407 replies to this topic

[Razven]

General, on 18 Apr 2009, 20:43, said:

Razven, on 18 Apr 2009, 10:40, said:

Buddhism is more of a philosophy of life rather than a religion, personally I see little to no conflict when a person says Christian-Buddhist

It does have heaven and hell concepts and reincarnation thing, which you cannot both agree reincarnation and God's personal creation Buddhism is a religion it even has its own ritual : meditation, though it is used in other religions as well. Just write : Buddhist Hell to google images and see for yourself ( It personally scares the shit out of me, its not that a peacefull religion at all as so much person insists )

Over the years, Buddhism and Taoism have mingled and have 'traded' customs and beliefs. The true original Buddhism does not contain heaven, hell or the like. In a overly simplified version of it: Buddhism wishes for men to rise above the need for revenge, therefore reducing suffering. Do good, even if it's only for your benefit as what goes around, comes around.

Now Taoism is scary, 18 wonderful layers of hell, each with its own little niche of torture. Of a never ending cycle of life, afterlife and rebirth. Oh and every good deed you do makes you one step closer to reaching to become a God, each bad deed you to makes you go back 10 steps.

[CommanderJB]

I'd put myself down as an agnostic. I think that classical religions are simply too stifling and too set in their traditional ways to appreciate that books written several thousand years ago and ruthlessly edited the living daylights out of since by very human people simply don't provide you with the truth about history and the truth about a God whose defining characteristics are apparently exactly those of the society that spawned it. Even liberal interpretations of the texts as parables are, while no doubt useful for formulating a belief system, not always relevant to the drastically different of our understanding of the universe today to when their bases were written.
That said I'm completely positive that we can see only a very small slice of what is a much larger existence. There is absolutely every chance that there is a god (or something like it anyway) - I just don't think any religion out there acknowledges that traditional beliefs are the result of human society, not something ordained by the word of a higher power. To believe that an all-powerful god would be interested only in one minuscule group of an insignificant species on a backwater planet in the middle of an infinite universe is frankly a little selfish, and I'll never be able to fathom how a compassionate god can send billions of people who've never had a chance to conform to an arbitrary set of teachings laid down in a dusty book to everlasting torment in 'hell', let alone condone the 'evil' of most of the group that do in fact have the opportunity to conform to it. Saying 'oh but God gave us a choice as to whether we want to join Him or not, thus showing his infinite compassion' doesn't suggest anything of the sort to me; it's a bit like tossing a string of crumbs at a horde of rampaging lemmings when you could just plop a barrier on the edge of the cliff.
Regardless, silly similes aside, yes, I do think there's far more out there than we understand, and it probably includes something far grander than our own intelligences; and no, I don't think that any Earthly religion has a freaking clue what it is, and neither do I.

[Darkfire Angel]

I never voted, I define myself as a militant transhumanistic atheist; I feel that you should replace Atheist in the poll with non-religious. Atheism isn't a form of religion or belief.

[Alias]

It is still a belief system, nonetheless.

Edited by Alias, 18 April 2009 - 19:48.

[Ion Cannon!]

You believe there is no god, but thats still a belief.

[Z_mann]

Orthodox Christian.

[Crymson]

Atheism for me. Religion complicates things.

That and I believe in science not imaginary tales that have been watered down over the past 4000 years or so.

[ultimentra]

Furry alert! On a related note, I was just the subject of a recruiting attempt by a Jahovas Witness....

[Chyros]

ultimentra, on 22 Apr 2009, 7:16, said:

On a related note, I was just the subject of a recruiting attempt by a Jahovas Witness....

Yeah, me and my friends too a few weeks ago, too. When he replied with "hmmm, that's pretty bad" when we informed him that all of us are studying chemistry, we sent him off, though .

[Dauth]

I argued so efficiently that the last two I saw ran off. I am 'atheist' in this poll but I do resent the term, just as I resent the Atheist Society at Leeds Uni. There is no reason for people who do not believe to be lumped together.

[Stinger]

If you're going to recruit people for a religious cult then you might as well get some pretty girls to do it because no one is going to listen to the gospel of a wizened old man.

[-Xv-]

Science

[TehKiller]

Dauth, on 22 Apr 2009, 8:44, said:

I argued so efficiently that the last two I saw ran off. I am 'atheist' in this poll but I do resent the term, just as I resent the Atheist Society at Leeds Uni. There is no reason for people who do not believe to be lumped together.

Atheist=Person who does not believe in a god/religion
Person=Does not believe in religion
Person=Atheist

You may find the dude proudly spreading the word that God doesnt exist to be annoying and dont want to have anything to do with him but that doesnt change the fact that youre an atheist. Same deal with Christians, If you believe in God youre an Christian even though there multiple christian religions whose only thing in common is the faith in God.

[Golan]

TehKiller, on 22 Apr 2009, 11:46, said:

If you believe in God youre an Christian

Uh, no you aren't. Even believing in the Christian God doesn't per se mean that you are a Christian.

Labeling someone "Atheist" in a comparison of different religions is like labeling the pope a "Theist". It's certainly not wrong but oversimplifies the situation beyond what is reasonable in the context.

Edited by Golan, 22 April 2009 - 11:32.

[Wizard]

Before this goes any further into the definitions of Christianity, I am moving this to the Philosopher's Corner.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Edited by Wizard, 22 April 2009 - 11:05.

[CommanderJB]

Sounds like it leaves horrible burns...

[TehKiller]

Golan, on 22 Apr 2009, 11:51, said:

TehKiller, on 22 Apr 2009, 11:46, said:

If you believe in God youre an Christian

Uh, no you aren't. Even believing in the Christian God doesn't per se mean that you are a Christian.

Of course not but 99% of the non-believers will say that you are

[Golan]

Beside the point that this is simply not true, it is really not appropriate as an argument for such a discussion - you even deconstructed it yourself. This generalization is exactly what Dauth addressed with his position.

Edited by Golan, 22 April 2009 - 18:55.

[amazin]

catholic

i dont really ever go to church, but i still believe that the world is much to complicated to be pure coincidence

plus an organized religion is a good way to have guidelines on how you choose to live your life, becuase following the ideas of a religion has certain principles that you have to follow

[WNxMastrefubu]

TehKiller, on 22 Apr 2009, 14:04, said:

Golan, on 22 Apr 2009, 11:51, said:

TehKiller, on 22 Apr 2009, 11:46, said:

If you believe in God youre an Christian

Uh, no you aren't. Even believing in the Christian God doesn't per se mean that you are a Christian.

Of course not but 99% of the non-believers will say that you are

depends where u live, if your in rome and u say "i believe in god" they assume christian, if in isreal, you'd be assumed a jew, and if in turkey, you'd be assumed a muslim. /examples

Edited by WNxMastrefubu, 23 April 2009 - 02:49.

[Whitey]

By my general outlook on life and philosophy, I should be agnostic. But I was raised a protestant Christian and will likely remain so.

It still bothers me when science is discussed as more practical than other beliefs, as it is still a belief, and all beliefs are rooted in uncertainty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be beliefs.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 23 April 2009 - 03:41.

[amazin]

people who "believe" in science tend to think they are the smartest people in the room, and i see quite a few flaws in the idea of evolution, or at least how it is presented. (for example, in the newspaper i read that a fish had evolved to better suvive in its habitat by shedding its "armor" when really you could tell that it was just suffering from complications due to pollution)

while i dont literally believe a lot in the bible as anything but a metaphor (genesis included), and i do believe in adaptations that animals have to their habitats, i do believe that it was by design from god


and no, i am not one of those catholics who goes around saying, "you dont believe in jesus, your going to HELL!!!"

[ultimentra]

Though I have been taught it, and it has been forced upon me many times, I do not believe in creationism. Even though I am Christian, I believe there is a high possibility that God and The Big Band theory along with evolution are extreme parallels, one told in the form of a story, the other in a theory.

[Dauth]

Rorschach, on 23 Apr 2009, 4:40, said:

By my general outlook on life and philosophy, I should be agnostic. But I was raised a protestant Christian and will likely remain so.

It still bothers me when science is discussed as more practical than other beliefs, as it is still a belief, and all beliefs are rooted in uncertainty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be beliefs.

-Rorschach

You can take any aspect of science and test it, either in a lab, or with a case study. Its replicable, I've yet to see someone part the Red Sea under verifiable conditions.

[Golan]

Rorschach, on 23 Apr 2009, 3:40, said:

By my general outlook on life and philosophy, I should be agnostic. But I was raised a protestant Christian and will likely remain so.

It still bothers me when science is discussed as more practical than other beliefs, as it is still a belief, and all beliefs are rooted in uncertainty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be beliefs.

-Rorschach

What kind of "science" are you talking about here? There's hardly any reason not to "believe" in gravitation, electrodynamics or chemistry - it's there in one way or another, even if our models are incorrect it doesn't mean that we'll float into space the day this is discovered.
Now if we are talking about quantum mechanics or string theories... you can surely disagree with those (though I'd really like to see your argumentation against QM), but what's the matter? It really doesn't say much about our daily livings unless you are a scientific person in the first place.

Science openly admits this uncertainty though and it is actually an integral part of SCIENCE!.
Regardless, I have to disagree with seeing the "believe" in science as comparable to believing in religion - it seems like a problem of language not being precise enough. "Believing" in a scientific theory would be better described as accepting sth. as an appropriate approximation or simply ruling out the alternatives as less appropriate. Just because you find it reasonable that your girlfriend doesn't cheat on you doesn't mean that you believe in it. Science does not (seek to) offer The Truth, so there's no way anyone could believe in a scientific truth - Religion claims to be right while Science claims to be the best empiric description currently available.
If there is someone truly believing in science in a religious way, this sole fact makes his believe pseudo-scientific as it is not compatible to fundamental scientific principles.

Dauth, on 23 Apr 2009, 7:32, said:

Rorschach, on 23 Apr 2009, 4:40, said:

By my general outlook on life and philosophy, I should be agnostic. But I was raised a protestant Christian and will likely remain so.

It still bothers me when science is discussed as more practical than other beliefs, as it is still a belief, and all beliefs are rooted in uncertainty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be beliefs.

-Rorschach

You can take any aspect of science and test it, either in a lab, or with a case study. Its replicable, I've yet to see someone part the Red Sea under verifiable conditions.

So only because you don't have a divine prophet in your lab staff you can overrule a historical eye-witness account?

Edited by Golan, 23 April 2009 - 08:01.