pagan?

[cweston]

Statistically something like 95% of North Americans respond to the question "do you believe in God" with "yes."

Obviously, way less then 95% actively practice any religion.

The theologian and religion professor Marcus Borg (who is also "openly" Christian, in a more "liberal" vein than the predominant strain of Christianity in the US) writes that students often tell him "Well, this is all very interesting, but I really just don't believe in God." He habitually replies "Tell me about this God you don't believe in." His point is that he usually can reply "Well, I don't believe in *that* God either."

I think too many people equate believing in God with 100% assent to every jot and tittle of doctrine *about* God espoused by some religious institution or another.

I personally think that the Divine is completely beyond our attempts to define and limit with words--that's why we tend to come up weith such goofy sh-t when we try.

 

[Cheesefood]

Why would a supreme being like God be so hung up on what people think of him? And why would He choose to be completely inefficient? If souls truly are unique and never recycled, that creates a model of inefficiency that isn't reflected anywhere else in nature.

Finally, why would God concern Himself with trivial things, like who ate meat on Friday, or why only one Prophet is the keeper of his true message?

 

[homebrewer_99]

Only two religions make sense to me: Discordianism, the Church of the SubGenius, Buddhism, Church of Beer, and Atheism...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more than 2?

 

[cweston]

Finally, why would God concern Himself with trivial things, like who ate meat on Friday, or why only one Prophet is the keeper of his true message?

Or who wins a Notre Dame football game...

(Well, there are limits to this line of reasoning. I'm assuming that God likes seeing ND lose just as much as everyone else does.)

 

[Cheesefood]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more than 2?

Therein lies the riddle. Fnord.

 

[Orpheus]

I never understood the whole doctrine that you live out your life and then, only at the end, you are judged and sent to heaven or hell.

How unfair is that!? I think God, like a good supervisor, should meet with you at the very least biannually to discuss your progress thus far. Point out your strengths and areas of need and help you draw up a plan to improve your performance in life.

I can imagine a lot of people get to the pearly gates and are confused as all hell when the powers that be tell them they're damned for eternity for something that a little guidance could have changed or prevented.

 

[Cheesefood]

Or who wins a Notre Dame football game...

(Well, there are limits to this line of reasoning. I'm assuming that God likes seeing ND lose just as much as everyone else does.)

Which brings us to a good point: two teams in the Superbowl. Both pray to God to win. One wins, one loses.
Meanwhile, a child dies while his/her parents pray that he lives.

My thoughts are this: there may be a Supreme Giver of Life, but whatever is there has no consciousness. Think of the sun as God. It's an enormous giver and taker of life, but it doesn't care what we do here. There's no consciousness.

We have the consciousness. We are the ones who need love and attention and compassion. It's our flaw. We need to believe that we have a purpose other than reproduction and keeping nature in balance by being a top-level food user. Everything else we've done out of boredom and the need to keep our minds stimulated.

Religion is a tool created by man.

 

[homebrewer_99]

I never understood the whole doctrine that you live out your life and then, only at the end, you are judged and sent to heaven or hell.

How unfair is that!? I think God, like a good supervisor, should meet with you at the very least biannually to discuss your progress thus far. Point out your strengths and areas of need and help you draw up a plan to improve your performance in life.

I can imagine a lot of people get to the pearly gates and are confused as all hell when the powers that be tell them they're damned for eternity for something that a little guidance could have changed or prevented.

I think he does...they're called Near Death Experiences...car crash, heart attack, etc.

 

[cweston]

Which brings us to a good point: two teams in the Superbowl. Both pray to God to win. One wins, one loses.
Meanwhile, a child dies while his/her parents pray that he lives.

My thoughts are this: there may be a Supreme Giver of Life, but whatever is there has no consciousness. Think of the sun as God. It's an enormous giver and taker of life, but it doesn't care what we do here. There's no consciousness.

Briefly, this assumes a certain model of God know as supernatural theism--that God is a person-like super-person being that is out there, outside the universe, but intervening in the universe and in human lives. I do agree that it is problematic, but it's certainly not the only possible model for God. It is a pre-modern conception of God and the universe which has become very problematic in the modern and post-modern world.

 

[Ivan Lendl]

I believe in Harry Potter.

 

[McCall St. Brewer]

I pagan? No. I have always wanted to be an existentialist, but I've never really been able to understand what it is.

 

[dibby33]

This answer has been censored for the good of the subscriber...

I somehow feel the need to reply to this thread but I have been athiest since I was able to think. It is simple. I cannot understand anything else. I find it amazing that so many people can think otherwise. Good luck to you.

...why did the irish mechanic sleep under his car?














...because he wanted to get up oily in the morning.





life should be funny. Religion is not. I am going....

 

[Craig5_12]

You guys have it all wrong, didn't you see Dogma? God is a woman..........

doesn't that explain it all?

 

[Cheesefood]

This answer has been censored for the good of the subscriber...

I somehow feel the need to reply to this thread but I have been athiest since I was able to think. It is simple. I cannot understand anything else. I find it amazing that so many people can think otherwise. Good luck to you.

Me too. Drives my catholic parents crazy, especially when I was in grade school and told them I didn't believe in it all. Lots of fights, lots of arguments, then they FINALLY realized that they can't force beliefs on me when I see things in a completely opposite way. My mom now teaches religion class. I keep asking her when I can come in to speak.

We're raising our son to understand both points of view.

 

[Ivan Lendl]

I have been athiest since I was able to think. It is simple. I cannot understand anything else. I find it amazing that so many people can think otherwise.

I never understood dogmatic athiest. Sounds like faith to me. I'm agnostic, untill I see proof either way I'm gonna ride the fence. (By proof I mean if God deposits a million dollars in my account)

 

[rdwj]

I somehow feel the need to reply to this thread but I have been athiest since I was able to think. It is simple. I cannot understand anything else. I find it amazing that so many people can think otherwise.

And I find it amazing that people use the ‘rational thought’ argument so often when claiming to be an atheist – like believing that is creation is somehow a less intelligent conclusion.

If you were walking through the woods and came across a bunch of rocks that were perfectly balanced one on top another, you’d have to assume that someone stacked them there. There is just no way that it could occur randomly. The universe as we know it – and especially the plant we live on, is MUCH more balanced than a simple stack of rocks, so the logical conclusion is that it was designed to be that way.

It wouldn’t happen – it couldn’t happen without design.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised that this thread is being allowed to continue. I thought that religion and politics were taboo around here – as they should be. I’m especially shocked to see that TX posted in this thread. Personally, I’d rather see it shut down before it turns ugly.

….and it WILL turn ugly.

 

[olllllo]

Coincidence?

Which one is shopped?

 

[the_bird]

As long as people don't say things like it COULDN'T happen (speaking in absolute terms ). You can argue that, while the design of the world looks perfect enough that there HAD to be a creater, had things not come together the way that they did (without help from a creator), we wouldn't be around to be asking the questions.

Hey, we're at post #78, and no one's pissed off yet (I don't think)! I'm proud!

 

[rdwj]

Coincidence?

Which one is shopped?

That's not a stack of rocks, it's one oddly shaped rock

here is a stack

 

[rdwj]

Hey, we're at post #78, and no one's pissed off yet (I don't think)! I'm proud!

It's a slippery slope.

 

[olllllo]

I'm being a bit disingenuous.

My point is, I don't know. My not knowing is not the basis for a social movement, a moral code to be applied to others or a political agenda.

If prostylizing ones beliefs is a central tenent, requirement or condition of ones belief system then there is bound to be conflict.

Below is a naturally caued phenomena.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8993287

 

[Desert_Sky]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

 

[Evan!]

I never understood dogmatic athiest. Sounds like faith to me. I'm agnostic, untill I see proof either way I'm gonna ride the fence. (By proof I mean if God deposits a million dollars in my account)

What do you define as "dogmatic" atheism? To me, dogmatic atheism is the absolute belief that, regardless of evidence/proof/facts/reality, there can be no god. This, of course, is faith just as religion is. However, I've never met anyone like this. Even the most famous atheist of our time, Richard Dawkins, has stated in no uncertain terms that if he were shown proof of God's existence and it could be scientifically vetted, he'd drop atheism without reservation.

Dogmatic atheism is indeed faith, but one can say "sure, it's possible that god exists, but it's so improbable as to not be worth my time to entertain the idea", and still be an atheist. Just as I am an atheist regarding Zeus and Medusa and Allah and Neptune, I am an atheist regarding the christian god. To me, if you really want to get technical, I'm an agnostic in principle, simply because I refuse to 100% rule out the possibility of an intelligent creator. But the probability of said existence, versus the mountains of evidence supporting the evolutionary theory, is so ridiculously small that I just don't see any point in worrying about it, or even worrying about calling myself an atheist. I'm an atheist, until someone can prove me wrong. You and I are probably the same in this, I just don't have the same problems with calling myself atheistic. It's got a stigma, sure, but I'm tired of worrying about it. And yes, there is a difference between an atheist who is open to being proven wrong, and a dogmatic atheist. Unfortunately, theists often confuse the former for the latter...either accidentally or purposefully. They see their beliefs in black and white, and so everyone else must do the same. It's just unfortunate, and it's why atheism has such a stigma attached to it in this culture. Meanwhile, I have yet to meet a single atheist who, if presented with real tangible evidence of the existence of an intelligent creator, would refuse it on grounds of dogmatic certainty that god does not and cannot exist. I have yet to meet someone like this.

 

[olllllo]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

PCU? 10chars.

 

[cweston]

It appears that, over human history, the vast majority of person and cultures have believed that there was more* than the material universe, and that the realm of the non-material was the realm of God, the sacred, etc. That doesn't make it right or prove that there is a God, but the vast majority of folks to walk the earth have experienced the world that way.

(*William James's generic term for the divine is "The More.")

Each culture has had a slightly different take on this based on all of the forces that shaped their conception of the universe and reality.

I think the biggest reason that doubt about the existence of the sacred seems to have increased in our society is that, since the enlightenment, we have had radically altered cultural views about the universe and reality, but have attempted to plug older views about the sacred into that equation.

For a kindof bizarre analogy: if all of your thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions about beer came from the realm of post-prohibition pre-micro/craft movement American commercial brewing, then homebrewing would seem like a really silly thing to do. Just go buy a 30 pack of Bud!

 

[Evan!]

If you were walking through the woods and came across a bunch of rocks that were perfectly balanced one on top another, you’d have to assume that someone stacked them there. There is just no way that it could occur randomly. The universe as we know it – and especially the plant we live on, is MUCH more balanced than a simple stack of rocks, so the logical conclusion is that it was designed to be that way.

Unfortunately, this rather simplistic "finding a watch in the woods" example (which is unfortunately overused and misstated by many creationists) is proven false by mountains of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution. I won't requote Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" for you, but you should read it for an alternative "logical" answer to your design question.

You see, our problem as a species is that we only live for, at most, 100 years, so we are unable, without really straining our minds, to realize that what seems impossible to us in our small-time-scale-oriented minds gets much more possible when the timescale stretches to tens of billions of years.

Let me offer up the best example of the divide that your "stack of rocks in the woods" example illustrates:

Imagine a hill. On one side of the hill, it's a sheer cliff to the top. The creationist walks up to the bottom of the cliff, sees someone at the top, and says "they must have had some help to get up that high." What the creationist doesn't realize is that, on the other side of the hill, it's a very gradual slope that even an infant, if given enough time, could climb on his own.

In other words, you're only seeing the end product of billions of years of random mutations being naturally selected, and so, given that our short time scale that we live in, you assume that it must be intelligently designed. But what you fail to see is that, behind that complex finished product, there are billions of years and millions of generations and mutations. Each generation was a stepping stone to the next, and the next, and the next.

Therefore, yes, if you found a stack of rocks in the woods, you'd infer that it had a designer. But what if you found out that the rocks were actually a living, reproducing thing, with something called "DNA" that carried from one generation to the next?

What the watch/stack of rocks argument fails to acknowledge is that living things are not the same as machines. A building cannot reproduce itself and carry on its DNA to another generation. A wristwatch cannot have babies who carry their traits. A stack of rocks cannot get it on with another stack of rocks and have little infant stacks of rocks who grow up and have more stacks of rocks. This is why the argument for design falls apart when you dissect it: because, in living things, we know for a fact that there is a vehicle to carry traits - called "genes" - from a living thing to its offspring. We know this. And we also know for a fact that we've had billions of years to improve and evolve with each generation, relative to our environment. Are there "gaps" in the evolutionary timeline? Of course. But if you discovered the writings of shakespeare and there were certain verses missing, would you toss them in the trash because there weren't 100% complete?

Anyway, just had to respond to the ol' stack of rocks argument.

[/rant]

 

[Desert_Sky]

PCU? 10chars.

holy sh*& my bad

people against goodness and normalcy, sorry been a while




heres a hint Sgt. Joe Friday

 

[Chairman Cheyco]

PAGAN

People Against Goodness And Niceness



pop quiz, which 1980s flick did that come from?

Dragnet with, Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks.

It was also Goodness and Normalcy I believe.

 

[olllllo]

Does it feel libre to not have the weight of thread closure around your neck, Cheyco?

 

[user 4295]

I have been sitting here attempting to write a reasoned response with regard to my faith in my savior Jesus Christ, but then I realized, I don't have to. There is nothing any of you could say that would shake my faith, nor is there anything I could say that would influence any of you.

The fact is, you can't argue faith. If you could, and I managed to convince someone of my beliefs through the strengths of my arguments, then they would be just as easily convinced of another way of thinking by a better argument.