What Religion Do You Follow?

[Bonnie]

So Athiests are not welcome to these boards?? Or is your god so weak that non believers need to be shut up.

No not at all, we just recognize someone who is guilty of doing the exact thing they accuse others of doing.

 

[no1tovote4]

So Athiests are not welcome to these boards?? Or is your god so weak that non believers need to be shut up.

There are more than one Atheist among the members of this board. Is your belief so weak that you feel threatened by people of Faith?

Truly I am curious.

 

[5stringJeff]

Biggity-bump. For those who have not seen this since February.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

"It is amazing isn't it? Yet WE are the intolerant ones."


Yes you are actually.

Religeous tolerance = OXYMORON

Athiests don't blow people up because they refuse to follow a particular religeon (Isluuum). They don't behead innocent people either. We don't put down gay people because of their sexual preference. I read a sign by Republican protesters that read "God hates fags". Which contradicts the idea that "God is love".


Btw, Islamic terrorists are CONSERVATIVE.

Not to dredge up old battles, but the God hates fags people aren't republicans by the slightest stretch of the imagination... at least the ones you see protesting with the neon signs.

No suprise, I'm agnostic, but I disagree with other's views that being an agnostic means you don't believe in a God or supernatural.

 

[Bonnie]

Not to dredge up old battles, but the God hates fags people aren't republicans by the slightest stretch of the imagination... at least the ones you see protesting with the neon signs.

No suprise, I'm agnostic, but I disagree with other's views that being an agnostic means you don't believe in a God or supernatural.

Doesn't agnostic mean simply one who doubts which is completely different than one who does not believe??

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Doesn't agnostic mean simply one who doubts which is completely different than one who does not believe??

Atheist is someone who denounces the possibility of a devine being. There is no God. They have reached their conclusion.

Agnostic is someone who does not denounce the possibility, but rather thinks it's impossible to comprehend something as immortal as a supernatural as a mortal. Or, it is someone who isn't convinced the current interpretations of the supernatural are inadequate or incomplete. They have not reached their conclusion or don't agree with the conclusions that have been reached so far.

It's either: I have doubts as to whether or not there is a God, or I know there is a God or supernatural but doubt that I'll ever be able to understand it, or I know there is a God or supernatural but doubt any of the interpretations available today stack up.

 

[Zhukov]

Atheist is someone who denounces the possibility of a devine being. There is no God. They have reached their conclusion.

I'd disagree with this definition in part.

It's not about 'denouncing possibilities', it's about disbelief. I concede that it's possible that some sort of diety might exist but I don't believe there is one. The truth is unknowable to me so 'possibilites' exist. What's important is what I believe and what I believe makes me atheist.

 

[Harmageddon]

Considering the replies and definitions used, I would say I am an atheist.
That is I do not believe there is a God or Gods. But since atheism also is a belief, I cannot reasonably be certain.

I am a soon to be neurobiologist, and from what I get sitting at the throbbing artery of biological knowledge, I would say it adds to my belief that it is not necessary for a God to steer the processes that guide the Universe and the Life that resides within it.

I do believe everything is connected however; kind of like "we're all stardust" or something similar. I also like the Buddhist view of Karma; whereas I do not believe I shall return reincarnated after I succomb to the inevitable, it does seem a reasonable guideline to live by. We learn everyday, from the news, from people and experiences around us. We learn about the world and mor importantly, ourselves. Our strengths and weaknesses. Which through wisdom and honesty and everything virtuous, we should strive to overcome.

This process seems ongoing when I reflect on my past quarter century of life.

I think most religions actually try to portray this idea through the use of various didactic techniques, mostly that of the parable: we should try and do our best to get ourselves closer to an examplary (Godly) life. One that we could be proud of and others around us could see as an examplary life.

Whether or not this idea is driven by a desire to pay homage to the image of our God, or a drive to reincarnate into divinity itself. The idea itself I is to me what matters most.

My grandfather passed away recently. And although I do not believe he is either in Heaven somewhere, burning in Hell or on his way to be reincarnated or embrace the Nirvana; I do know that he passed away with a smile.

He died an old man at 86, his children are all married and there are minor fights but no divorces or anything like that; his grandchildren are progressing one way or another. He was just grateful to have been a witness to all that.

Now to me, that is in a nutshell the perfect way to go.
If you can honestly be happy with yourself and your children, stare in the mirror and into the bottom of your heart and soul at your dying day and feel grateful for your life, than I don't care if there is a God or a Nirvana waiting.

I think we know within ourselves what is the best way to live our lives; and although it may be hard (I'm no saint either) it is definately worth the try.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'd disagree with this definition in part.

It's not about 'denouncing possibilities', it's about disbelief. I concede that it's possible that some sort of diety might exist but I don't believe there is one. The truth is unknowable to me so 'possibilites' exist. What's important is what I believe and what I believe makes me atheist.

Fair enough. I don't consider myself an atheist, so my understanding of their viewpoints is rather limited, relatively speaking. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I'd disagree with this definition in part.

It's not about 'denouncing possibilities', it's about disbelief. I concede that it's possible that some sort of diety might exist but I don't believe there is one. The truth is unknowable to me so 'possibilites' exist. What's important is what I believe and what I believe makes me atheist.

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

 

[Zhukov]

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Yeah, and it's a load of horsehit. There's such a thing as false. One who 'believes' in God only because the result if they are correct is deemed better than the result if they don't 'believe' and are wrong does not really believe in God.

And were there a god, he would certainly realize that.

Were I god, I'd be more offended by the false than the faithless, because at least the faithless are honest. The false think they can fool god....

That's a losing bet.

 

[no1tovote4]

Ever heard of Pascal's Wager?

Here's an interesting page on Pascal's Wager. It shows many of the logical fallacies associated with such a wager.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

And gives this alternative:

This seems to be much more reasonable, both for atheists and theists :

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

P.S. If you understand your Avatar you will know this, "Ewige Blumenkraft!"

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

Atheist is someone who denounces the possibility of a devine being. There is no God. They have reached their conclusion.

Agnostic is someone who does not denounce the possibility, but rather thinks it's impossible to comprehend something as immortal as a supernatural as a mortal. Or, it is someone who isn't convinced the current interpretations of the supernatural are inadequate or incomplete. They have not reached their conclusion or don't agree with the conclusions that have been reached so far.

It's either: I have doubts as to whether or not there is a God, or I know there is a God or supernatural but doubt that I'll ever be able to understand it, or I know there is a God or supernatural but doubt any of the interpretations available today stack up.

I don't know any agnostics myself but I will say this...Their viewpoint is certainly interesting. Atheists on the other hand are the ones that I've found to be cynical SOBs when it comes to debating. I've had a pretty intelligent conversation with a Bhuddist, a Wiccan, and a Mormon, but those atheists!!!! It's almost as if they have a little spidey-sense that tells them I'm religious so they can go off on a long rant about this being the 21st century why-can't-everyone-drop-their-bullshit-religion blah blah blah. It doesn't even matter if they're 14 or 40, there's always insults and quite a few F-bombs thrown in too. Can't figure that out...somebody out there have any theories??

 

[Zhukov]

Can't figure that out...somebody out there have any theories??

Yes. They seek to validate their beliefs externally because they don't truly believe in their hearts. They have no faith. So how do they know they are right? When other's agree with them.

People with no faith lash out.

People with faith are comfortable with the fact that not everyone agrees with them.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. They seek to validate their beliefs externally because they don't truly believe in their hearts. They have no faith. So how do they know they are right? When other's agree with them.

People with no faith lash out.

People with faith are comfortable with the fact that not everyone agrees with them.

People with faith lash out as well.

I think, in regards to the question asked by TheEnemyWithin, the people you talk with are more of the "shock atheists" that someone was talking about earlier in this thread. They're only atheist because it's convenient for them to ridicule others.

 

[Zhukov]

People with faith lash out as well.

Well, my point is if they are lashing out it's because they are not secure in their faith. They might claim to be faithful but if they lash out it is because they are deluding themselves and they are trying to fool those against who they lash out.

Those "God Hates Fags" people? They are not faithful.

It reminds me of the story about the Soviet police who broke in on an illegal meeting of christians and told them whoever recanted could leave and live, those who stood firm would be shot.

The "G.H.F." people would be running out the door I'd guess.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, my point is if they are lashing out it's because they are not secure in their faith. They might claim to be faithful but if they lash out it is because they are deluding themselves and they are trying to fool those against who they lash out.

Those "God Hates Fags" people? They are not faithful.

It reminds me of the story about the Soviet police who broke in on an illegal meeting of christians and told them whoever recanted could leave and live, those who stood firm would be shot.

The "G.H.F." people would be running out the door I'd guess.

I agree; good point.

 

[Bonnie]

Well, my point is if they are lashing out it's because they are not secure in their faith. They might claim to be faithful but if they lash out it is because they are deluding themselves and they are trying to fool those against who they lash out.

Those "God Hates Fags" people? They are not faithful.

It reminds me of the story about the Soviet police who broke in on an illegal meeting of christians and told them whoever recanted could leave and live, those who stood firm would be shot.

The "G.H.F." people would be running out the door I'd guess.

I agree 100%

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah, and it's a load of horsehit. There's such a thing as false. One who 'believes' in God only because the result if they are correct is deemed better than the result if they don't 'believe' and are wrong does not really believe in God.

And were there a god, he would certainly realize that.

Were I god, I'd be more offended by the false than the faithless, because at least the faithless are honest. The false think they can fool god....

That's a losing bet.

I would say I have to agree with you. I mean if you say you believe in God merely because its safer to believe than not to God deffinately knows your thinking. You are lying to yourself if you have convinced yourself you actually believe. I dont think God is very appreciative of people who try to lie to Him.

 

[Avatar4321]

People with faith lash out as well.

I think, in regards to the question asked by TheEnemyWithin, the people you talk with are more of the "shock atheists" that someone was talking about earlier in this thread. They're only atheist because it's convenient for them to ridicule others.

I agree there are people of faith who lash out. but that stems alot from their own doubts. Either because they doubt true principles or they know they have put their faith in false principles. True faith establishes confidence in oneself and God.

I also agree there are probably alot of athiests who are athiests because of shock value or because they are simply too lazy to actuall investigate faith. By declaring them all wrong it saves effort. Not saying thats what all thing. just saying there are probably alot.