Religions - Your Opinion

[Ch405 Kn1gh7]

oh jeez. this is the wrong demographic to ask about religion. >.<

Before i say anything else, i think it's worth mentioning i didn't bother reading the 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread. Therefore, anything said in those pages are, obviously, ignored.

I myself am a very spiritual christian. I believe in the one God, the holy trinity. And i believe that that IS the right way to think. BUT (wait and listen, this part's cool) i believe it is futal to force that belief on another, for the simple reason that if there relationship with God is not authentic, then they wont be granted access to heaven. You see, the religion itself is not the important thing. It's the spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. I myself am a nondenominational christian. (Although i have thought about catholocism.) I used to go to church all the time, but ever since we moved we have been going to that church a lot less. But my spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ has not been extinguished.
One of the reasons i think my relationship with Jesus means so much to me is becouse i actually chose him on my own. My parents were always openly christian, but i hadnt been to church since i was a toddler (i faintly remember something about crying in church cause i left my apple in sunday school. i have NO IDEA why i remember that, lol.) Anyways, while i believed there was a God, i never thought about religion until around 5th grade or so. Around then, i found my dad's bible. Instead of reading it, i flipped to the end cover, where a portrat of Jesus nailed to the cross was. I asked my dad (we were in the car, i dont know why he kept his old bible in his truck of all places) "who's this?" My dad looked back at me and said "that's Jesus" (in an actually sincere way). I asked why he was nailed to the cross, and my dad said he died for my sins. I didn't fully understand at the time (if memory serves), but for the first time i started actively thinking about God. After my dad saw me praying one night, he asked me if i wanted to go to church, and i said i did. Then when we went, the pastor asked everyone at the end of the service if they needed a savior, and i turned to my dad and said "what should i do?" I didn't realize how important this was till years later, but he turned to me and said "it's your choice". I'm not sure if he even realizes to this day how important those words were.

Now dont get me wrong. I'm not saying that those people introduced to religion by there parents have any less of a spiritual relationship then me. I would never claim or imply such a thing. I just mean that in my case, coming to God on my own was exactly the spiritual opportunity that i needed. But everyone is different. Getting a spiritual connection to God through a family member might work best for others, as long as there spirituality is genuine.

A question you might ask me is "How do you even know God exists?" It's hard to explain, but God has proven himself to me time and time again. I'm not the type to not question things. I have always been a stickler for cut and clean facts. (Probably why i got along so much better with math then english in school.) I have had spiritual doubts just like anyone else. But God has always proven himself to me, and has always helped me. And looking back at my life, God is the only reason i can really find joy in anything else.

I guess you could also ask me why i think people need my faith to find salvation. Actually, it's not a question of "my faith". You see, a relationship with Jesus is not as narrow as some people make it out to be. The church you go to, or whether you go to church at all, is not the point. Salvation is through Jesus, not through your daily ritual. So we could have differences in our perception of God, but still have the same fundamental beliefs. Church is, of course, a great place to meet other christians. And we, as christians, are supposed to meet with other christians and grow spiritually with them. Church accomplishes it's purposes, and few are as extreme as some people make them out to be. I'm sure i already said this, but i took a break halfway through writing this massive wall of text, and dont remember. XD

Also, i dont like it when people hold up extreme examples like the Phelps family. The Phelps represent not even 0.001% of christian kind. In fact, there not christians at all.

All I can say is Scientology is about the most retarded thing I have ever known. It's NOT a religion it's known to be written by a science fiction writer. Plus it makes people in it crazy, rejecting loving families and stuff.

yep.

[Angantyr]

My apologizes if anything I have said has already been said as I only skimmed through the thread.

The way I see it personally is peoples reasoning behind religion is far from its original intent. Whether religion is real or a confused explaination for the unexplainable it has been molded into such a way that its more or less of a way of justification and an attempt to explain how they feel society or at least there people aka Christians, Muslims, Jews etc should be.

I'm don't believe in religion however as some people know I have an interest in Paganism and Occultism (kind of different but you get the idea) and find a lot of the other worldly stuff interesting which basically has given me some insight onto it and you kind of get that feeling that its just better off to leave them be. Sure it's fun arguing with them but sometimes I just can't be bothered and feel its better off to leave them be.

[OnOneRyder]

Religion to me is an attempt to make us feel like there's more than what we experience everyday, and that this is only one part of our existence and that there is more to come. I think instead of accepting that at this point in time and probably forever we will be unable to answer where we came from...that people have some sort of need for an answer. They're so focused on finding a reason that they've fabricated their own existence into something far fetched simply because the truth is too complex for us to understand. The existence of a god that has simply created the universe is too easy, it's very similar to answering a question with "because". Instead of looking for a logical reason to something, there's a creator who doesn't have to follow any rules of logic or science. He can simply create, destroy, alter and we have to accept it....because. Sorry, but I'm quite content in the fact that the universe is billions and billions of years old and in the tiniest fraction of time we've gone from single cell beings to what we are now and we're simply incapable of answering such enormous questions.

Also...not to offend anyone who believes in a god, but is it simply coincidence that the majority of the people who know the most about or universe and it's existence (astronomers and scientists) do not believe in a god and much of the uneducated, undeveloped people of the world do? Education has given us the freedom to forge our own decisions and more and more are choosing not to believe.

[Furore]

Religion to me is an attempt to make us feel like there's more than what we experience everyday, and that this is only one part of our existence and that there is more to come. I think instead of accepting that at this point in time and probably forever we will be unable to answer where we came from...that people have some sort of need for an answer. They're so focused on finding a reason that they've fabricated their own existence into something far fetched simply because the truth is too complex for us to understand. The existence of a god that has simply created the universe is too easy, it's very similar to answering a question with "because". Instead of looking for a logical reason to something, there's a creator who doesn't have to follow any rules of logic or science. He can simply create, destroy, alter and we have to accept it....because. Sorry, but I'm quite content in the fact that the universe is billions and billions of years old and in the tiniest fraction of time we've gone from single cell beings to what we are now and we're simply incapable of answering such enormous questions.

Also...not to offend anyone who believes in a god, but is it simply coincidence that the majority of the people who know the most about or universe and it's existence (astronomers and scientists) do not believe in a god and much of the uneducated, undeveloped people of the world do? Education has given us the freedom to forge our own decisions and more and more are choosing not to believe.

There are plenty of 'educated people' who have faith in a God or practice one of several religions. I know a few who are educated in a way that actually means something in today's society (the qualifications are on paper).

Let me ask you one thing. You stated that religion to you 'is an attempt to make us feel like there's more than what we experience everyday', but even if there wasn't a God, don't you think there is more than we experience everyday? I highly doubt there's any human individual alive who's experienced everything out there, and their experiences may only be the tip or a facet of something bigger if their subjective reality differs greatly to whatever the objective reality is.

'Education has given us the freedom to forge our own decisions and more and more are choosing not to believe.'

I also disagree with that sentiment and will continue to unless I see anything to indicate it as being true. Aethists and agnostics always existed, though at some points in history they may have kept their mouths shut to avoid a mostly religious crowd. Differing beliefs can have an effect on some people, especially when there's a collective mentality involved...

I have seen plenty of educated people involved in a religion of their choice, just as I've seen a ton of possibly intellectually challenged kids falsely labelling themselves as either aethist or agnostic without even knowing what either word means. It's real cool to be an agnostic these days, yup. Sorry to all the real agnostics out there, I'm only targetting those that misuse the label.

[nix]

In view of the similarities and analogies, one might venture to regard obsessional neurosis as a pathalogical counter part of the formation of religion. And to describe the neurosis as an individual and religion as a universal obsessional neurosis, belief in god is the ultimate illusion

I encourage all you strong believers to read Sigmund Freud critique on religion, it is the ultimate test of faith.

[OnOneRyder]

If you noticed, I spoke about astronomers and those who've educated themselves in other forms of knowledge that pertains to the universe outside our own planet. They're very smart people who came to the conclusion that things are a lot more complex than what we currently understand, and instead of looking for an answer here on earth which there's no proof to it's existence they've looked elsewhere for the answer to where we've come from.

As far as when I said more out there than what we experience everyday, I was talking about an afterlife. Instead of accepting that this is all there is for us, religious people have an incessant belief that when we die our spirit carries on. I believe it's a fear of aknowledging that our death is our final moment, and that there is nothing more for us.

[Zardoch]

Also...not to offend anyone who believes in a god, but is it simply coincidence that the majority of the people who know the most about or universe and it's existence (astronomers and scientists) do not believe in a god and much of the uneducated, undeveloped people of the world do? Education has given us the freedom to forge our own decisions and more and more are choosing not to believe.

*I never stated that religious people are less educated, I said that a majority of the people who are educated in the sciences that teach about our universe do not believe in a deity. I in no way meant to say that someone who believes in a god is of lesser intelligence. I can understand how you came to that conclusion though.

Is it also a coincidence that there is an ever-growing population of brilliant scientists that are seeing the big bang and (macro) evolution for what it is? Scientists who have stopped to look at what they are being told and seeing that the things that are so commonly believed in the scientific world are seemingly intentionally misleading? From what I've seen throughout schools, universities, and practically anywhere where this indoctrinated worldview dominates is a censoring dictatorship that tells me "I", or anyone else for that matter, cannot question their beliefs. People are losing their jobs, being spit on, and overall scoffed at for even mentioning things like God, intelligent design, and Creationism.

Tell me, Ryder, is this the academic freedom you speak of that education has given us or am I right to assume that is has done more harm than good for science and religion alike? Because no matter how hard anyone tries, no one seems to be able to get past the stereotypical undermining assumptions that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, but believes in creationism are generally uneducated morons who just don't "get it". No, I'm not saying that's what you believe, but I'm sure when you're confronted with a creationist, you may immediately assume that because they are a creationist they are not as learned as someone like Richard Dawkins.

But anyway, despite the fact that there are many intelligent men of education who believe in evolution, most people often forget that many of the founding fathers of science were Christians and creationist who did more for science than any secular evolutionist has. Darwin himself only propagated an already created theory while taking all the credit for something he did not create himself.

So in conclusion, just because of a bunch of people agree with each other doesn't add to their credibility of believing in something different. Intelligence has no value if there is no wisdom that substantiates it.

OK two ideas sorry about that. The bible is more then two pages but Most of the stories press these two ideas over and over again. Take the good Samaritan for example the man stops to help the other person even when his own people wouldn't help him. underlying theme be good to your fellow man and you'll go to heaven, or take the golden calve or bull in certain texts. There's only one true god. I know I used common stories but most of the other ones press this point fully.

The fact that many other religions have similar accounts as to what happened in the bible is a testament (/pun) that they are more than just stories grand elders told the next generation. Like, for example, there was a Babylonian tablet that features a man and a woman sitting on each side of a tree and the woman was handing the man an apple. Behind the woman was a snake.

http://ambrosiasociety.org/images/p007_1_01.jpg

The bible itself is becoming more and more testifying about the history of our world as researchers dig deeper into the documents of its scriptures. Hell, not too long ago we found King Solomon's copper mines that was used to help create the temple.

YouTube - BREAKING NEWS: King Solomon's Mines Discovered !

That's barely the tip OF the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discoveries that reveal the bible is not just some orally passed down stories based on illusionary accounts of what happened. Why haven't you heard about this? Well, if news that the bible isn't just some moralistic reference of stories and actually had historical significance, then evolutionist and atheist alike would look like fools, and since most evolutionist are atheist or straightforward anti-religious themselves, that's a big no no for them. So such things are generally downplayed so that such things cannot be found so easily.

Yes, these did exist before religion came to play in the matter My point was the church looked away from these things(turned a blind eye so to speak) their PRIESTS were molesting altar boys. Wars over religion are all over history. The church if they followed what they teach should have taken care of them before they became so much trouble. The crazed lunatics I was referring to were the religious freaks so to say. People who take religion to far. Sorry I didn't clarify all of it.

Yes, this is quite a problem for religion. The people who claim that they are apart of a said religion, but don't practice what they preach. One thing I always consistently point out, however, is that these people, as much as they claim, are NOT apart of whatever religion they assume themselves to be, excluding Islam. Furthermore, for religion like Catholicism, a lot of the original teachings and commandments have been changed to suit HUMANS needs and not God's needs. Not only that, but even when things in the bible weren't changed, there were certain things taken so literally that it became a philosophy.

Like for example Luke Chapter 19, verse 27.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

This verse is apart of a parable Jesus spoke of where Jesus referred to himself. To someone who has not studied the bible or is an atheist, it is easy to assume that this verse was a direct order from Jesus for all Christians to bring non-Christians before him, and kill them. This was one of the verses taken literally by crusaders in Europe, who used it as a way to create an excuse for warring against their enemies.

Now, the truth behind the parable is that is referring to judgment day. The day that all those who do not believe in Jesus will be judged and punished. Yet for the Europeans who really did not follow the teachings of the bible as wisely as a priest might, in their minds it was clear as daylight.

My point is that more often than not, the people who claim to be religious, but do not practice what they preach, should be held responsible for their actions and not for what they assert themselves as. The crusaders were not Christians. The Catholics that revised the Gospel with contradictions and greedy marketing are not Catholics. What men do in the name of God has no barring on God himself. So in reality we must not condemn the actions of religion (except Islam, honestly, as it does say to kill anyone who doesn't believe the way they do), and condemn the actions of men who do not represent the real teachings of their religion.

[Walter Sobchak]

Is it also a coincidence that there is an ever-growing population of brilliant scientists that are seeing the big bang and (macro) evolution for what it is?

What scientists?

Of course you should be fired for teaching creationism. You were hired to teach Biology, not religion. Would you stand up for a teacher that taught that two plus two equaled five? Would you stand up for a teacher that taught that periods go at the beginning of all sentences? Maybe instead of medical school, they should teach exorcism.

You are a parody of your own argument. You claim that there is a "indoctrinated worldview" yet a large percentage of the population refuses to accept evolution. Saying that forcing biology teachers to teach biology is a "censoring dictatorship" is like complaining that factory workers have to put parts in the order they are told. Maybe they should have freedom of expression. If they want, they can open their own factory, just like the plethora of religious schools in the United States.

but I'm sure when you're confronted with a creationist, you may immediately assume that because they are a creationist they are not as learned as someone like Richard Dawkins.

In the realm of biology, of course you would. You would be wrong not to have such an assumption. It would be like someone telling a political scientist that John McCain was going to win the 2008 election.

But anyway, despite the fact that there are many intelligent men of education who believe in evolution, most people often forget that many of the founding fathers of science were Christians and creationist who did more for science than any secular evolutionist has. Darwin himself only propagated an already created theory while taking all the credit for something he did not create himself.

Oh well, that settles it. Is the jury still out on whether the Sun or the Earth are at the center of the solar system? After all, Ptolemy came first.

You can believe in whatever Space God you deem appropriate, but don't expect a bunch of rich white bigots that have been dead for hundreds of years to seal your argument for you.

Don't you also love that in these threads, with the exception of one or two, it's atheists, not the religious that refuse to tolerate the others' religious choices, often citing, ironically, their religion's intolerance?

I never expected this from you, Jin. First of all, it is insulting to compare atheism to a belief in a deity. We don't have prayer meetings, after all. Secondly, who are you specifically referring to? Are you suggesting that people that say there is no God and religions are fictional are trolling? It is as much trolling as saying there is a God is trolling an atheist. Unless you are referring to someone else and I missed it.

And I hate to say it, but there is unintentional humor in a young adult following an Eastern religion touting the trendiness of atheism. Nothing is trendier for middle to upper class white kids then Eastern religions. Sure, Taoism isn't as trendy as Buddhism, but you are in the ballpark.

[Grahf]

The crusaders were not Christians. The Catholics that revised the Gospel with contradictions and greedy marketing are not Catholics. What men do in the name of God has no barring on God himself. So in reality we must not condemn the actions of religion (except Islam, honestly, as it does say to kill anyone who doesn't believe the way they do), and condemn the actions of men who do not represent the real teachings of their religion.

For the most part, Masamune, I agree with you. Christianity at its core is not what the Catholic Church has everyone believing it is today. Let's think about this; what do Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny really have to do with Jesus Christ? Honestly? That being said, I believe this particular religion has been used as somewhat of a power tool in the past, to say the least (i.e. Constantine, the Spanish Inquisition, Hitler, etc.). That is not to say that at its core, Christianity isn't an admirable religion to believe in. I personally believe it's gone too far with its Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and however many other denominations there are.

However, there is wide debate as to whether or not Muslims believe they have the right to "kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do." The word "Islam" means "submission to the will of God," from what I've read. Anyway, many Muslims believe very similarly to the way Christians do when it comes to taking another human's life; the only difference being that they condone death only in the most grievous of situations, mostly relating to that of self defense or the preservation of justice. That is a big difference though, to forbidding the taking of another human's life all together.

As for myself, I'm agnostic. Allow me to sum that up for you, roughly, by quoting a fellow member.

Originally posted by Richard M. Nixon
While I don't believe in a God, I don't deny the possibility of his or her existence.

[Jin]

It's real cool to be an agnostic these days, yup.

Here ye, here ye. Although I still think it's "cooler" to be an atheist these days, "agnostics" are catching up. Or at least the "I'm too busy partying to even think about who or what I am" that passes for agnosticism these days. Philosophical indifference is probably a better term, but they can barely pronounce agnosticism, so maybe not.

Don't you love how in these threads the majority of theists or spiritualists answer the question without trolling those with differing opinions until attacked, but a comparatively large amount of atheists and those that claim to be "rational" can't help but act like trolling 13 year olds?

Don't you also love that in these threads, with the exception of one or two, it's atheists, not the religious that refuse to tolerate the others' religious choices, often citing, ironically, their religion's intolerance?

I sure hope these forums aren't a microcosm of society as a whole. What a stupid world we would live in.

[zodiark12]

I don't believe in most religions. Most of the western religions were based on one single idea one god be good or go to hell. The bible most of my family take seriously I was born and raised catholic and went to a catholic school for years before attending a public school to graduate. Look at what it has brought to us war, priests that play with little boys, and crazed lunatics. I'm not saying all religion is a bad thing. There are religions out there that teach fundamentals that every person should live by. What I'm trying to get across is if it works for you work it.

[Jin]

Most of the western religions were based on one single idea one god be good or go to hell.

A: Those are two ideas, not one.

B: Western Religious thought is based on several ideas, not two. As you say you were raised Catholic, I'm sure you can attest that the bible is more than a page long.

Look at what it has brought to us war, priests that play with little boys, and crazed lunatics

War, pedophilia and mental instability all existed before Abraham.

[zodiark12]

OK two ideas sorry about that. The bible is more then two pages but Most of the stories press these two ideas over and over again. Take the good Samaritan for example the man stops to help the other person even when his own people wouldn't help him. underlying theme be good to your fellow man and you'll go to heaven, or take the golden calve or bull in certain texts. There's only one true god. I know I used common stories but most of the other ones press this point fully.
Yes, these did exist before religion came to play in the matter My point was the church looked away from these things(turned a blind eye so to speak) their PRIESTS were molesting altar boys. Wars over religion are all over history. The church if they followed what they teach should have taken care of them before they became so much trouble. The crazed lunatics I was referring to were the religious freaks so to say. People who take religion to far. Sorry I didn't clarify all of it.

[Jin]

Changing gears for a moment.

but I'm sure when you're confronted with a creationist, you may immediately assume that because they are a creationist they are not as learned as someone like Richard Dawkins.

At the same time, when someone brings up evolution or the big bang, you may immediately assume that said person is irreligious. What you people have to realize is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There's absolutely no reason that someone cannot believe in evolution and creationism. Being a creationist does not necessarily mean you think the world was created 6000 years ago. Likewise, believing in the big bang and evolution does not mean you don't believe God began the process.

Science and religion are in two completely different spheres. Science deals with practical matters that are, with time, comprehensible. Religion deals with the unknown, things that likely cannot be known. If anything, people should be comparing religion to philosophy (as that's essentially what religion is), not science.

Unfortunately this mistake is made by the religious and irreligious alike. Humans. Such silly creatures.

[Zardoch]

At the same time, when someone brings up evolution or the big bang, you may immediately assume that said person is irreligious. What you people have to realize is that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. There's absolutely no reason that someone cannot believe in evolution and creationism. Being a creationist does not necessarily mean you think the world was created 6000 years ago. Likewise, believing in the big bang and evolution does not mean you don't believe God began the process.

Yeah, there's a handful of people who believe in both evolution and creationism, or more specificially, intelligent design. Problem is evolution and creationism contradict one another, so it'd be kind of strange to believe in something that tries to refute the other side.

Science and religion are in two completely different spheres. Science deals with practical matters that are, with time, comprehensible. Religion deals with the unknown, things that likely cannot be known. If anything, people should be comparing religion to philosophy (as that's essentially what religion is), not science.

And yet somehow some of the greatest scientists who advanced science were Christians and creationist. They built their work off of their belief of God and a young earth. You see it's a funny thing because what a lot of people in the science community preach is this naturalism, which is a core of atheism, being that they say that science can explain everything naturally. Yet none of them realize it's possible to advance science with a religious faith guiding your research. Many of these same scientists founded the basis for modern science itself.

What scientists?

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science
EDIT: Here's a better list of even more modern scientists who have become 'skeptical' of evolution and everything it entrails.

Dissent from Darwin

Click 'Download the List' to get a PDF file to see the list.

There's (now) three list for you of many scientists, many of which were evolutionist-turned-creationist.

EDIT #2: Here's an online book of testimony from 5 scientists were originally were atheistic or believed in evolution and became Christians and creationist alike after scientifically looking at the evidence from their knowledge learned in college.

The Evolution Crisis

I implore you to read every page. These men are exactly the kind of people I spoke of that found something that directed them away from atheistic and evolutionary beliefs through science.

Of course you should be fired for teaching creationism. You were hired to teach Biology, not religion. Would you stand up for a teacher that taught that two plus two equaled five? Would you stand up for a teacher that taught that periods go at the beginning of all sentences? Maybe instead of medical school, they should teach exorcism.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Evolutionist, often who are atheist, are the first ones to assume there is no evidence for creationism, and thus do not think of it as a science. They are so entrenched in a body of misconception from public media and the like that they are basically drilled into attacking anything that does not fit their beliefs. At the same time, they know absolutely knowing about creationism or the people who do the research and despite that, they don't care. Assuming that creationist are idiots, they more often then not stick to ad hominems and can't comprehend any statistics that are shown to them for creationism, tearing it apart because of an inherent bias that does not look at the facts. Again, if it does not fit what they want to hear, they don't want to hear it.

You are a parody of your own argument. You claim that there is a "indoctrinated worldview" yet a large percentage of the population refuses to accept evolution. Saying that forcing biology teachers to teach biology is a "censoring dictatorship" is like complaining that factory workers have to put parts in the order they are told. Maybe they should have freedom of expression. If they want, they can open their own factory, just like the plethora of religious schools in the United States.

This would make sense if anyone assumed that the kind of biology being taught is true, when most of it is based on historic science and not observational, tested science. So indeed, when I look around at our schools and communities and see so many people who shallowly believe in such things like evolution, it is no mere claim to see that much of the world and its view has been indoctrinated by these same people. I think a good documentary film on the similar subject would be "Indoctrinated U", as one man and a small crew interviews many people from universities, students and teachers alike, revealing at how instilled such beliefs are. Quite often, he was thrown out for simply wanting to ask legit questions.

In the realm of biology, of course you would. You would be wrong not to have such an assumption. It would be like someone telling a political scientist that John McCain was going to win the 2008 election.

I'm not just talking about biology, James. I'm talking about many types of science. Today, it's simply become a religion and in acting like a dictating religion, it aims to push any views that does not agree with it (e.g. creationism) aside even when there are valid claims and research done within the group because that would mean THEIR beliefs might change. In the end, it is very wrong to make this assumption because you take away the freedom of science and that is to ask questions. When you take away that freedom simply because you don't like what the other person believes, then it no longer becomes science. It becomes a personal struggle for what you believe and not the search for TRUTH.

Oh well, that settles it. Is the jury still out on whether the Sun or the Earth are at the center of the solar system? After all, Ptolemy came first.

The ironic thing about that is Galileo, the founding father of much of modern science today, was a believer of the bible and a Creator. I guess then since he was a creationist, he must be a nutball, right?

You can believe in whatever Space God you deem appropriate, but don't expect a bunch of rich white bigots that have been dead for hundreds of years to seal your argument for you.

You would call people like Galileo, John Ray, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, and dozens of other creationists, many of them founding fathers of modern science 'rich white bigots'? Wow, I guess we should throw away all of their discoveries that helped shape science and even evolution itself since they're so darn crazy, hmm?

They might not seal my argument, but they sure do raise a problem for people who believe religion and science cannot coexist, minus Jin here. My point is if the many founding fathers of modern science weren't naturalistic, Darwinian believers, that gives enough credit for modern creationist to this day to show what they do is not just a bunch of crap. If you can't accept that, then you prove the very thing I've been talking about when it comes to evolutionist and atheist.

I never expected this from you, Jin. First of all, it is insulting to compare atheism to a belief in a deity. We don't have prayer meetings, after all. Secondly, who are you specifically referring to? Are you suggesting that people that say there is no God and religions are fictional are trolling? It is as much trolling as saying there is a God is trolling an atheist. Unless you are referring to someone else and I missed it.

Atheism is as much of a religion as Theism and evolution. Religion does not need a deity to be a religion, however, merely a conceptual idea that is deeply believed by millions of people. People who would defend themselves to the bitter end just to justify a meaning that has no meaning. Here I speak of atheism, a religion that while saying they don't believe in a God(s), they work truly hard to justify themselves while at the same time forcing their logical reasoning on other people to, in the end, tell them how stupid they are for believing in what their opinion is, an illusion.

Now, no doubt my response will be met with more satirical scoffing and sarcastic patronizing rhetoric, but understand this. Your argument is not with me. Your argument is with yourself, for I do not expect any of what I say to be taken seriously by you at this point. Until then, you should begin searching for answers without a stone heart.

[Jin]

I never expected this from you, Jin. First of all, it is insulting to compare atheism to a belief in a deity. We don't have prayer meetings, after all. Secondly, who are you specifically referring to? Are you suggesting that people that say there is no God and religions are fictional are trolling? It is as much trolling as saying there is a God is trolling an atheist. Unless you are referring to someone else and I missed it.

I'm not comparing atheism to a belief in a deity except that they are both viewpoints. And look around you. Think of all the threads that have been made in ID or in GC. A healthy majority either start or end up being anti-religious, troll fests, which is why, I've always assumed, you often find yourself defending religion, even though you're an atheist, because a stupid argument is a stupid argument. It's not as bad as it used to be now that the BOD are gone, but with the exception of one or two religious nuts that usually go as fast as they come, the flame wars in these threads are started by those who are bitter towards religion. Perhaps it's because they have something to prove, who knows. But no, I wasn't implying that saying "I don't believe in God" is trolling. What I'm saying is that more often than not, you'll see "You believe in God? You're stupid." (albeit with worse grammar) far more often than you'll see, "You don't believe in God? You're stupid."

And I hate to say it, but there is unintentional humor in a young adult following an Eastern religion touting the trendiness of atheism. Nothing is trendier for middle to upper class white kids then Eastern religions. Sure, Taoism isn't as trendy as Buddhism, but you are in the ballpark.

There's no need to beat around the bush. Check the date of that post in which I said I was a Daoist. I wouldn't call myself that these days. It wasn't that I was trying to be trendy so much as a silly attempt to label myself as something. People are stupid and I'm no exception. I genuinely believe in various Daoist principles, but I most certainly jumped the gun there when I called myself a Daoist. Trial and error is better than observation in my opinion.

[Walter Sobchak]

I'm not comparing atheism to a belief in a deity except that they are both viewpoints. And look around you. Think of all the threads that have been made in ID or in GC. A healthy majority either start or end up being anti-religious, troll fests, which is why, I've always assumed, you often find yourself defending religion, even though you're an atheist, because a stupid argument is a stupid argument. It's not as bad as it used to be now that the BOD are gone, but with the exception of one or two religious nuts that usually go as fast as they come, the flame wars in these threads are started by those who are bitter towards religion. Perhaps it's because they have something to prove, who knows. But no, I wasn't implying that saying "I don't believe in God" is trolling. What I'm saying is that more often than not, you'll see "You believe in God? You're stupid." (albeit with worse grammar) far more often than you'll see, "You don't believe in God? You're stupid."

Sure, you are right. We both spent most of our time defending a religion we weren't members of. While no one could accuse me of being a Christian apologist, I am never going to sit here and say that Christianity is the cause of all the worlds problems, like the BoD used to.

I think I need to clarify something about my atheism. While I don't believe in a God, I don't deny the possibility of his or her existence. I know that might sound like nonsense, but it makes sense to me. I don't think my Dolphins are going to win next week, but I know they can. If I really wanted to classify my atheism, I would say its a lack in the belief of deities that are most often peddled around. But if anyone calls that agnosticism, I will kill them.

There's no need to beat around the bush. Check the date of that post in which I said I was a Daoist. I wouldn't call myself that these days. It wasn't that I was trying to be trendy so much as a silly attempt to label myself as something. People are stupid and I'm no exception. I genuinely believe in various Daoist principles, but I most certainly jumped the gun there when I called myself a Daoist. Trial and error is better than observation in my opinion.

Good to have you back, then. A healthy understanding of all religions will lead to an adoption of some principles from each, except for maybe Scientology. For the record, though, I wasn't making the claim that you were being trendy. I respect your intelligence too much for that. I just found it odd that you would say atheism is trendier than agnosticism.

See Jin, this is why I love you. I almost called you a trendwhore, and you respond like an adult. Now I understand fully the points you were trying to make, instead of you using terms that are better fit for Greek theater than an internet message board.

[Jin]

It depends what kind of Buddhism you're referring to. Zen (Chan) Buddhism is very similar to Daoism because it was directly influenced by it and may even be considered a hybrid, depending on your outlook. Some of the other Mahayana Buddhisms are quite different from Daoism (Chang Tzu's Daoism I mean, not the religious kind). Although Daoists in China were amazed how similar their religions were when Buddhist missionaries came, so there's definitely some similarities.

I've always found Chan Buddhism to be impossible. Not to say that it isn't the path to enlightenment, but I've never been able to tune out the desire for enlightenment. I just can't do it. I read a Chan book once that was a series of quotes from a contemporary Korean Zen 'master' which essentially told me I was silly for reading the book in the first place. It was a real treat to read actually, just because of the humour.

[Sinister]

Actually Zen Buddhism sides a great deal on K'ungfu tzu's side, which would not impress Taoists. The reasons for this belongs to the fact that Zen monks were impressed with how Confucianism dealt with the Yetsahara or the wayward-inclination of mankind in it's social ordering. They thought it particularly mature and it imprinted on them.

Also, In terms of dogma, I'd have to disagree. Zen Buddhism relies too heavily on the vanity of it's practitioners to reach it's end result. The students flatter themselves that because of their rigorous training that they are actual students whereas others are treated almost as dabblers.

Zen also does not follow what I would consider the three greatest parts of Taoism, which are:

The Uncarved Block(Pu) Or Preserving Potentiality.

Instantaneous action without contemplation (Wu Wei)

And The Duality of Life (Yin and Yang)

Not even getting into religious aspects of it all...
But they do have spookily similar concepts of time and place.

Dogen's Shobogenzo proves the similar concepts, that's true. But apart from that and the vague similarity between the ideas of a universal totality, I have to argue that they are different. They do not directly contradict each other. But they are distinct and different.


Zen is also much more orientated to mental training and meditation. Whereas Taoists are more concerned with working in concert with the forces about them.


To put it simply...

Zen is working on becoming awakened or enlightened.

Taoism is working on what to do afterwards.

That having been said...ANY Taoist would find it beneficial to study Zen. And vice versa, likewise.

-Sin

[Jin]

Instantaneous action without contemplation (Wu Wei)

I may not be an expert, but everything I've read on Zen emphasizes this. They don't use the exact term Wuwei, but they emphasize the importance of spontaneity.

Perhaps we are looking at different sects of Zen, but in everything I've read, action without contemplation is integral.

The students flatter themselves that because of their rigorous training that they are actual students whereas others are treated almost as dabblers.

That's the difference between theory and practice. Eastern religions can be hypocritical just as Western ones. In theory, Zen is anti-institutional.

Of course, I've been studying Chan Buddhism mostly and haven't read up much on the changes that took place when Chan entered Japan.

[Sinister]

I'd never heard of Zen teaching that. That's interesting. Taoism teaches that because it corresponds to the actions of the Tao itself and mimics it's interactions. But now that you mention it, I do seem to recall something akin to that mentioned in Herrigal's book Zen in the Art of Archery, about not waiting to say the word "Now" before releasing the bowstring.

However, WuWei would also imply that you already are imbued with the virtues that Lao Tzu mentions in the Tao te Ching...and can act on spontaneity because those virtues(treasure) are second nature. So to act with Te without having to contemplate whether or not to. I'm not sure if that corresponds with Zen too much...

If so, I imagine, it is as you suspect, a ghost brought over from the monk's study of China's Taoism. I wonder why they teach it, though...

-Sin

[Led Zeppelin]

Personally I find religion to be a very deep topic....I was brought up as a Christian go to church everyday and had to memorize parts of the bible >.>...But after sometime I lost belief in it...Seemed kind of far fetched....But if you believe in the bible it's alright whatever floats your boat :]... But now I'm more or less indeciseive about the whole topic, but Buddhism is starting to catch my eye...I like how it focuses on how to maintain peace and tranquility =3

[Mike Piatza]

I was reading A brave New World for a spell, but I couldn't understand anything. I forgot I turn that back in.




EDIT BY MODERATOR: Please lengthen your posts in future. I realise that you haven't been here in a while and may need reminding of the rules, so please read them before posting in the forums to avoid warnings.

[Chez Daja]

The last two posts really didn't need posting. If you're going to post, at least make it relevent to the actual conversation instead of commentary about things that you could just PM or VM to people. And, more directed to the last post: please try to make your posts a little longer. The book is a good read, but if you're not going to comment more about it and include your personal opinion on it, then it's really not worth posting about. I realise there have been other very short posts in this topic, but if my father hadn't fallen ill and if people had used the report button a little more, it could've been editted and therefore better dealt with.

No official warnings to be issued in this post, but a reminder to stay on the actual topic; your opinion.

To all: No replies to be made to this post unless you'd like to face editting or a possible warning. If you want to comment to me, then PM or VM me directly. Thanks and have a great night.

[IceColdPillow]

Well religion, I believe that religion is the basis for independence. While I'm not on being one of those christian snobs who preach their sole ownership of what is right [or those Athiests who nag how religion ruins the world], I am saying that religion is actually a prime example of how far civilizations have come. A world without religion and faith and choice, is a dull, monotonous and downright scary world. BUT,there is a thin line that religion and faith has crossed throughout history, forcing those to believe their god, it must be a choice. A mans religion should be between a man and his god [or lack therof], not based on what some church or group demands you too.

On the other hand,take away the choice of religion in general outright,by having no faith at all, you risk losing individualism and choice.,For example, take in 1984 by George Orwell, a book about a totalitarian regime, there is no religion or really independence. Also, look at really any futuritic based play, movie , or book, where religion is gone, everything is the same and science dominates while the faith is gone.
Self admittedly, I'm very conflicted between faith and no-faith, but it is that idea that i can choose whatever i want is why I believe that religion should be an optional part of our lives.

Now, science vs religion. This has been a battle for as long as man could think. Religion[lets use christianity as an example since this pertains to them mostly] believes that God made everything, everything was made for a reason, the universe, the air you breath. Science on the other hand, denies the existence of a god by showing proof that things happen in nature, without a godly force. But, the true conflict comes down to our origin, the beginning of our universe. Where science cannot explain any further, does religion take off and proclaim that God made the universe, hmmm? Thats where I believe both co-exist maybe? Basically, in my opinion, religion and science say the same thing, just in different languages. Both are dependent upon one another to answer and disprove what the other says, it will be a never ending battle.

Whoa, i rambled haha sorry if something dosen't make sense in that haha

[OnOneRyder]

I personally don't think that science needs religion, nor does religion need science. I feel they're totally independent of one another. Religion tries to explain that which science has not yet been able to explain, or that which conflicts the supposed occurrences in the bible. Science however, fundamentally is completely unbiased. Yes there are occasions where you have extremely biased scientists making wild theories based on their personal opinions, but I think for the most part they're trying to do the same thing. Work out all the questions using evidence provided for us by time and the past, working it out for the purpose of advancement. Religion is stuck on the past, and while I don't think it's entirely catastrophic to a society I feel that it's unnecessary due to problems it causes. It clouds minds, causes selfish actions and hinders the advancement of our species.

[_Cloud_]

i find it hard to believe in something that i cant see most of my day i have a person coming up to me telling me that the world will be saved and that the lord will come and save us from this and i know someone who gave their whole life to this and they never been the same since and that what were they told to be like this giving up everything for something we know nothing about

the thing is with me is that if this is all true in someway then why hasnt something been done yet why hasnt this being come down and saved us in this time when help is need people and getting killed people and losing homes families people fighting getting hurt and all these viruses and sickness in the world

[RagnaToad]

i find it hard to believe in something that i cant see most of my day i have a person coming up to me telling me that the world will be saved and that the lord will come and save us from this and i know someone who gave their whole life to this and they never been the same since and that what were they told to be like this giving up everything for something we know nothing about

the thing is with me is that if this is all true in someway then why hasnt something been done yet why hasnt this being come down and saved us in this time when help is need people and getting killed people and losing homes families people fighting getting hurt and all these viruses and sickness in the world

Woh. You actually managed to post a ten line post with only 2 dots... Oh no, you didn't use ANY punctuation...

My thought on religions is simple:

If someone wants to believe in a transcendental being/world and gets strength from his belief, I can only encourage that.

What I despise about some religions is that they tend to have a monopoly on the truth. They're not open to people who differ from them, even though it is not necessarily their choice.

I find it truly sad that in big religions, there's always a small group of extremists who give their religion, and any religion in general really, a bad name. Somehow that most often happens to religions based on an ancient script. But it's a shame that those terrorists give themselves the same name as (for example) regular muslims cary. It does no honour to the muslim faith and just gives the stupid ones amongst us (including politicians) more reason to create fear and paranoia. Really a shame.

Truth: Religion can do many good things for a person or group
Sad truth: It tends to lead to aggressive conflicts due to minor differences.

Christians are Jews.
Christians are muslims.
And so on...
Why fight?

Nothing more to it.

[Jeremy]

Christians are muslims.

Muslims are not Christians. Do you know anything? Muslims believe in a completely different God.

[Alpha]

Muslims are not Christians. Do you know anything? Muslims believe in a completely different God.

Technically, they don't.

Have you heard of the concept of the Abrahamic faiths? Both Christianity and Islam are descendants of Judaism. Jesus is a prophet in the Islamic tradition. They read (and learn) his comments in the Koran. Yahweh, Allah, and the Christian God (the Father), are the same being. Christianity also holds the concept of the Divine Mystery of the Holy Trinity. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are separate and one. It's a mystery, don't dwell on that too much. Easy answer however, is that they are the same. Mohammad did not teach the Arabs to believe in an entirely new deity, so he was clearly building on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Personally, I'm a liberal Catholic. I believe in Heaven, but I'm not so sure about Hell, and I believe that anyone can go to Heaven. Jesus said that to love our neighbours and to love God are the most important lessons. That summarises Jesus' message. But if Jesus thinks that just because someone didn't get all these special oils rubbed on their forehead that they can't be saved, then that's not really loving one's neighbour, is it? Sending Muslims to Hell for not believing in the Christian concept of (what is really the same) religion is not loving them. Provided people don't kill and rape and do stuff that most countries criminalise, then you'll be all good. Remember that Christianity doesn't have a high horse. In the Crusades we killed tens of thousands of Jews in the Pogroms, and tens of thousands of Muslims in the Holy Land.

The Bible does have lessons, Rags. Just like how one can learn from a textbook. The lessons however are largely narratives, and need to be placed in context and read critically, not literally.

I don't believe in conversion. I think forcing one's beliefs onto another is wrong. Especially because religion and culture are linked. To convert someone would be to dislocate them from their ancestry and culture. Choosing to convert is a lot different though.