe. None of the mythic cosmologies stand up under the investigations of science.

I was raised Catholic, but have come to view the nature of the Christian god as absurd and contradictory. How can a supposedly infinitely loving, kind, and forgiving god condemn all the rest of mankind for thousands of generations, for the rather trivial seeming crime of it's two progenitors. How is that just? Why kick the rest of us out of the Garden of Eden, to live by the sweat of our brows, and be doomed to die, just because our ancient ancestors screwed up?

So Adam and Eve bought the Serpent's line of bull, and then tried to hide the fact. So what? How were these two innocents supposed to know what a lie was? Up until that point, everyone they had ever met, God and the angels, had only ever spoken the absolute truth. They had no experience with deceit. How were they to know the Serpent wasn't telling the truth? Then when caught eating the apple, they tried to pass the buck and sell each other out, to escape the consequences of their actions. Just like small children do when caught in the cookie jar. A truly loving parent would have taken them aside and explained the nature of deceit and it's consequences, not thrown his children out of the palace, and condemned them and all their descendants for all time to a life of comparitive squalor, toil, and heartache. Where's the love? [huh]

Why build a universe in six days, just a few thousand years ago, and then leave absolutely no proof that you did it? [8)]

Why, exactly, was it necessary for somebody to die a nasty, brutal, bloody, lonely death nailed to a hunk of lumber, just to pry God's heart open so that the rest of us could have a means to enter heaven? Again, this is a forgiving god? [huh]

I have a lot of further problems like these but I don't want to bore you any further. [g:)]

[d_m_radetsky]

A truly loving parent would have taken them aside and explained the nature of deceit and it's consequences, not thrown his children out of the palace, and condemned them and all their descendants for all time to a life of comparitive squalor, toil, and heartache. Where's the love?

Remember, we are not the same sort of thing as God. To attempt to impose our own conception of love &c. on him is just another type of anthropomorphism.

None of the mythic cosmologies stand up under the investigations of science...Why build a universe in six days, just a few thousand years ago, and then leave absolutely no proof that you did it?

God *did* build the universe in six days...from his own intertial frame of reference. It's just that it seemed like several bajillion years to everyone else. Really, your ignorance of modern physics is astounding [tung]

[quadclops]

God *did* build the universe in six days...from his own intertial frame of reference. It's just that it seemed like several bajillion years to everyone else. Really, your ignorance of modern physics is astounding

He did? Really? Where's the proof for this statement? Where's the evidence? I can't see how modern physics supports this absurd notion. Also what's an "intertial" point of reference?

So, I guess God has his own sense of time, seperate from ours, eh? Hmm, I wonder, . . . if I worked for one hour but, told my boss that I had put in a full week's work, do you think I could convince him? [tung]

Remember, we are not the same sort of thing as God. To attempt to impose our own conception of love &c. on him is just another type of anthropomorphism.

So, God has his own definition of love as well, now? [huh] Plus his own definition of justice? Is his color blue the same as ours? Does he use the word "bucket" when he's describing a ham sandwich? [8)]

People with this divergent a sense of internal reality usually recieve their mail at mental institutions. [wis] Or Congress. [lol]

[bacopa]

Quadclops go on you're not boring me... I'm not a fan of God myself and see no reason to disguise my intense anger at much organized religion and religious practices, not to mention the blatant stupidity, and most importantly the vast waste of money and TIME that certain organized religions have sucked away from potential scientific progress.

That's why I'm a die hard materialist atheist because I have no tolerance for the stupidity that religious fervor has produced. none..zip...nada... Maybe when I have a few beers and can come to terms with the dark ages, and all of the religous wars than I'll be able to handle this topic a bit better and be able to construct logical reductionist arguments like Sophianic...but right now I'm on a scientific and reason crusade and get angry to often at religion...that's not to say I won't read up on it, I plan to, but I do that with great hesitancy.

call me dogmatic, righteous, call me sloppy in my arguments but I see no point, barring academic interest, to argue differences pertaining to definitions in religion when that very thing, and God, have destroyed so many lives and effected/hurt my life in the process. That's where the apparent militant behavior comes into play for me... [ang]

[Omnido]

Heh, well heres my two cents, probably not worth any sense, since most peoples idea of scents always differ from eachother.

I proclaim myself to be an Agnostic.
Why did I choose this? Well...
I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, yet there is still the problem of self-existence which defies all attempt at logical and temporal explanation.

So, my take on it presumes the following is true:
1) There exists a Universe.
2) I exist within this Universe.
3) I only know what I can perceive and validate to be true or not.
4) Something cannot come from nothing.
5) I didnt create this Universe.
6) If I didnt create it, something did, whether that be God or otherwise.

Well there ya have it.

Now, anyone is free to discuss, dispute, debate, or ridicule the above, and I would be happy to engage in any of the aforementioned for the purpose of establishing some premis which leans towards whichever answer or solution is most probably correct. However, I will not argue a point merely because those involved do not comprehend fully what is being deliberated, or are either unable or unwilling to endeavor to effectively communicate or understand eachothers communication.

This is the problem I am seeing.
Our race has so much difficulty establishing frames of reference that can be mutually understood, related to, or agreed upon by all.
This is in part due to semantical definitives and cultural differences with relation to interpretation. But it is also in part related to plain old-fashioned human stubborness which is usually caused by contentment within complacency.
The former I can justify as uniformly understandable and resolvable.
The latter I have ZERO TOLERANCE for, as it merely serves to continue the propagation of conflict, if not for its own sake.

So, my suggesstion? How about we first do what I feel Sophianic is attempting to do, and that is establish a set of ground rules, or a "Framework" if you will, by which we can all agree on something with some semi-universal frame of reference.
One example is pain.
Yeah, if you cut your hand its gonna hurt.
Pain is something we can all identify with, at least as far as the majority is concerned. If I tell you "damn that hurts!" most people can say "yeah, I been there before. I know what your feeling" to at least some degree, regardless of the particulars of the specific pain involved.
Pain is something that is nearly universal amongst our species, and so in turn we can all relate on one level or another.

Now the most effective way (that I can think of) to come to some sort of semi-universal resolution of differing opinions or ideas, is to attempt to create that framework for relation, so that we are all able to at least understand eachothers points. Let the concept of Pain be an example, not a literary. In the case of this discussion, the topic is "Which religious identity do you prefer" etc...

I must hand the applause to Sophianic for this thread, as he appears to be one of the few who are using this discussion for the purposes of definitive interaction.
Typing insults or personal character attacks (however cleverly hidden) will get us no where. That road leads to animosity, isolation, and seclusion. I'd think the wars in the middle east prior to the US' intervention would be demonstrative enough of that.

So, there's my opinion of this thread.
I applaud all those who have at least attempted to keep this dicussion productive, and I sincerely hope we can continue to have it remain that way through the use of a more relational system of reference.
Yes, I know its a difficult task, and it may require months or years worth of "Thesaurus work" as it were, but in the end is it not worth it if all those communicating can not only understand the verbatim, but at least share some degree of personal relation?
I have endeavored to that end, and I will continue to do so as long as there remains some hope that the efforts will succeed.

[rgvandewalker]

I'm a christian, and I'm also mildly certified as a philosopher- (I have a B.A. in it).

The fundamental assumption of science is occam's razor, that is, let the available facts determine the best current theory. Science as such doesn't guide one about where to seek relevant facts.

By an accidental lack of exposure to the right facts, a scientist using the above methods to build an ethical system (for personal use)can easily make some very wrong life decisions.

That is, science is good for finding explanations, but it can easily go very wrong for running an operation that has to fail safe, such as an immortalist life.

Engineers don't do this (I'm also an engineer, B.S. computer science). We use theory as a starting point, but no system goes into service without documented historical experience with it, from testing and industry standards.

In human ethics, such experiments have to span several human generations to be meaningful. That is, if we care about how our children turn out.

I encourage all you atheists and rational materialists to examine the real historical bases and personal outcomes of religions, which are in large part "industry standards" for ethical systems.

My personal experience, backed by a lot of reading of biographies and interviews is that most religions are utter bunkum, and a few of them have very careful, well-documented historical support, backed up by millions of happy human lives lived in a wide range of circumstances, including the most complex civilizations ever.

That is, be conservative. You'll live longer.

I admit that I'm a late adopter. I just bought my first Palm, and I still run Win '98.

[chubtoad]

1) There exists a Universe.
2) I exist within this Universe.
3) I only know what I can perceive and validate to be true or not.
4) Something cannot come from nothing.
5) I didnt create this Universe.
6) If I didnt create it, something did, whether that be God or otherwise.

I don't consider any of these assumptions to be truly obvious, but 1,2,3, and 5 lead to a very simple perspective of everything with few assumptions. However, I have a problem with 4 and 6. 1,2,3,5 make are assumptions about things that happen within the universe. 4 seems to hold true for things within the universe, but the creation of the universe (if it was created) would not take place within the universe. Somehow something would have to exist without having to be created. It could be that the universe came to exist out of nothing, or the thing that created the universe came to exist without a cause, or the thing that created that, and so on. So why make the assumption that the universe was created rather than coming to exist out of nothing?

[7000]

Everything is all about word.The universe was word right from the beginning of creation and it is just the word and nothing else.So, word is word and word is create.If word is not create, there is no word.But word is create if i'm right.

chubtoad:Word is something and word is nothing.This two word make up everything.If there is no nothing, something is not knowledge, because knowledge is not complete without knowledge of nothing.

This will be a long sentence if i have to explain.But something and nothing make up human and this is the reason why human has knowledge and can think himself to be something and at thesame time nothing!

[lightowl]

My answer to that question would have to be other. If I have a belief in anything it would be technology. But it is debatable if that could be considered a religious identity. The only gods I believe in is technologically superior species that might be considered gods by suppressed species. So called 'False Gods'

[cyberspirit]

[thumb]
I talk with gods, animals, and small children, I listen to the trees and the wind and the soft voices of water sprites. I accept my madness as one that can hear more clearly then many would allow, though I try to converse with them too.

[cyberspirit]

I class myself as pagan. dipping into a myriad of religions. i dont nessacerily count these as gospel "TRUTH" but truth is just the greatest knowledge and understanding an indevinual can hold on any one subject at any time. relgion/spirituality (at least 4 me) is a fresh an invigoaritng way to bring a new way of thinking to bear upon a particular subject or problem to help identify and faciliate a positive outcome. if it works it works and if it works consistantly then dont wory about why.

[zencatholic]

Practicing Catholic. And God knows I need lots of practice.

Peace be with you all,
AMDG

Zen Catholic

[Clifford Greenblatt]

I believe life can be fundamentally explained by scientific method free from mystical or religious undercurrents.

Skeptics often react negatively to efforts to include supernatural ideas in explanations of physical phenomena. They point out that such supernatural ideas are superfluous by Occam’s razor. I believe that skeptics have a good point in eliminating supernatural concepts from explanations of physical phenomena. However, I do not believe that this is cause to conclude that reality is purely physical. Many things can be viewed in multiple ways. An infinite sequence of digits can have all the statistical properties of a random number sequence and yet be absolutely deterministic. Likewise, natural phenomena can be explained in mathematical terms and can have all the statistics of being random and yet be fully under the sovereignty of a supernatural God.

[Bruce Klein]

Clifford, I understand what you're saying.. but digits are theoretical points artificially derived by humans to explain a fuzzy universe.

Ultimately to me, Occam's razor cuts to close for any metaphysical phenomena.