Did you choose your religious belief?

Did you choose your religious belief or lack of belief?


  • Total voters
    41
Definitely chose to be what I ame now. Was raised in some combination of Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran traditions. Never confirmed in any of them. Sometime in early adulthood I rejected organized religion. I wasn't certain of too many religious things at the time but I was pretty sure that organized religion was rotten to the core. Between the wars, deaths, discrimination and persecution all in the name of a system of beliefs and the alternative, "Well, it doesn't matter what religion you are, if you are a good (Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, fill in the religion) then you will go to heaven. Neither side of that argument has any sanity.

So I looked atheism. I decided it was too nihilistic for me. Which left me with a sort of unsatisfied agnosticism. Not happy with that I tried Deism. That made me feel better, but it was really just agnostic. In the meantime, I had been noting and collecting information about the world around and searched for a religion that explained some of the subtle connections that take place in the world for which there are no reasonable scientific explanations. I found those explanations in paganism.

So there you go, I'm a pagan and I chose to be that and I believe it because it explains those observable mysteries that occur in nature/life that science doesn't.
 
Your entire post was full of ignorant claims, as I showed.

Ok.. again I will put up this link. Please look at the fossils and records shown within it.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alright. The way that this works is that a fossil is found, a fraction of a jawbone, a couple of portions of a couple of fingers and a bit of a wrist bone. These bones are taken to an artist who renders a possible skeleton off of those couple of bones and what we currently know of anatomy. In telling me to google transitional fossils you proved what I said right in showing that most of what we have are very small fractions of bones. A half a jaw is not a skeleton, it is not a full picture at all and it requires faith in the artist's interpretation of that jawbone for you to accept it as a link in the human chain.

Here is an obvious show of how this process works using a shark fossil of what is called the whorl shark..

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/images/tooth-whorl-from-shark-13739-1.jpg

and here is what it is said to look like now that one artist has gone through a TON of different possible drawings.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/images/061024-weird-animals.jpg

It is a fascinating process and enjoyable to speculate about but in my book, a fraction of an eye socket or a couple of pieces of finger is NOT the clean skull transition that you see in so many science books. I believed the science for a long time because it seemed to have so much more proof but the proof isn't all that complete and even then, they aren't even able to prove all of these pieces of skeleton aren't JUST human.. that they are something other than simply human.

So again.. where did your insitence that I look up these records prove my ignorance? They seem to prove EXACTLY what I said in the first post I made, which is that the fossil records are incomplete. -Shrugs lightly-
 
Alright. The way that this works is that a fossil is found, a fraction of a jawbone, a couple of portions of a couple of fingers and a bit of a wrist bone. These bones are taken to an artist who renders a possible skeleton off of those couple of bones and what we currently know of anatomy.

Pop culture representations are not accepted in academic circles. National Geographic is not an authoritative a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is Wikipedia. Look for your sources' sources.
 
Alright. The way that this works is that a fossil is found, a fraction of a jawbone, a couple of portions of a couple of fingers and a bit of a wrist bone. These bones are taken to an artist who renders a possible skeleton off of those couple of bones and what we currently know of anatomy.

Pop culture representations are not accepted in academic circles. National Geographic is not an authoritative a peer-reviewed journal. Nor is Wikipedia. Look for your sources' sources.

Ok.. I told you to show me how what I said was wrong. You tell me to google the topic rather than linking me ANY proof. I show you proof that the way the process works is how I said. Now you tell me that the proof I have shown you, pictures, a process you can easily look up.. is not good enough. I didn't say that there is no such thing as evolution because there are always changes within species genetic lines. What I said is that the evolution is man is incomplete and that there is no missing link. There is no skeletal trail, like I used to think there was, from ape to man, and instead are merely fractions of bones in most cases and no bones for others.

I asked you to give me proof of my ignorance and instead I prove my point and you still insist I am wrong. Please link me proof of your point and like I said, I will gladly say that your whole position has real merit. I am saying that a lack of proof is enough proof for me to feel confident my religious decision is right for me. That is the same evidence more atheists and gnostics use to validate their lack of religious faith. I don't see how that is at all wrong.. please please please show me how it is wrong.
 
What I said is that the evolution is man is incomplete and that there is no missing link. There is no skeletal trail, like I used to think there was, from ape to man

Yet you then contradict and refute yourself by stating that there are fossils.


and instead are merely fractions of bones in most cases and no bones for others.

Saying that the image is incomplete is not the same as saying it';s not there. You just highlighted your own ignorance as you refuted yourself.
I am saying that a lack of proof is enough proof for me to feel confident my religious decision is right for me

You reject one theory because you are not satisfied with the evidence, yet you embrace a hypothesis with zero evidence? Do you not see how illogical that is?

. That is the same evidence more atheists and gnostics use to validate their lack of religious faith.

Wrong. Fossil evidence for the evolution of man (which is only one piece of evidence and less compelling that DNA evidence) merely supports the theory of the evolution of Man. It is not this evidence that has any bearing on belief in deity, but the lack of evidence for the existence of deity.
 
What I said is that the evolution is man is incomplete and that there is no missing link. There is no skeletal trail, like I used to think there was, from ape to man

Yet you then contradict and refute yourself by stating that there are fossils.


and instead are merely fractions of bones in most cases and no bones for others.

Saying that the image is incomplete is not the same as saying it';s not there. You just highlighted your own ignorance as you refuted yourself.
I am saying that a lack of proof is enough proof for me to feel confident my religious decision is right for me

You reject one theory because you are not satisfied with the evidence, yet you embrace a hypothesis with zero evidence? Do you not see how illogical that is?

. That is the same evidence more atheists and gnostics use to validate their lack of religious faith.

Wrong. Fossil evidence for the evolution of man (which is only one piece of evidence and less compelling that DNA evidence) merely supports the theory of the evolution of Man. It is not this evidence that has any bearing on belief in deity, but the lack of evidence for the existence of deity.

You are arguing a pointless fight with me rather than addressing my question. You called me ignorant for saying that the fossil records are incomplete and that there is no missing link. For stating that as a Christian I follow the more recent New Testement rather than sticking to the Old as the only truth in the Bible I am apparently ignorant as well. You said that it is wrong of me to believe that my faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible, that living my life as a good person based on the teachings of Christ is wrong of me. You have argued these points and I have shown you that my beliefs are not based in ignorance and assumption but rather based on the fact that science doesn't answer all questions 100% and it requires a leap of faith to believe everything said.

You are left with the option of either showing me how I am ignorant or admitting that I am allowed my beliefs and your original attack on me was possibly more ignorant than my original statement considering I have backed my position up with proof and you are arguing the wording of my latest post.
 
As a side note to the Original poster.. I am very sorry for this off topic conversation. I tried to merely respond to your poll. I just can't suffer someone calling my views ignorant when there was no reason and the facts will support my post. So again, very sorry.
 
You called me ignorant for saying that the fossil records are incomplete

That is a lie. I called you ignorant for implying there was no evidence.

and that there is no missing link.
an ignorant and inaccurate claim

For stating that as a Christian I follow the more recent New Testement rather than sticking to the Old as the only truth in the Bible I am apparently ignorant as well
The old is the word of god, according to itself. The New is only valid insomuch as it rests upon the Old

You said that it is wrong of me to believe that my faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible
I said it is illogical to reject one theory because you are unsatisfied with the evidence yet accept a hypothesis with no evidence

, that living my life as a good person based on the teachings of Christ is wrong of me
That is not what I said. Why can't you theists ever speak without lying?
 
I was brought up Roman Catholic just before and during Vatican II so I learned that my best friend was partly responsibly for killing our Lord (don't laugh). When I went to his bar mitzvah, I was terrified that I would be struck down by a vengeful Jewish God (seriously, stop laughing).

I stopped going to church for my own purposes the Sunday after my Communion. I would accompany my mother to midnight mass on Christmas, and would go for weddings but Catholicism was dead to me.

I married a Jewish girl, my 2 sons were bar mitzvah and once their respective rabbis got to know me better they each, one Reform, one Conservative each asked if I would consider converting. The Conservative rabbi thought so highly of me that he allowed me to stand with my son on the beemer. The Congregation was less than thrilled and I admired him for that.

Last year I found Unity Center of NY and I could not be happier. I've come home!
 
It became noticeable though that it seemed both sides needed a bit of a leap of faith to believe. We don't have a missing link between humans and monkeys. Most of the fossil records we claim to have are based off of a single bone or a partial skeleton. Look at the mistakes that the Romans and Greeks made from seeing an elephant skeleton, we got the myth of the cyclops.

As I have now highlighted I did NOT say that there were NO fossil records but rather that the records were and are incomplete as the evidence you had me look up proves.

Also I said "We don't have a missing link" meaning we have not found anything. People have claimed the lemur is a missing link but as I stated, the reason which they are making this claim is because of a similar structure between our thumb and the lemur's thumb on its foot.

Please knock it off and stop calling me a theist, ignorant, and every other rude statement you have made simply because you disagree with my point of view. I have enjoyed many of your posts on other topics and have yet to have a problem with you or your views whether they mirror mine or not. I didn't ask for you to agree with me, to believe how I do, or to even like what I say but merely respect that my opinion is my own and was not directed to you in ANY way but rather the poll and thread started by the original poster.

If you insist on calling me ignorant further I would require you to actually post proof of your opinion rather that merely indulging in petty name calling.. thought you were above acting like Yukon and others who rely on simply name calling and saying "You are wrong!"
 
As I have now highlighted I did NOT say that there were NO fossil records but rather that the records were and are incomplete

I was referring to your insistence that the 'missing link' means there is not sufficient evidence to support tToE, which you are about to do (and contradict your words quoted above) with this:

Also I said "We don't have a missing link" meaning we have not found anything
.

People have claimed the lemur is a missing link but as I stated, the reason which they are making this claim is because of a similar structure between our thumb and the lemur's thumb on its foot.

You need to read more; that is not the only evidence cited for Ida's place along our evolutionary line.

Please knock it off and stop calling me a theist
You are a theist- or are you recanting your faith?


,
ignorant,

You have demonstrated much ignorance in regards to the subject matter.
 
As I have now highlighted I did NOT say that there were NO fossil records but rather that the records were and are incomplete

I was referring to your insistence that the 'missing link' means there is not sufficient evidence to support tToE, which you are about to do (and contradict your words quoted above) with this:

Also I said "We don't have a missing link" meaning we have not found anything
.



You need to read more; that is not the only evidence cited for Ida's place along our evolutionary line.

Please knock it off and stop calling me a theist
You are a theist- or are you recanting your faith?


,
ignorant,

You have demonstrated much ignorance in regards to the subject matter.

I am no longer responding to your posts as I respond to the questions you pose for me and you merely respond to me with "You're ignorant" again and again.

I asked you to stop calling me a theist because you seem to be using as a way to lump me in with the people who claim the earth is 3 or 5 thousand years old and who say God placed dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse humanity. To you it seems to be a derogitory term meant to seperate you from "them" and honestly you should try listening to the individual instead of assuming there is only one way for the religious to feel and one way for the scientific to feel.

I wish you had actually responded to me with some sort of facts as you have made me do for you. I'm sad that you have made me lose some respect for you in this small exchange and I hope your future posts either come from you reading a remark fully or from you having actual proof for your claims rather than prejudice and unnecessary rudeness.
 
I asked you to stop calling me a theist

You are, by definition, a theist- or do you recant your faith?

because you seem to be using as a way to lump me in with the people who claim the earth is 3 or 5 thousand years old and who say God placed dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse humanity.

Once again, you show your ignorance. Clearly, you fail to know what theism actually means.

meant to seperate you from "them" and honestly you should try listening to the individual instead of assuming there is only one way for the religious to feel and one way for the scientific to feel.

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who just characterized all theists as YECs.
Your ignorance, your gross characterization of all theists (by definition, including yourself), your dishonesty and misrepresentations of what I have said- you have shown me that you are worthy of no respect.
 
LDS talk like they're on LSD

Without extending (or at least trying not to) any further judgment, I agree :) My first-ever boyfriend was member of the LDS church and while I liked him and his family, their arrogant - we'll survive the big judgment while you and the likes of you that don't convert to our bullshit ideas will die forever (or some other bullshit like that - did you notice, it's always the same with these folks) turned me off him... He just wasn't worth listening to all this crap over and over again. Also, the one that preached this bullshit the most ended up being unfaithful to his wife (after having two kids with her) and ended up becoming an alcoholic and a gamer... So... that's about as much as I know of LDS...

This was a bit cynical, wasn't it. Well, I'm sorry, but such is reality at times.

Edit: PS: I really have nothing against Mormons or any other Christians or non-suicidal/homicidal religions... and I truly make an effort to not laugh at the colorful ways by which they're trying to teach their morals and principles to others... Peace? :)
 
Last edited:
Yes. I chose to take refuge as a Buddhist in 1985. I had been attending Buddhist meditation retreats for several years but not choosing to call myself Buddhist until going through that ceremony.

I was raised Roman Catholic.
 
LDS talk like they're on LSD

Without extending (or at least trying not to) any further judgment, I agree :) My first-ever boyfriend was member of the LDS church and while I liked him and his family, their arrogant - we'll survive the big judgment while you and the likes of you that don't convert to our bullshit ideas will die forever (or some other bullshit like that - did you notice, it's always the same with these folks) turned me off him... He just wasn't worth listening to all this crap over and over again. Also, the one that preached this bullshit the most ended up being unfaithful to his wife (after having two kids with her) and ended up becoming an alcoholic and a gamer... So... that's about as much as I know of LDS...

This was a bit cynical, wasn't it. Well, I'm sorry, but such is reality at times.

Edit: PS: I really have nothing against Mormons or any other Christians or non-suicidal/homicidal religions... and I truly make an effort to not laugh at the colorful ways by which they're trying to teach their morals and principles to others... Peace? :)

Unfortunately, there are those in every walk of life, not just LDS. It's a human failing.

I know of some like that in my faith, but they are by far outweighed by the sweet and humble, from my experience.

I could try to use the Fundamentalist nutballs that stand outside our temples and Wards who yell at us we are going to hell as we walk by. But they are by far outweighed by the sweet and humble in the fundamental protestant faiths.

*shrug*
 
I think people who are religious have chosen their religion. Whether or not they have made a rational and informed choice in another story.

Agnostics and atheists do not choose. They simply remain in a natural state till given reason to be otherwise.
 
I think people who are religious have chosen their religion. Whether or not they have made a rational and informed choice in another story.

Agnostics and atheists do not choose. They simply remain in a natural state till given reason to be otherwise.

"Natural state" - can you expand upon the concept of 'natural' state of agnostics and atheists? This should be interesting.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top