NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your religion?

Well I'm supposed to be a Catholic, but I dislike the Chruch. So I'm an alacartist! :p

Protestant

I am a Catholic

Hindu here,

You know third most popular religion in the world?

not putting us on your damn poll...mutter...

btw- why'd the poll close?

i would call myself a-religious in that i don't believe anything exists, i don't believe nothing exists, i don't really believe in anything at all because i really don't care either way - religion simply isn't part of my life.

i do, however, support science against religion whenever the two clash (eg over the creation debate) because i'm scientific by nature (and family and school), i go by what i can see and by what evidence there is, and i have no faith - hence science roolz and this is one of the few places where religion does become part of my life

Atheism ain't exactly a religion, but I'm atheist.

I am an Athiest, and veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery proud of it.

Atheism is not a religion.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Hindu here,

You know third most popular religion in the world?

not putting us on your damn poll...mutter...

btw- why'd the poll close?

I dident know hindu was the third bigest! wow cool! What is the second and first?

Atheism is not a religion.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Same here. w00t.

I'm a Crab

Atheism as a pure concept isn't a religion. In practice, it's close enough to being a religion to it may as well be called one.

I'm a prosopotherian self-realised neo-pagan (try saying THAT ten times, quickly).

Agnostic/atheist

Also want to note atheism is not a religion (belief yes religion no)

I dident know hindu was the third bigest! wow cool! What is the second and first?

if I'm not mistaken - Christianity (more than half of which is made up of Catholicism) and then islam

I'm a Protestant/Baptist

There is no name for what I am besides...sick. j/k

Nah, I´m an atheist, though I´m a baptised protestant. My parents didn´t give in when I tried to convince them I didn´t want to.

Agnostic/Buddhist. Where are the bahai/hindu/sikh/etc options?

Church of Lemon Meringue

I dident know hindu was the third bigest! wow cool! What is the second and first?

Well I'm a Muslim, Islam is the second biggest religion in the world (fastest growing by birth and conversion). Christianity is the current biggest religion but if current trends follow Islam will over take soon after India overtakes China population wise. I'm aware India is mostly Hindu but has one of the biggest Muslim populations in the world.

I have Christian, Hindu, Muslim and atheist friends. They're all cool.

I'm aware India is mostly Hindu but has one of the biggest Muslim populations in the world.

if I am not mistaken, it has the biggest muslim population in the world

Buddhist/Atheist. The only religion that allows me to be both simultaneously. :D

Buddhist/Atheist. The only religion that allows me to be both simultaneously. :D

I am pretty sure Buddhism isn't the only religion that doesn't require the belief ina deity. Actually, I don't consider Buddhism an actual religion because of that. I see the belief in a deity or deities as being what makes a belief system a religion.

I am pretty sure Buddhism isn't the only religion that doesn't require the belief ina deity. Actually, I don't consider Buddhism an actual religion because of that. I see the belief in a deity or deities as being what makes a belief system a religion.

You're absolutely right, The Jain religion does not require the belief in a deity.

Druidism doesn't require a belief in a deity either.

I am pretty sure Buddhism isn't the only religion that doesn't require the belief ina deity. Actually, I don't consider Buddhism an actual religion because of that. I see the belief in a deity or deities as being what makes a belief system a religion.
Buddhism is considered a religion, although I tend to think of it, like you, as more of a philosophical outlook. It's status as a religion is probably based mostly on the large numbers of its followers, I guess.

It's status as a religion is probably based mostly on the large numbers of its followers, I guess.

Probably.

It seems more like a philosophy and lifestyle to me.

It seems more like a philosophy and lifestyle to me.

yeah, by those standards philosophy could be a religion. I think its only considered a religion because it looks atractive to white people with a spiritual gap to fill

Just a regular born-again Christian here. No fancy stuff.

Cthulhu cultist, of course.
http://www.yog-sothoth.com/docs/graven-images-fimo-cthulhu.jpg

Just a regular born-again Christian here. No fancy stuff.

Other religions are "fancy"?

Just a regular born-again Christian here. No fancy stuff.

Born again? I'd imagine that was quite painful for all involved.

I'm an Evangelical, Pentecostal, Protestant. (Church of God to be exact) So yeah, i'm one of people constantly getting bashed by the media. Though i think Catholics get a couple more slurs a year then we do.

Discordian.. it's a non-prophet, irreligious disorganization.

Hail Eris! :D

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

And which one is right?

Whose God is acutally responsible?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

Don't flame, explain these.

I am pretty sure Buddhism isn't the only religion that doesn't require the belief ina deity. Actually, I don't consider Buddhism an actual religion because of that. I see the belief in a deity or deities as being what makes a belief system a religion.

Actually, there may be as many flavors of Buddhism as there are of Christianity. Some forms of Buddhism do include belief in a deity or deities.

Atheism as a pure concept isn't a religion. In practice, it's close enough to being a religion to it may as well be called one.

I'm a prosopotherian self-realised neo-pagan (try saying THAT ten times, quickly).
Yeah, right. I go to non-church every Sunday and pray to the great nothing.

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

I see religions are belief system that include the belief in at least one God, deity, Supreme Being, or whatever you want to call it.

And which one is right?

Simple answer: we can't know!

Whose God is acutally responsible?

Responsible for what?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

If we don't know if any religion is correct, we obviously can't know which people are wrong.

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

And which one is right?

Whose God is acutally responsible?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

Don't flame, explain these.

If someone believes something they are obviosly going to think they are right. However, only one in the end can be right. That being said, whichever religion is correct in the end(my prefernce being Christianity) I seriosly doubt that a cetain denomination will be completely right...even my own.

Actually, there may be as many flavors of Buddhism as there are of Christianity. Some forms of Buddhism do include belief in a deity or deities.

I see. Excuse my ignorance towards Buddhism.

I see. Excuse my ignorance towards Buddhism.

No problem. I only learned of it when I said the same thing you did to a Buddhist who was one of the ones who believes in a deity.

I now have a good reason to actually take the time to learn about the many belief systems in the world other than simply an interest.

Implicit Atheist (lacking belief in any gods) with Agnostic tendencies.

Atheism is a religion, like abstinence is a sex technique.

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

And which one is right?

Whose God is acutally responsible?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

Don't flame, explain these.


It depends who you talk to, if you are an adherent to an Abrahamaic faith like Judaism, Christianity and Islam there is the adamant belief that their religion is the only valid one. There are exceptions depending on interpretation like in Judaism a Noahide is righteous and is non-Jewish.

If you are a follower of an Eastern religion like Buddhism, Hinduism or Sikihism, there is a belief that multiple paths lead to the truth so really in their beliefs no-one is really wrong.

There is a varying explanation of the plethora of religious beliefs, different faiths have had different founders and therefore some faiths believe either to be an abrogation or supercede a prior faith.

im catholic you know whats weird... that hinduism was made in china and buddhism started in india, but now the largest populations of these two religions are in opposite countries!

Hinduism was NOT made in China. It was made in the Indus valley, in Mohen Djaro between India and Pakistan. There were vedic traditions prior to this in Russia and Persia but these were not entirely Hindu.

If we want to get PC about where Buddhism started , it was actually in Nepal.

I'm an Evangelical, Pentecostal, Protestant. (Church of God to be exact) So yeah, i'm one of people constantly getting bashed by the media. Though i think Catholics get a couple more slurs a year then we do.

yeah, we do but it all evens out thanks to reporters who make us out to look like a**holes b/c some of us dont suport abortion or stemcell

Hinduism was NOT made in China. It was made in the Indus valley, in Mohen Djaro between India and Pakistan. There were vedic traditions prior to this in Russia and Persia but these were not entirely Hindu.

righto could you go kill the b*tch that taught me that in skool? lol she was one though

yeah, we do but it all evens out thanks to reporters who make us out to look like a**holes b/c some of us dont suport abortion or stemcell

Yeah they do, cause you we're the cause of all the poor people having 11 kids and alhiemerzs (sp?) and parkinsons disease.

(I sincerly hope that all of you picked up on my sarcasm)

I worship Anubis, the chibi god of the dead.

Agnostic nominal Satanist right here.

-Phil.

LOL notice on the poll it says Protestant/Orthodox or other chritian.

What the heck is a chritian?

I'm Pagan.

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

And which one is right?

Whose God is acutally responsible?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

Don't flame, explain these.Religions are just beliefs. I think they all aspire to the same origin as either God, Nature or Spaghetti monster, but have simply interpreted the aspirations in whatever way their culture has led them to. In that respect, they could all be right in the sense that they're looking at the same thing, but they're all just as wrong when it comes to explaining it to other people.

It's like having several blind people feel an elephant for the first time from different locations and being asked to tell other blind people what an elephant is. Of course they'll disagree, but that doesn't mean they haven't grasped some of the truth. They just don't have the whole picture.

im protestant christian i attend a methodist church and was raised in a presbyterian church. I believe strongly in God and that Jesus died for my sins on the cross.

I are teh Muslim.

Islam r0xors.

Jesus died for my sins on the cross.

Why did you sin on the cross? :eek: :confused: ;)

Atheist, born and *raised* - that helped. :D

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

Yeah ... so what? :p


And which one is right?

Jesus told me that if you mixed Jedi and Hindu, you found the "right" religion. Otherwise, they're all equally right.

Whose God is acutally responsible?

There is only one God. So I guess everyone's.

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

No ... but we're all going to Hell.

ach....(i know id have made 100's of enemys now)...but religion is for people who are simple,poor, and nothing to look forward to in life
it was used 100's of years ago to explain things science can now explain much more easily and clearly
this is what i say to the church
:sniper:

No ... but we're all going to Hell.

I thought this was Hell? D***, must've made a wrong turn at the river Styx...

Aren't all religions just beliefs?

And which one is right?

Whose God is acutally responsible?

If there are so many religions, isn't everyone wrong?

Don't flame, explain these.

YES!!!!
Someone that understands!!! :p ALL religions ARE just beliefs. THere is no right or wrong, they are all basically the same in that sense. There is no one God/Goddess/Buhdah/Diety/etc; again it is all a belief and how you perceive the world around you!
For these reasons I am not religious, nor do i say I have faith in something that isn't there.
It is all one in the same, just with different names and faces for the same thing.

At least this is all my personal opinion. Therefore, I am not wrong and you aren't either! We all just believe a little differently then everyone else!

;) :fluffle:

ach....(i know id have made 100's of enemys now)...but religion is for people who are simple,poor, and nothing to look forward to in life
it was used 100's of years ago to explain things science can now explain much more easily and clearly
this is what i say to the church
:sniper:

First off, I'm not simple (unless my straight A report card is lying), i'm not poor (unless 90,000 a year is poor), and i have a bright future (i can't think of anything sarcastic to put here). And Science has yet to discredit Christianity (i'm not talking about Scientific theories here, i'm talking about proven to be true science).

Atheisim isn't really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. Most of the time religion and philosophy go hand in hand but for their to be a religion you have to belive it just because your mom said you had to.... no not really, but it's sad to think that some people belive in religion for that very reason.

okok....skip the poor, simple and nothing to look forward in life
but im sticking with the original message

First off, I'm not simple (unless my straight A report card is lying), i'm not poor (unless 90,000 a year is poor), and i have a bright future (i can't think of anything sarcastic to put here). And Science has yet to discredit Christianity (i'm not talking about Scientific theories here, i'm talking about proven to be true science).

Yes, but you would be one of those people who belive in religion because it's been in your family, or you know somone who's religious and told you to be. And you don't really have to be simple or poor to be religious but I do agree that you have to wish life were better then it already is.

:sniper: What's UP??? What is your religion?

First off, I'm not simple (unless my straight A report card is lying), i'm not poor (unless 90,000 a year is poor), and i have a bright future (i can't think of anything sarcastic to put here). And Science has yet to discredit Christianity (i'm not talking about Scientific theories here, i'm talking about proven to be true science).

No, but you are:

a)Smart (getting straight As almost guarantees that you're at least somewhat intelligent)


and

b)a Republican (i don't know anyone who makes as much as you do -- barring lawyers -- who isn't a Republican)

...which means that you're at political and/or socioeconomic odds with probably at least 80% of the people in here.

;)

:sniper: What's UP???

What the... Your post disproves your name.

Yes, but you would be one of those people who belive in religion because it's been in your family, or you know somone who's religious and told you to be. And you don't really have to be simple or poor to be religious but I do agree that you have to wish life were better then it already is.

True religion has nothing to do with God making this life better. It's about having a relationship with our Creator. Anyone who's only looking for what they can get out of it is in the wrong business. Christianity doesn't give us a life that makes "feel" good. It's a life of ridicule, a life that requires us to take the higher moral road vs. the easy way out.

Buddhist/Atheist. The only religion that allows me to be both simultaneously. :D

There are a few sects of Judaism that allow for atheism. Im in one of them, Reconstructionism. It basically views Judaism as being almost entirely an ethnicity/culture and that its important to practice it for the purpose of tradition.

It depends who you talk to, if you are an adherent to an Abrahamaic faith like Judaism, Christianity and Islam there is the adamant belief that their religion is the only valid one. There are exceptions depending on interpretation like in Judaism a Noahide is righteous and is non-Jewish.

If you are a follower of an Eastern religion like Buddhism, Hinduism or Sikihism, there is a belief that multiple paths lead to the truth so really in their beliefs no-one is really wrong.

There is a varying explanation of the plethora of religious beliefs, different faiths have had different founders and therefore some faiths believe either to be an abrogation or supercede a prior faith.

As far as I know, Judaism does not claim to be the one true religion. They do not hold that their faith should be universal or that the rules apply to anyone but themselves. That is part of the reason that the group doesnt aggressivly seek out converts.

hehehehe

No, but you are a:

a)Smart (getting straight As almost guarantees that you're at least somewhat intelligent)


and

b)a Republican (i don't know anyone who makes as much as you do -- barring lawyers -- who isn't a Republican)

...which means that you're at political and/or socioeconomic odds with probably at least 80% of the people in here.

;)


LOL how bout George Soros, Madonna, Jimmy Carter, and 99% of the residents of Beverly Hills? (i'm sure that at least 1% of them have to be Republican)

True religion has nothing to do with God making this life better. It's about having a relationship with our Creator. Anyone who's only looking for what they can get out of it is in the wrong business. Christianity doesn't give us a life that makes "feel" good. It's a life of ridicule, a life that requires us to take the higher moral road vs. the easy way out.There are no true religions, in that case. Buddhism has no creator to aspire to, while Christianity constantly tempts its followers to covetation for self sustention.

Christianity without Heaven, or Buddhism with a benevolent personality behind the Ultimate, would be True Religions. As long as people are drawn to Christ due to the promise of Salvation, it cannot be a true religion.

Unitarian Universalist with a dash of Buddhist for flavour.

First off, I'm not simple (unless my straight A report card is lying), i'm not poor (unless 90,000 a year is poor), and i have a bright future (i can't think of anything sarcastic to put here). And Science has yet to discredit Christianity (i'm not talking about Scientific theories here, i'm talking about proven to be true science).

Im not calling you simple, poor, or bright-futureless. However, Science has discredited parts of Christianity such as the Geocentric Universe, the age of the Universe and of Earth, the constitution of the heavens and their creation story.

Im not sure you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact. a theory doesnt mean it could be wrong or it could be right. it means it explains a trend as opposed to being a simple fact. Water being H20 is a science fact. Gravity is a theory. Or the particular laws. Just because it is a theory does not mean that there are credible doubts.

Ecclectic Pagan. There seems to be only 3 or 4 others from what I've seen on this forum.

I'm definitely atheist. I see a great deal of illogic occurring in religions (esp christianity), and I do whatever I can to oppose them. Science has most definitely contradicted and proven parts of christianity wrong.

i agree
a religious theory is a theory based mainly on imagination
a scientific theory is based on fact

There are no true religions, in that case. Buddhism has no creator to aspire to, while Christianity constantly tempts its followers to covetation for self sustention.

Christianity without Heaven, or Buddhism with a benevolent personality behind the Ultimate, would be True Religions. As long as people are drawn to Christ due to the promise of Salvation, it cannot be a true religion.

Let me amend my statement to "True Christianity" And Christianity is entirely based on the belief that we are separated from God because of sin, and that we are in need of restoration. Christianity without Salvation is not Cristianity. It becomes a set of idealistic, impossible-to-follow laws that there would be no piont in following.

I guess I'm an atheist with a flavour of buddhism (or, as someone I once spoke to put it 'a closet buddhist').

i agree
a religious theory is a theory based mainly on imagination
a scientific theory is based on fact

A religious theory is strongly based on morals, but morals is probally a product of imagination and common sense, so you are partly right.

A religious theory is strongly based on morals, but morals is probally a product of imagination and common sense, so you are partly right.

For clarifications sake, morals were not founded by religion.

Im not calling you simple, poor, or bright-futureless. However, Science has discredited parts of Christianity such as the Geocentric Universe, the age of the Universe and of Earth, the constitution of the heavens and their creation story.

Im not sure you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact. a theory doesnt mean it could be wrong or it could be right. it means it explains a trend as opposed to being a simple fact. Water being H20 is a science fact. Gravity is a theory. Or the particular laws. Just because it is a theory does not mean that there are credible doubts.

As far as the Geocentric universe i unfamilar with it. However, the age of the earth and univers is combatted with the Age Apparent theory, and the Bible explains that the composition of the sky at creation is different than at present, and the trend evolution tries to put forth is that the universe is naturally evolving, but in reality the universe is deteriorating! i.e. the fact that we have seen stars expire, but have yet to observe a star's birth.

Let me amend my statement to "True Christianity" And Christianity is entirely based on the belief that we are separated from God because of sin, and that we are in need of restoration. Christianity without Salvation is not Cristianity. It becomes a set of idealistic, impossible-to-follow laws that there would be no piont in following.That shows how much you care about your God then. <_<

Seriously, what's wrong with Loving God for it's own sake? MUST you have some sort of reward at the end of it all? I personally think that even without a promise of spiritual ascendence, Jesus made a pretty damned good case in favour of empathy, and it's a pity that he needed to put it across in such a way as to make people think they'd be rewarded at the end of it all.


But, once again, I must query the "Religion = Imagination, Science = Observation" statements. On one point, the difference between imagination and observation is possibly a very fine one. On another, what if you have a God described in such a way that observations can be given to suggest his existence?

How about this: God is a Gestalt entity. He exists as the emergent consciousness of mankind and guides and drives his cells in a manner that benefits both them and him.

Any problems with that, "Scientists"?

For clarifications sake, morals were not founded by religion.

I'm saying that they're based on morals, not that they are the founders of morals. They have, however, produces a number of (often questonable) morals.

There are a few sects of Judaism that allow for atheism. Im in one of them, Reconstructionism. It basically views Judaism as being almost entirely an ethnicity/culture and that its important to practice it for the purpose of tradition.



As far as I know, Judaism does not claim to be the one true religion. They do not hold that their faith should be universal or that the rules apply to anyone but themselves. That is part of the reason that the group doesnt aggressivly seek out converts.

I am an agnostic Jew, so yes, you can be Jewish and be athiest/agnostic, although I count myself reformed Judaism though. And the reason we don't actively go out looking for converts is because we want this to be a real commitment, not just something you do because someone told you to. Many rabbis will refuse someone the first time that person approachs them about converting to make sure this isnt some whatev thing.

my dear sir,
1.how can you trust a 2000 year old book anyway ?
2.the birth of starts HAS been observed, you are not seriously suggesting that 'God' is destroying stars are you ?

That shows how much you care about your God then. <_<

Seriously, what's wrong with Loving God for it's own sake? MUST you have some sort of reward at the end of it all? I personally think that even without a promise of spiritual ascendence, Jesus made a pretty damned good case in favour of empathy, and it's a pity that he needed to put it across in such a way as to make people think they'd be rewarded at the end of it all.


But, once again, I must query the "Religion = Imagination, Science = Observation" statements. On one point, the difference between imagination and observation is possibly a very fine one. On another, what if you have a God described in such a way that observations can be given to suggest his existence?

How about this: God is a Gestalt entity. He exists as the emergent consciousness of mankind and guides and drives his cells in a manner that benefits both them and him.

Any problems with that, "Scientists"?

I've already stated that we shouldn't be in this to get anything. The reason Christ came and died was because GOD wanted to bridge the gap. GOD wanted to have a relationship with us. That is, after all, why the Bible tells us we were created to begin with.

As far as the Geocentric universe i unfamilar with it. However, the age of the earth and univers is combatted with the Age Apparent theory, and the Bible explains that the composition of the sky at creation is different than at present, and the trend evolution tries to put forth is that the universe is naturally evolving, but in reality the universe is deteriorating! i.e. the fact that we have seen stars expire, but have yet to observe a star's birth.

1) Geocentric universe: the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. Was displaced with a theory of a heliocentric universe, the idea that the sun is at the center.

2) Age Apparent theory? havent heard of it. Niether has Wikipedia, actually. But Young Earth Creatioinists have been disproved in virtually all fields of science.

3) The church has been wrong many times about astronomy. I dont want to get into all of them.

4) The universe isnt evolving, its changing. there are no principles of natural selection in the universe. its limited to life. and yes, things die. this is crucial to evolution and not a counter argument to it. It is similiar to you saying you believe in God and that he created man, and I say "how can that be, I see people that God created". Just doesnt jive.

my dear sir,
1.how can you trust a 2000 year old book anyway ?
2.the birth of starts HAS been observed, you are not seriously suggesting that 'God' is destroying stars are you ?
im refering to medeo persias post

my dear sir,
1.how can you trust a 2000 year old book anyway ?
2.the birth of starts HAS been observed, you are not seriously suggesting that 'God' is destroying stars are you ?

No i'm making the case that all natural things come to an end. Evolution states that the unviverse will continue to build up with no end in sight. It rejects the truth that unvierse is slowly breaking down.

I've already stated that we shouldn't be in this to get anything. The reason Christ came and died was because GOD wanted to bridge the gap. GOD wanted to have a relationship with us. That is, after all, why the Bible tells us we were created to begin with.You did, however, explicitly say that:
Christianity without Salvation is not Cristianity. It becomes a set of idealistic, impossible-to-follow laws that there would be no piont in following.... and again, I must ask the question that must God offer us something in order for there to be a point in following him? I would argue that a relationship with God is worth it in itself if you throw off all of the trappings and labellings of Organised Religion.

yes
what do i get from following 'God' ?
why dont i just live without following him ? will he personally punish me ?
somehow,i doubt it...

1) Geocentric universe: the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe. Was displaced with a theory of a heliocentric universe, the idea that the sun is at the center.

2) Age Apparent theory? havent heard of it. Niether has Wikipedia, actually. But Young Earth Creatioinists have been disproved in virtually all fields of science.

3) The church has been wrong many times about astronomy. I dont want to get into all of them.

4) The universe isnt evolving, its changing. there are no principles of natural selection in the universe. its limited to life. and yes, things die. this is crucial to evolution and not a counter argument to it. It is similiar to you saying you believe in God and that he created man, and I say "how can that be, I see people that God created". Just doesnt jive.

The Age Apparent Theory states that things were created with the appearance that they had existed before their creation. For example, God created the chicken before the egg (a simplistic example i know but you get the picture)

And concerning Geocentric universe (i had just not heard it refered to as that) it is based off a misinterpretation of a pasage in Psalm. Psalm is a book of poetry not of science or even theological doctrine.

No i'm making the case that all natural things come to an end. Evolution states that the unviverse will continue to build up with no end in sight. It rejects the truth that unvierse is slowly breaking down.
Wait, I don't remember evolution saying anything about the universe 'continuing to build up'?
All I remember Darwin writing about is speciation, novel traits, competition over resources, etc. Darwin didn't state anything about the universe being eternal...
The Age Apparent Theory states that things were created with the appearance that they had existed before their creation. For example, God created the chicken before the egg (a simplistic example i know but you get the picture)
Why would an omnibenevolent God do something like that?

The Age Apparent Theory states that things were created with the appearance that they had existed before their creation. For example, God created the chicken before the egg (a simplistic example i know but you get the picture)

And concerning Geocentric universe (i had just not heard it refered to as that) it is based off a misinterpretation of a pasage in Psalm. Psalm is a book of poetry not of science or even theological doctrine.

From what I know (what you call) the Age Apparent theory, in my opinion, is regarded the same way as any hard core skeptic arguement. Read Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy. That demon could exist. But we can be 99.9999% sure it doesnt. Besides, with that theory we'd have to retool everything we know about the past.

Geocentrity was church doctrine. Hence part of Christianity. Live with it. Especially your very Catholic view of Christianity (being about sin). You are right in your original point though, if you allow Christianity to go back and change what they believe to fit what science proved to them (though not about evolution). But thats fairly pansy.

yes
what do i get from following 'God' ?
why dont i just live without following him ? will he personally punish me ?
somehow,i doubt it...

First, let me say that following the laws is not how we get to God, following the laws is what stem out of the relationship. And its not that God punishes us for not following Him, but if we choose to remain in a state of separation from God by not accepting the Grace given us through Christ's sacrifice, then that separation will follow us into eternity.

Baptised as a Roman-Christian.

Agnostic though

The Age Apparent Theory states that things were created with the appearance that they had existed before their creation.

Except, this conflicts with the assertions that God doesn't lie...

Sunni muslim with buddhist leanings.

Except, this conflicts with the assertions that God doesn't lie...

Your saying that because God created Adam as an adult human vs. an infant He's a liar?

yes
what do i get from following 'God' ?
why dont i just live without following him ? will he personally punish me ?
somehow,i doubt it...It's pretty simple. Jesus preached, quite simply, getting on with other people and exploring the entity that watches over this world. That's what I mean by following Jesus. Act Justly, Love Kindness and Walk Humbly with your God. That's the core essence of it all.

The thing is, the Church has put a disturbing label on what God is that has been emalgamated into Atheist thinking. They want you to "Act Justly, Love Kindness and Walk Humbly with MY God". For most people, if you want to truly find God, the last place you want to go is to your local parish on a Sunday morning. Christianity's blind man has touched the tusk of the Elephant and defined Elephant as a long sharp pointy object, denouncing claims that it is a long scaly thing with a snout, a fleshy wall or a stumpy column as ridiculous.

God is the force that inspires this world. It is possible to relate to this force through prayer, meditation, scientific discovery or even daily life, as long as you hold an appreciation for existence. When you bear this idea in mind in your life, it grants you a surreal insight and wisdom that I can't really explain in any earthly terms.

So stuff the afterlife or Salvation. Go out and look for God anyway, ignoring all the labels that Christians have stuck all over him. If you still can't find whatever it is, you're welcome to come back and refute it, but I think that you've based your entire rejection of God on one group's stupid definition of what God is. Just like most Atheists have.

It's pretty simple. Jesus preached, quite simply, getting on with other people and exploring the entity that watches over this world. That's what I mean by following Jesus. Act Justly, Love Kindness and Walk Humbly with your God. That's the core essence of it all.

The thing is, the Church has put a disturbing label on what God is that has been emalgamated into Atheist thinking. They want you to "Act Justly, Love Kindness and Walk Humbly with MY God". For most people, if you want to truly find God, the last place you want to go is to your local parish on a Sunday morning. Christianity's blind man has touched the tusk of the Elephant and defined Elephant as a long sharp pointy object, denouncing claims that it is a long scaly thing with a snout, a fleshy wall or a stumpy column as ridiculous.

God is the force that inspires this world. It is possible to relate to this force through prayer, meditation, scientific discovery or even daily life, as long as you hold an appreciation for existence. When you bear this idea in mind in your life, it grants you a surreal insight and wisdom that I can't really explain in any earthly terms.

So stuff the afterlife or Salvation. Go out and look for God anyway, ignoring all the labels that Christians have stuck all over him. If you still can't find whatever it is, you're welcome to come back and refute it, but I think that you've based your entire rejection of God on one group's stupid definition of what God is. Just like most Atheists have.

This would work except Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes unto the Father (what Jesus called God) but by Me."

Your saying that because God created Adam as an adult human vs. an infant He's a liar?

If you are seriously contending that God made things appear older than they are, I don't see how you can NOT see that as being dishonest.

Example: Dinosaurs in the Earth's crust that God created to LOOK like they were millions of years old.... call it 'fibbing', call it 'being a little untruthful'... whatever you call it, it is not honest.

Hindu here,

You know third most popular religion in the world?

not putting us on your damn poll...mutter...



we need to proselytize since only evangelical religions hog the news and debates. ;)

If you are seriously contending that God made things appear older than they are, I don't see how you can NOT see that as being dishonest.

Example: Dinosaurs in the Earth's crust that God created to LOOK like they were millions of years old.... call it 'fibbing', call it 'being a little untruthful'... whatever you call it, it is not honest.


Now you are bringing a completly new issue into the debate. God did not create fossils. God created Dinosaurs. It was under the extreme conditions of the Worldwide Flood that the fossils were created. These extremities replaced the millions of years required to create the fossils. You have to remember that the Flood was not just rain. The Bible says that all the fountains (including volcanos) under the earth sprung forth. this thing was so powerful it caused the split of the single land mass on the earth to break into six continents.
(yes i realize i'm probably about to start a whole new firestorm)

Now you are bringing a completly new issue into the debate. God did not create fossils. God created Dinosaurs. It was under the extreme conditions of the Worldwide Flood that the fossils were created. These extremities replaced the millions of years required to create the fossils. You have to remember that the Flood was not just rain. The Bible says that all the fountains (including volcanos) under the earth sprung forth. this thing was so powerful it caused the split of the single land mass on the earth to break into six continents.
(yes i realize i'm probably about to start a whole new firestorm)
All the volcanoes and flooding and continent breaking won't change the amount of Potassium-40 in an object, at least not that I know of.
Potassium-Argon Dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating)
And that's just one of the radiometric rock dating methods.

This would work except Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes unto the Father (what Jesus called God) but by Me."I think there's a way that can be interpreted. Jesus is roleplaying an anthropomorphism. He is not out-and-out saying that his one incarnation in human form is the way; he's beginning with a definition and working on it from there.

Let's take a look. He begins by defining himself as the Way, Truth and Life. These are three stages in a man's spiritual development. If a man looks for direction when lost, "He" will provide a way. If a man looks for understanding, "He" will help you gain wisdom. If a man looks for guidance as to how to lead his life, "He" will provide that.

The fact is that Jesus's ethical and spiritual teachings fulfil all three of these notions. With his teachings in mind, Jesus is giving us a definition; I am these things. Using such a definition, he then goes on to say "Through me, you can find the father".

It's like a riddle. "I cannot be seen, cannot be felt, cannot be heard, cannot be smel't. What am I?"

Jesus is simply stating that you can find the Father, in whatever form he takes, by bearing his teachings in mind.

i would call myself a-religious in that i don't believe anything exists, i don't believe nothing exists, i don't really believe in anything at all because i really don't care either way - religion simply isn't part of my life.

i do, however, support science against religion whenever the two clash (eg over the creation debate) because i'm scientific by nature (and family and school), i go by what i can see and by what evidence there is, and i have no faith - hence science roolz and this is one of the few places where religion does become part of my life

I TOTALLY agree with Pure Metal

I am a Christian, I wasn't sure whether or not "other christian" would apply though.

Agnostic, maybe atheist.

All I know is the Bible contradicts it's self in too many places becasue it's anthology of stories.

Before we were still agnostic, I guess but dad also used the word "non-practicing Catholic" So I was Catholic.

What is an agnostic atheist?

Anyone here a Scientolgist?

Maybe I might become a humanist...

I am what most refer to as Mormons. Please don't think polygamy- which is declared as no longer practiced by the Lord and Chrurch Authorities.

I'm neopagan with dashes of hinduisim (Ganesha kinda presented himself as our house deity) and discordianisim.

theravada buddhist, mostly

I was born Jewish, and I suppose I still consider myself to be so, but only negligibly (All I do is observe the fun parts of Jewish holidays :) ). I'd say my current views would be agnosticism in a sense... I doubt that a god or higher power/entity exists, based on what I know about science and history, but of course can't know for sure.

What makes me wonder is how most of the world beleve in god and their are so many athiests are on this game!

What makes me wonder is how most of the world beleve in god and their are so many athiests are on this game!
Most of the world also doesn't have access to the internet...

catholic

Church of Lemon Meringue

LOL

I am God. I worship myself.

*post one on page nine of a religion thread. Life is good! :p

ach....(i know id have made 100's of enemys now)...but religion is for people who are simple,poor, and nothing to look forward to in life
it was used 100's of years ago to explain things science can now explain much more easily and clearly
this is what i say to the church


Science can explain very much up until nanoseconds after the big bang. But explain for me this: How did the big bang get there? What caused it to explode? How did enough mass get there to form infinate density (Which, according to Stephen Hawking, is what happened.)? How did that mass get there in the first place?

I am Jewish, but incredibly reform. Basically, I'm mostly just culturally Jewish. Most (conservative or orthodox) people would call me a "twice-a-year Jew." What that means is that I only actually go to the synogog on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanna (the two holyest holidays). However, I still celebrate Hannukah, Passover, and basically anything else that's fun to celebrate.

I object strongly to Atheism being listed as a religion, it is not!

And in case anyones wondering, I'm an Atheist (hushed gasps from the crowd)...

I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian.

Atheism isn't so much a religion as a lack there of... perhaps "none" would have sufficed?

Ps. Holy Roman Catholic

I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian.
Haha! All that work and you're going to Hell anyway...

I'm an ecclectic pagan. Which means I believe in archetypes, old symbolisms and old Gods. Now to clarify:

Science is how the world is and can only compliment and strenghten my beliefs. The Divine is a creating force wether it's sentient or not, it exists and it continues to create. Not only life but death, change, chaos, order. Everything that makes up our universe even ourselves is part of the Divine. To better understand this huge force I divide its differnt characteristics into different gods and goddesses. The Divine is too large to hold in ones mind at one single time (I have tried, it gives me a headache). The closest Goddess to me is Gaia, the planet we live on. She nurtures us directly (again, I do not know if the Divine is sentient or not but as the mind has limitations you have to put a "face" on something to have a starting point for understanding) and the closest God is Cernunnos, the seeds in the ground and the wild forces of the forests.

I believe there is no right or wrong way to look at the world and the Divine, the only thing that is wrong is to try to force other people to look at it just the way you do. The only thing that matter is that you walk a path, your own path, and that you try to learn from the journey.

Haha! All that work and you're going to Hell anyway...

Hey, if that's what you wanna believe that's fine.

Anglican, ((Admitedly the only reason I go to chuch is because I have lots of friends there.))

Hey, if that's what you wanna believe that's fine.
Sure is. The best part is unlike you I receive no penalty for watching you go there.

Bahai.

But I'm not active in the community. Organized religion of any creed gives me the heebee-jeebies.

I'm an atheist.

I must be saved!

I'm an atheist.

I must be saved!As long as you're interested in and fascinated by the world, and want to enjoy it without inconveniencing other people, then you're as saved as you need to be; atheism or no. ^^

My goodness.

A thread where someone asks people's religion that deteriorates into pages upon pages of arguing about whose deity is not teh suck and "My born and died avatar can beat up your born and died avatar" posts.

I would have never imagined such a thing could happen.

Yaay! Go Buddhism, nice to see 5% of us on here
(yes, here it's generally spelt with an 'h' in there and not pronounced BOO-dist like the Americans say it, but Bu-Dh-ist)
I can't believe the author of this post didn't put up Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto. Gee whizz, get a bit more worldly will ya - or at least read wikipedia - do it, just search for 'major world religions' it will give you a list

Now you are bringing a completly new issue into the debate. God did not create fossils. God created Dinosaurs. It was under the extreme conditions of the Worldwide Flood that the fossils were created. These extremities replaced the millions of years required to create the fossils. You have to remember that the Flood was not just rain. The Bible says that all the fountains (including volcanos) under the earth sprung forth. this thing was so powerful it caused the split of the single land mass on the earth to break into six continents.
(yes i realize i'm probably about to start a whole new firestorm)

Show me evidence. I want to see a mechanism that explains how water pressure mimics the effect of fossilisation.

You aren't likely to start a firestorm, my friend... this is the weakest form of pseudo-science.

What makes me wonder is how most of the world beleve in god and their are so many athiests are on this game!

Because there is a correlation between the technically minded, and the less-religious, perhaps?

Not like a universal rule... more like a 'trend'.

As long as you're interested in and fascinated by the world, and want to enjoy it without inconveniencing other people, then you're as saved as you need to be; atheism or no. ^^

Kamsaki rules all. :)

What is your religion?

Catholic, but formerly Protestant, and before that ... Catholic! :p

Because there is a correlation between the technically minded, and the less-religious, perhaps?



That might have been a valid argument before computers got to be so easy to use that any moron could use them! :p

That might have been a valid argument before computers got to be so easy to use that any moron could use them! :p

The fact does remain though... there seems to be a 'general trend' for correlation of intelligence, education, techy-ness and lack-of-fervour.

The fact does remain though... there seems to be a 'general trend' for correlation of intelligence, education, techy-ness and lack-of-fervour.I think I raised this point a while ago, actually. Perhaps you might remember my suggested response to it. <_<

The fact does remain though... there seems to be a 'general trend' for correlation of intelligence, education, techy-ness and lack-of-fervour.

Could be, but most people who post on these forums seem to be pretty stupid, and unreligious as well. Yes, I include myself, in at least one of those categories. :p

Pagan

Arent Religions just cults with more members.....?

My own beliefs with touches of buddhism are what I can agree with

Or cults with political power, as Tom Wolfe put it.

As long as you're interested in and fascinated by the world, and want to enjoy it without inconveniencing other people, then you're as saved as you need to be; atheism or no. ^^

As is the reasoning of such thinkers as Richard Carrier, and I'm glad you share it.

A thread where someone asks people's religion that deteriorates into pages upon pages of arguing about whose deity is not teh suck and "My born and died avatar can beat up your born and died avatar" posts.

But if Zeus and Batman were to team up, it's true that God would be screwed. =d

I'm an agnostic/humanist. I think if there is any kind of god, it is nothing like the small-time anthropomorphic deities that most religions come up with, and rather encompasses all existence, like Pantheism or Spinoza's idea of god. Either way, we can't possibly prove it one way or another and it doesn't really matter because I don't beleive in any god that would care about my opinion about its existence.

Thinking about it, I'm probably Buddhist as well as Hindu...

BTW Someone posted that Islam is the fastest growing religion by birthrate AND Conversion. I say no. All the statistics I've seen (Which admittedly refer only to the western world, Europe, N. America and Australasia) show that Atheism is the fastest growing "religion" by conversion. Followed by Buddhism.

[Edit]

Religion Members Percentage
Christianity 1.9 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.1 billion 20.0
Hinduism 981 million 13.0
Buddhism 324 million 6.0
Sikhism 19 million 0.4
Judaism 14 million 0.2%
Baha'ism 6.1 million 0.1
Confucianism 5.4 million 0.1
Jainism 4.9 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

Some of these numbers are confused, as I've heard numbers out by up to 100 million- so I've put in the most up to date figures I could find. Which is probably why they don't add up. :(

Amestria']I object strongly to Atheism being listed as a religion, it is not!


Heh heh. Atheists get so defensive when it's even suggested by someone that their belief system is a religion. Kind of like angsty teenaged 'devil-worshippers' getting annoyed when you tell them that they're just inverse-Christians. Sometimes I think it's worth saying it just to watch you guys squirm ;)

In my opinion (and it is JUST an opinion, if anyone takes offence, it's your own fault), the Atheism that most people claim to subscribe to is just a "Religion of the Physical", where the physical world and the human belief that we can understand all there is to understand, are revered above everything else and the spiritual is not acknowledged at all. Like Catholics refusing to acknowledge any other religion.

Then again, what do I know?

Deist. I think there's some kind of creator being thingy. Other than that I have no idea.

Heh heh. Atheists get so defensive when it's even suggested by someone that their belief system is a religion. Kind of like angsty teenaged 'devil-worshippers' getting annoyed when you tell them that they're just inverse-Christians. Sometimes I think it's worth saying it just to watch you guys squirm ;)

In my opinion (and it is JUST an opinion, if anyone takes offence, it's your own fault), the Atheism that most people claim to subscribe to is just a "Religion of the Physical", where the physical world and the human belief that we can understand all there is to understand, are revered above everything else and the spiritual is not acknowledged at all. Like Catholics refusing to acknowledge any other religion.

Then again, what do I know?

Perhaps, it could just be the same thing that antagonises Christians when you point out that they live their lives according to a 'fairytale'.

I saw your opinion, and I'm all in favour of you HAVING that opinion - but I don't think it serves any valuable function... other than, perhaps, to make you feel better about something.

I think you have a strange idea of what Atheists 'think'... I certainly don't claim to be able to speak for all, but I've yet to meet one who 'revered the physical world'... or even claimed that 'we CAN understand all there is to understand'.

From personal experience, in fact, one of the hardest things about Atheism, is realising you will probably NEVER have 'all the answers'.

i am buddhist.but that is aculy more of a philosophy and a way of life

Heh heh. Atheists get so defensive when it's even suggested by someone that their belief system is a religion. Kind of like angsty teenaged 'devil-worshippers' getting annoyed when you tell them that they're just inverse-Christians. Sometimes I think it's worth saying it just to watch you guys squirm ;)

In my opinion (and it is JUST an opinion, if anyone takes offence, it's your own fault), the Atheism that most people claim to subscribe to is just a "Religion of the Physical", where the physical world and the human belief that we can understand all there is to understand, are revered above everything else and the spiritual is not acknowledged at all. Like Catholics refusing to acknowledge any other religion.

Then again, what do I know?
You know what you know. Don't belittle it.

Calling science a religion because it has its beliefs is silly; that blurs any distinction between science and religion. Both suffer from having that line blurred. It undermines (literalist) religion by suggesting that "belief" is all there is to it. It undermines science by suggesting that it not be science, but be something it is not.

Yes, science ignores the spiritual, because the spiritual is philosophical, not
scientific. Science is in the right to do that; if it didn't, it wouldn't be science.

Science isn't "we can understand all there is to know," so much as "we keep plugging away at it, and there's always something more to know."

Currently I am torn between Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Invisible Pink Unicornism. Although the two beliefs may not be mutually exclusive.

Getting down to personal beliefs, I believe there are three infinites: Space, Spirit, and Time, without which existence couldn't happen. Without space, there is no room for existence, without spirit, there is nothing to create existence from, and without time, there is no way for existence to develop. These three combine into infinite potential, which I most easily relate to the Goddess Eris, hence the main reason I consider myself a Discordian (that, and it's just fun, show me a Discordian who takes life, let alone Discordianism seriously, and I'll show you someone suffering from the Curse of Greyface). From this infinite potential, came souls, finite aspects of that infinite potenial, and from these souls arose existence as they each strive to realize their own finite potential, and collectively, Eris' infinite potential.

total christian... no i will not debate today (so far 5 out of 5 debates ended up them mocking me and i give in and say that i quit (which btw i have quit debating cuase the liberal view point is look at both sides and choose the most reasonable, and there arent enough liberls out there.).

One of the gigantic OTHER.

I can't believe you devoted two whole options to Christianity and only used seven of the ten options total...

I call myself an Atheist Jew.

I call myself an Atheist Jew.

so you believe in god but you think he doesn't exist?...

I picked "other" because I'm an atheist and atheism is not a religion.

Perhaps, it could just be the same thing that antagonises Christians when you point out that they live their lives according to a 'fairytale'.

I saw your opinion, and I'm all in favour of you HAVING that opinion - but I don't think it serves any valuable function... other than, perhaps, to make you feel better about something.

I think you have a strange idea of what Atheists 'think'... I certainly don't claim to be able to speak for all, but I've yet to meet one who 'revered the physical world'... or even claimed that 'we CAN understand all there is to understand'.

From personal experience, in fact, one of the hardest things about Atheism, is realising you will probably NEVER have 'all the answers'.

My main experience with people who claim they are Atheists is actually around here, where I live. Most are, unfortunately, arrogant about it to the point of absurdity. Whenever the discussion comes up (as it inevitably will, with a mixed group of religious and non-religious people), most of the Atheists make the claim that if science cannot prove the spiritual, it must not (cannot) exist and to believe otherwise is foolish. They also claim that if we aren't capable of understanding something, than it is foolish to believe in it, because we can understand anything. Not their exact words, obviously, but the meaning is the same. This is where I get my idea that Atheism, as practiced by most claiming the title of Atheist, is just another religion. They believe blindly (dare I say, they have faith) in the things they are told are 'scientific' and 'right' without ever questioning anything for themselves.

Now, if I'm wrong, and the majority of Atheists do not believe along the same lines as what I describe above, I'll be pleasantly surprised. In my own experience, however, that is simply not the case.



You know what you know. Don't belittle it.

Calling science a religion because it has its beliefs is silly; that blurs any distinction between science and religion. Both suffer from having that line blurred. It undermines (literalist) religion by suggesting that "belief" is all there is to it. It undermines science by suggesting that it not be science, but be something it is not.

Yes, science ignores the spiritual, because the spiritual is philosophical, not
scientific. Science is in the right to do that; if it didn't, it wouldn't be science.

Science isn't "we can understand all there is to know," so much as "we keep plugging away at it, and there's always something more to know."


I don't usually call science itself a religion unless I'm looking to create an argument (which, admittedly, I do sometimes).

As an idea, I would agree, it is not a religion. In practice, I would say many people make it into one.

Yes, science ignores the spiritual, and fair enough for it, because science only deals with the physical. That is why it is science. BUT, many, many people I have met seem to think physical science has some place in purely spiritual affairs, which is does not and cannot. Not and still be science, yes? (ie. "science cannot prove God, so god doesn't exist! OMG, Occam's Razor! Occam's Razorrrrrrrr!!!") This is where I get my idea that while science, in itself, is not a religion, people who claim to 'believe in' science often make it into one.

Also, I never actually said "Science = Religion". I said "Atheism can = Religion". You seem to imply that I think "Atheism = Science", which I do not think at all, because it's simply not true.

That said, I have this unfortunate habit of taking up the contrary argument to just about anything, especially when it comes to things I myself actually believe.

Heh heh. Atheists get so defensive when it's even suggested by someone that their belief system is a religion.

That's the problem: atheism is simply and solely a lack of belief in God or the positive assertion that there's no God. It's not a "belief system"; there are no doctrines, there are no set of morals to follow, et cetera.

I call myself an Atheist Jew.

Heh. Yeah. And I'm a polytheist monotheist.

Heh. Yeah. And I'm a polytheist monotheist. Jew in the cultural/racial sense.

Open Minded. :D

When I was in "Christian" School and they told me to "Love One Another" Then told me that "Gay is of the Devil and we hate them!!!" I decided to get out of dodge.

Witout a belief system I don't think Atheism can be called a religion, but to make the claim that there is no god closely resembles faith. The only scientific viewpoint is Agnosticism, as science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. That doesn't mean you have to have no opinion, just that your opinions should be tentative. I'm agnostic, but I infer from the nature of the world that if there is a god, it is nothing like the kind of deities that most religions believe in.

In All Honesty I'm A Satanist.
There All About Indulgance And Not Abstonance.

Im a Protestant, but i haven't gone to church in months. The main reason is that we had to pay like a $100 tiff (is that how you spell it?) every week. Plus they never taught us anything new and they argued about the most pointless things.

Im a Protestant, but i haven't gone to church in months. The main reason is that we had to pay like a $100 tiff (is that how you spell it?) every week. Plus they never taught us anything new and they argued about the most pointless things.

Tithes? Yeah, those can be pretty sick. Back in the day, the church was the only source of social welfare so they were justified but now they tend to go towards big houses and flash cars for the priest, and churches often shame anyone who doesn't pay up. Anyway, I don't agree with organised religion. You can make up your own mind, and if you have any questions I'm sure members of any religion will be happy to answer them...

Anyway, I don't agree with organised religion. You can make up your own mind, and if you have any questions I'm sure members of any religion will be happy to answer them...
Yeah, that's why I enjoy my disorganized irreligion... It's funny, I've been in quite a few arguements over religion, where I'd just keep digging at their beliefs, and once we got past all the surface noise, discovered that the core beliefs and the reasons we each believed in them were pretty much identical. They rarely acknowledged the similarities, but they were there all the same for anyone not blinded by their religion to see.

My main experience with people who claim they are Atheists is actually around here, where I live. Most are, unfortunately, arrogant about it to the point of absurdity. Whenever the discussion comes up (as it inevitably will, with a mixed group of religious and non-religious people), most of the Atheists make the claim that if science cannot prove the spiritual, it must not (cannot) exist and to believe otherwise is foolish....

Perhaps this is true to an extent... but perhaps you are missing half of the story. I have seen this kind of conversation - and it usually follows a rough patter, something along the lines of:

Christian: "So, you don't believe in God, eh?"

Atheist: "No, thanks... I'm good..."

Christian: "You poor deluded fool, you'll burn in hell, you amoral heathen"

Atheist: "Buh? Amoral? Wuh? Hell??? I don't believe in Hell... but amoral?"

Christian: "Don't worry. God loves you anyway..."

Atheist: "But, I don't believe in God!"

Christian: "That's okay - he believes in you. Even if you are a dreadful sinner who CHOOSES not to believe in him."

Atheist: "I didn't 'choose'... there is no evidence..."

Christian: "Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true... stop trying to disprove the foundations of my belief. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed...."

Congregational Orthodox.

Atheism ain't exactly a religion, but I'm atheist.

It is a religious position as you think about god from a point of denial

http://universist.org/

This is the cool religion.

Perhaps this is true to an extent... but perhaps you are missing half of the story. I have seen this kind of conversation - and it usually follows a rough patter, something along the lines of:

Christian: "So, you don't believe in God, eh?"

Atheist: "No, thanks... I'm good..."

Christian: "You poor deluded fool, you'll burn in hell, you amoral heathen"

Atheist: "Buh? Amoral? Wuh? Hell??? I don't believe in Hell... but amoral?"

Christian: "Don't worry. God loves you anyway..."

Atheist: "But, I don't believe in God!"

Christian: "That's okay - he believes in you. Even if you are a dreadful sinner who CHOOSES not to believe in him."

Atheist: "I didn't 'choose'... there is no evidence..."

Christian: "Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't true... stop trying to disprove the foundations of my belief. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed...."


I've seen those kinds of conversations too, between the same people in fact. Here, though, is the something closer to the kind of conversation I was talking about:

Christian: "Yeah, so I was at Church the other day and this guy I was sitting next to..."

Atheist: "Church?! I can't believe you actually go to Church. That's such bullshit. God doesn't exist."

Christian: "Excuse me? How do you know God doesn't exist?"

Atheist: "Because science has disproven God. Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor?"

Me: "Well, Occam's Razor doesn't actually..."

Atheist: "Shut up! You believe even more bullshit stuff than she does. Occam's Razor means God is unnecessary, so he can't exist!"

Christian: "Well, just because he is unnecessary from a scientific point of view doesn't actually mean he doesn't exist."

Atheist: "Yes it does! If something can't be explained scientifically then believing in it is stupid. Only idiots believe in something there's no scientific evidence for."

Christian: "Well, just because there's no scientific evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence..."

Atheist: "Yes it does! If you don't believe in science, you're an idiot. Help! Help! She's trying to shove her religion down my throat!"

I've seen those kinds of conversations too, between the same people in fact. Here, though, is the something closer to the kind of conversation I was talking about:

Christian: "Yeah, so I was at Church the other day and this guy I was sitting next to..."

Atheist: "Church?! I can't believe you actually go to Church. That's such bullshit. God doesn't exist."

Christian: "Excuse me? How do you know God doesn't exist?"

Atheist: "Because science has disproven God. Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor?"

Me: "Well, Occam's Razor doesn't actually..."

Atheist: "Shut up! You believe even more bullshit stuff than she does. Occam's Razor means God is unnecessary, so he can't exist!"

Christian: "Well, just because he is unnecessary from a scientific point of view doesn't actually mean he doesn't exist."

Atheist: "Yes it does! If something can't be explained scientifically then believing in it is stupid. Only idiots believe in something there's no scientific evidence for."

Christian: "Well, just because there's no scientific evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence..."

Atheist: "Yes it does! If you don't believe in science, you're an idiot. Help! Help! She's trying to shove her religion down my throat!"While we're talking hypothetical conversations, let's try this one.

Atheist: "Look, as much as I respect and admire your resolve, I think you are making unfair and unreasonable demands of people. The current evidence available allows for a significant degree of skepticism on God's existence, and you can't make people ignore that."

Christian: "Fair enough, but I don't ignore such skepticism in my decision to follow Christ. Doubt is always with me. However, my experiences have been such that I hold the Christian message to be the most reasonable explanation for what I have felt, and that cannot be ignored either."

Atheist: "But your message is such that these encounters are central to salvation. How can it be fair that a man's spiritual worth is judged by what the world has led him to experience?"

Christian: "That's the point of the Church. We don't force our beliefs on anyone; we're just looking to keep you receptive to encounters with God. If He comes to you and you shun him subconsciously, it's not his fault that the two of you have never met."

Me, butting into the conversation: "Surely the faiths across the world have encounters with spirituality of a very similar nature and may not necessarily attribute that to the Christian God and keep people open to such encounters."

Christian, after a slight pause: "It could be argued that those religions have seen part of God and misinterpreted it somewhat. What they experience is not far removed from what I have, but their conclusions stop half-way."

Atheist: "And what makes you think that your conclusion is any more complete than theirs is? It's all based on history, anyway; why should their account be any less valid than your own when all they have to go on is a 'feeling' too?"

Me: "That's not entirely fair. There are some theological ideas based on science. For example... (( Insert lengthy monologue about some other third-party religious ideas ))"

* Short pause *

Atheist and Christian simultaneously: "That's just ridiculous."

Me: *Shrug*