NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently decided to fully commit to Islam after research and batting it around for awhile. So I decided to start the thread. And yes, I'm aware religion has been discussed once or twice on here but humour me if you will. Whats your faith(or lack there of), how did you come to it, and do you feel you or your religion are in conflict another religion or idea(such as modernity or freedoms).

I am a non-religious christian. My faith is often in conflict with many religions, but I take great comfort in knowing that I can boink whoever I want. :)

Atheist Buddhist.

correctism. (http://www.correctism.cjb.net/):cool:

Atheist Buddhist.

Amen!

I might be Discordian but I'm not sure, I have no idea how I came to be that way and I'm sure my religion conflicts with everything.

There is nothing wrong with theological philosophy in itself, but I believe that groupthink, in any of its forms, leads inevitably to unnecessary conflict. Thus, I do not have "a faith". What I perceive in the abstract spiritual is mine and mine alone, and there is no need for a banner or label to identify that. I conflict with those who rely on the thoughts of their sect, and would shake up those who are so rigid in their ways as to be blinded and deafened to any alternative.

There is nothing wrong with theological philosophy in itself, but I believe that groupthink, in any of its forms, leads inevitably to unnecessary conflict. Thus, I do not have "a faith". What I perceive in the abstract spiritual is mine and mine alone, and there is no need for a banner or label to identify that. I conflict with those who rely on the thoughts of their sect, and would shake up those who are so rigid in their ways as to be blinded and deafened to any alternative.

*copies post to use in the future when this question is once again asked*

;)

I have no faith. I do not believe in anything. I trust my senses and my mind.

I know God. My knowledge of god is not in conflict with logic or the evidence of my senses.

The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved. It is a reality to be experienced!

I have no faith. I do not believe in anything. I trust my senses and my mind.

I know God. My knowledge of god is not in conflict with logic or the evidence of my senses.

The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved. It is a reality to be experienced!

Could you ask Him what he was doing when he designed my pinky toe? It always curves under the other toes... and its not so much that it is really that much of a bother... it's just that aesthetically, I don't get it. Was His mind on something else? I mean I was born on the day Sid Vicious died, so maybe He was pre-occupied. That guy could be a handful, I imagine. Anyway, thanks in advance.

There is nothing wrong with theological philosophy in itself, but I believe that groupthink, in any of its forms, leads inevitably to unnecessary conflict. Thus, I do not have "a faith". What I perceive in the abstract spiritual is mine and mine alone, and there is no need for a banner or label to identify that. I conflict with those who rely on the thoughts of their sect, and would shake up those who are so rigid in their ways as to be blinded and deafened to any alternative.

I don't think being a part of a labelled religious sect implies that you are a victim of groupthink. When I went to church, I disagreed with other churchgoers, and even the pastor sometimes, I fully retained my individual conscious. I understand that some religious sects can lead to dangerous groupthink, events like Waco have made that perfectly clear, but automatically assuming that any person who is part of a establised sect is a lemming is illogical methinks.

Im really a mixture of faiths, but I ascribe to Christianity the most.

I don't think being a part of a labelled religious sect implies that you are a victim of groupthink. When I went to church, I disagreed with other churchgoers, and even the pastor sometimes, I fully retained my individual conscious. I understand that some religious sects can lead to dangerous groupthink, events like Waco have made that perfectly clear, but automatically assuming that any person who is part of a establised sect is a lemming is illogical methinks.
Firstly, I probably don't have a problem with people who claim membership and still think for themselves. It is not the membership but the style of thinking with which I have difficulty with, and if you can do the former without the latter then all power to you.

I agree that it is certainly possible to be a member of a religious organisation without such communal thinking, but it seems to me like that is the essential point of such bodies that they are communities unified by a specific set of ideas. The question bears thinking then that, if not drawn by the appeal of such unity of thought, then for what other reason or purpose would you subscribe to it?

Im really a mixture of faiths, but I ascribe to Christianity the most.

what are your other faiths?

Could you ask Him what he was doing when he designed my pinky toe? It always curves under the other toes... and its not so much that it is really that much of a bother... it's just that aesthetically, I don't get it. Was His mind on something else? I mean I was born on the day Sid Vicious died, so maybe He was pre-occupied. That guy could be a handful, I imagine. Anyway, thanks in advance.

She said you deserved it. When I asked why you deserved it , she replied: Desperate Measures knows why.

Actually, she thinks its your shoes.

Considering the widespread disagreement of world religions, along with the relative equity of conviction, along with lack of proof of any one god, along with plenty of proof against all gods, along with perfectly sound scientific theories describing the nature of the universe, I am decidedly nonreligious.

Of course, not even our best scientists know the answers to the fundamental questions -- how did the universe start, why did it start, what is outside it, what is consciousness, etc. -- so I am more of an agnostic than an atheist. It's a big universe out there, and anything could happen...

I'm an atheist because I don't see anything in the world (universe) that needs a Creator to explain it. I don't understand everything, obviously, but that doesn't make me feel worthless and inadequate, nor does it make me think I can do whatever I want (absence of God does not mean absence of morality).

The easiest way to label my faith would be to call me a Christian. I do believe in the existence and Gospel of Christ.

I aslo find many truths in other faiths and continue to search for them. I am of the opinion that all faiths hold some truth, and that the most important thing, spiritually, is to try and find those truths. I don't think any human being will "have it all figured out", at least not before death, so the most important thing is the search.

She said you deserved it. When I asked why you deserved it , she replied: Desperate Measures knows why.

Actually, she thinks its your shoes.

She's lying. My shoes are roomy and comfortable. But... if She'd like to send down some free shoe money... I'd be prepared to call it even.

Firstly, I probably don't have a problem with people who claim membership and still think for themselves. It is not the membership but the style of thinking with which I have difficulty with, and if you can do the former without the latter then all power to you.

I agree that it is certainly possible to be a member of a religious organisation without such communal thinking, but it seems to me like that is the essential point of such bodies that they are communities unified by a specific set of ideas. The question bears thinking then that, if not drawn by the appeal of such unity of thought, then for what other reason or purpose would you subscribe to it?

Do you think that every member of any group necessarily agrees on everything? For instance, is it likely that every member of Amnesty International is in absolute agreement on human rights and what sorts of government actions actually violate them? I would guess that they are not. However, they are all in agreement that human rights must be protected, and can agree on a general set of principles involved in that, so they join the group.

I'm an atheist because I don't see anything in the world (universe) that needs a Creator to explain it.

what about how it all started, or why we are intelligent and complex?

i'm a satanist , shame you don't have that option on the pole

She's lying. My shoes are roomy and comfortable. But... if She'd like to send down some free shoe money... I'd be prepared to call it even.

it is your shoes. I say go barefoot, or wear flip flops.

I call myself an agnostic theist. I believe there is a God, but that we know nothing about what that God is; as a result, most of my ethical decisions are based upon the possibility that God is either good or nonexistent, since those two options combined are more beneficial than if God were evil and I did evil as well.

what about how it all started, or why we are intelligent and complex?

Nope. Big Bang and all that, primordial chemical soup, the E-word ... and intelligence? I know you're not new to NSG ... :D

i'm a satanist , shame you don't have that option on the pole

thats why I put 'other'. At any rate I'm not even sure if satanism is a religion anyway. More of a rebellious group, like emos.

i'm a satanist , shame you don't have that option on the poleIs egomania a religion?
.

Is egomania a religion?
.

No one around here is an egomaniac, especially not me.

I am an atheist who strongly dislikes organized religion in pretty much all of its manifestations.

I call myself an agnostic theist. I believe there is a God, but that we know nothing about what that God is; as a result, most of my ethical decisions are based upon the possibility that God is either good or nonexistent, since those two options combined are more beneficial than if God were evil and I did evil as well.

Why would God being evil imply that you would do evil as well?

No one around here is an egomaniac, especially not me.I thought that is what Satanism is about.
.

Why would God being evil imply that you would do evil as well?Or the other way round...
.

thats why I put 'other'. At any rate I'm not even sure if satanism is a religion anyway. More of a rebellious group, like emos.What is emos?
.

thats why I put 'other'. At any rate I'm not even sure if satanism is a religion anyway. More of a rebellious group, like emos.

Emos? Rebellious?

I thought that is what Satanism is about.
.

I suppose, I was being facetious. In a way, following any religion has a certain amount of egotism about it ("I have found the One True Way!")

I am an Objectivist Deist.. so I wouldn't expect you to have that.
Hahah

I recently decided to fully commit to Islam after research and batting it around for awhile.

What does "fully commit" mean to you in this instance?
What did you research?
Why were you batting around Islam at all? Is that your faith group culturally?

Why no Sikh option?
Why no Confucianism/Taoism?
These have more followers than Judaism and many, many more than Scientlogy.

atheist, and a real one, not an agnostic.

I suppose, I was being facetious. In a way, following any religion has a certain amount of egotism about it ("I have found the One True Way!")

Not all religions say anything like that at all.

Not all religions say anything like that at all.

I guess that was a bit of a generalization, though I did mean the followers, not the religions themselves. Why follow a faith if you don't think it's the right one? And doesn't its being the right one make you just a little proud of yourself? And before someone says it, I suppose that would apply to atheism, too. The pitfalls of being self-aware, I supose.

what about how it all started, or why we are intelligent and complex?
There is no "why" to the latter. Why is a term relating to the psychological motivations for volitional actions.

As to how it all started, we've been able to understand that via cosmology.

I guess that was a bit of a generalization, though I did mean the followers, not the religions themselves. Why follow a faith if you don't think it's the right one? And doesn't its being the right one make you just a little proud of yourself? And before someone says it, I suppose that would apply to atheism, too. The pitfalls of being self-aware, I supose.

Perhaps there is no "right one", only the "right one" for a particular person. Or perhaps the idea of following a faith is to continue the search, such that you never think you've found the "right path", but keep trying to get closer.

Is there a "right" career path? Or do each of us choose our career paths differently?

Pagan leaning Unitarian Universalist.

Perhaps there is no "right one", only the "right one" for a particular person. Or perhaps the idea of following a faith is to continue the search, such that you never think you've found the "right path", but keep trying to get closer.

Is there a "right" career path? Or do each of us choose our career paths differently?

A Socratic approach to spirituality? I suppose that could work for some people, who have the inclination to pursue it.

My personal career path was chosen for me by an angel who came to me ina dream and presented me with the history of the universe inscribed on printed circuit boards from a Commodore 64. That didn't happen for you? ;)

Trilby63;11910519']Emos? Rebellious?

I dont know. Im not in the high school scene anymore which is where they cluster mostly. The Emos idea is so stupid to me I thought they were I fringe group acting that way just to be different, like goths.

I dont know. Im not in the high school scene anymore which is where they cluster mostly. The Emos idea is so stupid to me I thought they were I fringe group acting that way just to be different, like goths.

Everyone in high school acts the same to be different. It was that way in my day, it'll be that way in 50, 100 years. Only the clothes change.

No one around here is an egomaniac, especially not me.

Um, I am an egoist.
Does that count ? :D

Um, I am an egoist.
Does that count ? :D

No. Only for Me.

atheist, and a real one, not an agnostic.

How can you be absolutely sure there is no God?

Everyone in high school acts the same to be different. It was that way in my day, it'll be that way in 50, 100 years. Only the clothes change.

Isn't it the scenario where the counterculturalists end up defining the very culture they claim to dislike ? Look at rock and roll, hip hop, urban, and the like for ideas.

Well, I am off. Adieu.

No. Only for Me.

It matters to me.
Your opinion is meaningless to the true egoist.
:)

A Socratic approach to spirituality? I suppose that could work for some people, who have the inclination to pursue it.

The fun thing about religious discussion is that it's never over. So many people take so many different approaches to it and have so many different viewpoints.

My personal career path was chosen for me by an angel who came to me ina dream and presented me with the history of the universe inscribed on printed circuit boards from a Commodore 64. That didn't happen for you? ;)

'Fraid not. That might have been easier, though.... =)

How can you be absolutely sure there is no God?

Because I look around and do not see Him/Her/Them. By a believer's standards that makes me blind, I suppose, but I'll have to live with that. The universe is beautiful, complex and endlessly wonderful without its having been created by an Omnipotent Being. Humankind is beautiful, complex and endlessly wonderful, and horrible and endlessly cruel without its having been created by an Omnipotent Being or corrupted by that Being's troll-puppet.

Atheist.

What does "fully commit" mean to you in this instance?

To live as a good Muslim should. To pray when I'm supposed to, not drink or eat pork. I'm not going to recognise God is there but only worship/believe with half a heart.
What did you research?
Everything. I wanted to know who the Prophet was, how and why the Quran was written. Things like that.

Why were you batting around Islam at all?

Because I wasn't sure if it was what I truly believed.
Is that your faith group culturally?
in a way(its complicated)

Why no Sikh option?
Why no Confucianism/Taoism?
These have more followers than Judaism and many, many more than Scientlogy.

only 10 ten slots, alot more than ten faiths. Some were bound to be the odd man out. Thats what the "other" is for.

I'm a Jewish Deist, which means I'm pretty much a Deist who looks at faith and religion through a Jewish lens, but don't except a little version of the Torah or other holy texts.

How can you be absolutely sure there is no God?
The same way we're absolutely sure that square circles do not exist.

I'm a Jewish Deist, which means I'm pretty much a Deist who looks at faith and religion through a Jewish lens, but don't except a little version of the Torah or other holy texts.Unfortunately the Jewish lens has always been one of great distortion. The Jewish interpretation of Enki/Ea/Yah has brought much war, destruction, death, pride, and many other evils into the world through Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all their unholy offshoots.
.

I am an atheist who strongly dislikes organized religion in pretty much all of its manifestations.
Even this one? (http://www.catholicworker.org/)

I always find it puzzling, that Jesus Christ, a person who spent his time healing, aiding and inspiring the poor, is more despised by leftists than right-wingers in America.

To live as a good Muslim should. To pray when I'm supposed to, not drink or eat pork. I'm not going to recognise God is there but only worship/believe with half a heart.
Isn't living life according to some doctrine, but not really having faith in God, useless at best and hypocritical at worst?

Even this one? (http://www.catholicworker.org/)

I always find it puzzling, that Jesus Christ, a person who spent his time healing, aiding and inspiring the poor, is more despised by leftists than right-wingers in America.
Who said anything about hating a dead jew?

Even this one? (http://www.catholicworker.org/)

I always find it puzzling, that Jesus Christ, a person who spent his time healing, aiding and inspiring the poor, is more despised by leftists than right-wingers in America.

I don't despise Jesus. I don't believe there's a god for him to have been the son of, but as a philosopher and champion of the poor, he's okay.

Agnostic atheist type thing.

I don't despise Jesus. I don't believe there's a god for him to have been the son of, but as a philosopher and champion of the poor, he's okay.

Jesus was great. It's just some of his fanclubs that annoy me.

Jesus was great. It's just some of his fanclubs that annoy me.

There is that, the whole fan club thing. I try to see him in light of his times. Like I said, he's okay.

I'm an athiest. I don't think there is a god, higher power, afterlife, etc. I think we are just who we are, we live our lives, we die, and that's the end of it.

I find religion very interesting though & have studied it at school & university.

How can you be absolutely sure there is no God?

The same applies in reverse.

I am an atheist after a long period of agnosticism.

To live as a good Muslim should. To pray when I'm supposed to, not drink or eat pork. I'm not going to recognise God is there but only worship/believe with half a heart.


Why do you believe that to pray at appointed times and abiding by a particular diet are important to your worship and belief?

Why do you want to be a 'good Muslim'?


Everything. I wanted to know who the Prophet was, how and why the Quran was written. Things like that.


Have you researched any other religions?
Have you learned what the critics of your chosen faith say?


Because I wasn't sure if it was what I truly believed.

in a way(its complicated)

So, you are a cultural Muslim that has grown up with either another religion in the home or in a non-Muslim culture and you are re-afirming your actual belief in Islam?


only 10 ten slots, alot more than ten faiths. Some were bound to be the odd man out. Thats what the "other" is for.

Yes, I was just questioning your selection of what made it into your poll and what was left out.
One would assume that the more popular options would make it before the more fringe/less popular options.

Because I look around and do not see Him/Her/Them.

you can't see every star in the galaxy either. It doesn't mean they aren't there.

Isn't living life according to some doctrine, but not really having faith in God, useless at best and hypocritical at worst?

Of course. But my point was that if I believe in God, as I do, that I should listen to his word and not ignore it.

Why do you believe that to pray at appointed times and abiding by a particular diet are important to your worship and belief?

I want to worship as best I can and be who I should be, those allow me to do so.

Why do you want to be a 'good Muslim'?

Because if I believe in God, why would I want to do things that are against him?


Have you researched any other religions?
Have you learned what the critics of your chosen faith say?

of course. to both questions.




Yes, I was just questioning your selection of what made it into your poll and what was left out.
One would assume that the more popular options would make it before the more fringe/less popular options.
I got the major ones up there. Towards the latter options I just picked ones I thought off the top of my head.

there is absolutely *never* an option for my religion...and there are way more of us than jews or sikhs or whatever. I'm a Candombliero - it's an afro-brazilian religion consisting of african pantheism/animism, native american animism, and while 99% of its practitioners were enslaved (or converted by those who were) by catholics, they adopted catholic iconography and a catholic liturgical calender. we have no holy books, and the religion is passed through "houses" consisting of one fully-initiated priest, and his disciples. the head priest/priestess (it's female as often as not) is the godfather/godmother, and the children are godsons/goddaughters - it's sort of an apprenticeship thing. so long as you respect the rules you were taught by your godparent, it's expected that your individual take on the religion will differ slightly from everyone elses - it's also excepted that so long as you don't commit outright blasphemy or *seriously* alter the rites and beliefs of the religion, nobody can say "you aren't doing it right!". there is absolutely no central authority - a one time it would've been tribal, but during slavery the europeans took pains to force families and tribes apart, so the religion developed the family sort of system. you have the freedom to choose which one to join (or none at all, if you don't desire to be initiated), and in general all other religions are considered to be viable options, even if we do find a few of them to be a bit stupid-seeming. it's perfectly normal for a practitioner to also be a mild roman catholic, or to still honor jesus (or even worship him - incidentally we have a pacifist creater son-of-god deity too...he just has lots of brothers and sisters - they're all understood to be elements of "god the father", whose name in yoruba actually implies he has a womb, and is not a he at all...) - worship consists of dance parties, generally. most caribbean and much south american dance (the conga, the samba, etc) probably came out of these religious rites. at the dance parties (called "drummings" or bembes, tambors - mesas for the ancestors, who are worshipped but never at the same time as the orishas - the sons/daughters of God mentioned earlier - their name means "owners of ori's", someones ori is their destiny, path, a part of their soul - literally their "head"...they aren't really called gods or goddesses in the western sense of the word, it's more like hinduism) at the dance parties, the intiated medianic priests/priestesses will become posessed by the orishas, who will procede to speak directly to their worshippers, heal, instruct - etc.

I came to the religion because, while I believed in pantheism and animism (the universe consisting of divinity, and everything being a greater or lesser aspect thereof - certain forces of nature being greater aspects to be worshipped - everything, however, to be respected) I also wanted a real religion...forgive me for saying it, but wicca was made up in the last 100 years. had I not found Candomblé, I would've become a Hindu, most likely, as they believe much everything Candomblé does, but they have a few unsavory elements like the caste system, and alot of prudery was instilled in the upper-classes of hindus while they were sucking up to victorian british rulers. Candomblé, being the religion primarily of slaves, has *never* been associated with anything but the struggle of the lowest classes against those above them - exploitation through the religion doesn't exist, and no one has ever been persecuted for not believing. occult phenominon are also accepted as almost day-to-day things within this and similar religious cultures, which is important to me. a church that doesn't have a clue about what's going on around them on a spiritual level is pretty pathetic, in my mind.

as far as you origional question: do you feel your religion conflicts with...?

no. my religion is a creole which has actively condoned racial and religious equality from the beginning of its practice. it is entirely possible to be *completely* traditional in your practice of Candomblé and to support radical egalitarianism. women were the traditional highest leaders of the religion, as the men tended to be field slaves with less oppurtunity for it. gay and transgender rights have been recognized in this religion and by its african roots for longer than the religions of "the book" have existed. the only war ever associated with the new-world afro-caribbean religions, to my knowledge, was the hatian revolution (which was heavily involved with voodoo) - a slave revolt that even I, as a pacifist, have a very hard time finding fault with. it was also, incidentally, the only totally successful slave revolt in history.

Even this one? (http://www.catholicworker.org/)

Well... no. Nor do I dislike Liberation Theology and similar movements.

But I was using "manifestations" more as in particular religions, not particular actions or movements run by members of particular religions.

And most of the better manifestations were opposed by the institutional hierarchies of the religion.

I want to worship as best I can and be who I should be, those allow me to do so.


How do these things allow you to worship as best as you can or be who you should be?


Because if I believe in God, why would I want to do things that are against him?


I believe in God. I also have no desire to be a good Muslim. The 2 concepts are not intertwined unless the individual chooses to intertwine them. Why then do you make this choice?

I am going to try to stay on track and answer the original question. My faith is christian, but the church for me is not necessarily a building or an organized denomination. I believe the church can be a simple gathering of a couple of believers.

I came to this faith at 18 when I became aware of just how wicked the human heart was. I read the gospels and saw salvation and eternal life. I accepted God's gift.

Am I personally at odds with people of other faith/ Of course not! But as a christian, I have been mandated to share what I know. There are people who don't like that but I don't take it personally. Accepting or rejecting what I have to say is a personal decision for each individual.

it is your shoes. I say go barefoot, or wear flip flops.

I'm KEEPING my shoes. I want God to FIX my toe. Or to give me $60.

I got the major ones up there. Towards the latter options I just picked ones I thought off the top of my head.

Scientology isn't a major religion... it's more of a cult.

Scientology isn't a major religion... it's more of a cult.
Religions are just large, popular cults.

How do these things allow you to worship as best as you can or be who you should be?



I will put it terms you can understand. If Jesus tells you to turn the other cheek and you don't, are you worshipping as well as could be or being as good a Christian as you could be?

I believe in God. I also have no desire to be a good Muslim. The 2 concepts are not intertwined unless the individual chooses to intertwine them. Why then do you make this choice?

Because Islam is purist form of what God wants. The Qu'ran is the purist word of God. The Torah and bible strayed from the true word of God.

I'm KEEPING my shoes. I want God to FIX my toe. Or to give me $60.

checks in the mail;)

Scientology isn't a major religion... it's more of a cult.

which is why, if you had actually read what I wrote, its at the bottom of list as one that came off the top of my head.

I am Jewish. My practices are varied, but my philosophy is Modern Orthodox.

As you can guess, I believe there is one G-d. He created the world in an event known to modern science as the Big Bang, and by manipulating the creation process in a way that only He could fully comprehend, set in motion events that led to the development of intelligent life. How did He do it? Well, He's infinitely smarter than we are.
He also gave us laws in the Torah, and provided an oral tradition to explain everything.

My religion does have conflicts with multiple faiths and philosophies, mostly idolatrous religions and philosophies that contradict Judaism.
Judaism does not have a problem with racial equality - all races are equal under Jewish law, except for a few that no longer exist - the seven Canaanite nations (which got squashed when we invaded the Holy Land under G-d's direct command) and the nation of Amalek (which was destroyed as a political entity by King Saul, and will be finished off when the Messiah comes).
Judaism does not consider the sexes to be equal. According to Jewish tradition, women are created more perfect than men (at least with regards to their souls), and correspondingly have fewer commandments. In addition, while there are places where men could be said to have more rights than women, there is one CRITICAL place where women are superior:

Under Jewish law, if the wife wants to have sex, the husband may not refuse. However, if the husband wants to have sex, the wife may refuse.

Judaism may conflict with other faiths, but it does not require everyone to convert. A non-Jew may follow the Seven Noachide Laws and be fine:
Idolatry is banned
Murder is banned
Stealing is banned
Blasphemy is banned
Sexual immorality (see Jewish law for details) is banned
Eating a limb taken from a live animal is banned
Court systems must be set up (this is a communal responsibility)

And any of these laws may be violated in order to save a life.

Soviestan: How can the Torah and Bible stray from God's word? Don't they predate the Qu'ran?

which is why, if you had actually read what I wrote, its at the bottom of list as one that came off the top of my head.

Yet you included it instead of some much more significant belief systems.

Soviestan: How can the Torah and Bible stray from God's word? Don't they predate the Qu'ran?

yes, of course. Which is why God needed to send his last prophet to tell his true word. If they had been accurate, there would have been no need for Mohammed(pbuh) or the Qu'ran.

checks in the mail;)

Awesome. Yahweh rocks.

Yet you included it instead of some much more significant belief systems.
yep, pretty much. couldn't really think of anything else.

Soviestan: If that is your logic, then maybe it's possible Mohammad and the Qu'ran aren't accurate either. I believe the Bible to be truth and you believe the Qu'ran to be true. Tell me some of the mistakes and I will sincerely listen.

Soviestan: If that is your logic, then maybe it's possible Mohammad and the Qu'ran aren't accurate either. I believe the Bible to be truth and you believe the Qu'ran to be true. Tell me some of the mistakes and I will sincerely listen.

No, because if they were inaccurate God would have sent another prophet to speak his word. But he did not, why? Because Mohammed(pbuh) had spoken the truth, the accurate word of God. This is something the bible failed to do. And by all means tell me if I have any mistakes.

Well... As to my religion.

I am.

Is it possible to have no religion at all, without professing any religious beleif at all? For moral reasons, I follow no religion, and for that reason, I have no commited beleifs at all in regards to Gods, Godesses, or pretty fishes.

No, I meant tell me the mistakes in the Bible that Islam says are there. You see Mohammed as a prophet. Remember, from my point of view, he is a deceiver. Jesus for me is the Son of God. So another prophet cannot improve on His words. Please understand, I am not being argumentative. I see this as a wonderful dialogue to help us understand why conflicts can occur.

I am Jewish. My practices are varied, but my philosophy is Modern Orthodox.

As you can guess, I believe there is one G-d. He created the world in an event known to modern science as the Big Bang, and by manipulating the creation process in a way that only He could fully comprehend, set in motion events that led to the development of intelligent life. How did He do it? Well, He's infinitely smarter than we are.
He also gave us laws in the Torah, and provided an oral tradition to explain everything.

My religion does have conflicts with multiple faiths and philosophies, mostly idolatrous religions and philosophies that contradict Judaism.
Judaism does not have a problem with racial equality - all races are equal under Jewish law, except for a few that no longer exist - the seven Canaanite nations (which got squashed when we invaded the Holy Land under G-d's direct command) and the nation of Amalek (which was destroyed as a political entity by King Saul, and will be finished off when the Messiah comes).
Judaism does not consider the sexes to be equal. According to Jewish tradition, women are created more perfect than men (at least with regards to their souls), and correspondingly have fewer commandments. In addition, while there are places where men could be said to have more rights than women, there is one CRITICAL place where women are superior:

Under Jewish law, if the wife wants to have sex, the husband may not refuse. However, if the husband wants to have sex, the wife may refuse.

Judaism may conflict with other faiths, but it does not require everyone to convert. A non-Jew may follow the Seven Noachide Laws and be fine:
Idolatry is banned
Murder is banned
Stealing is banned
Blasphemy is banned
Sexual immorality (see Jewish law for details) is banned
Eating a limb taken from a live animal is banned
Court systems must be set up (this is a communal responsibility)

And any of these laws may be violated in order to save a life.

How would violating the law of Idolatry or sexual immorality save a life?

Trilby63;11910151']I might be Discordian but I'm not sure, I have no idea how I came to be that way and I'm sure my religion conflicts with everything.

Hooray for discordianism!

Soviestan: Would love to continue the talk but I am tired. Only had a couple hours sleep last night. Telegram me later if you want to dialog some more. Thanks for the interaction.

I am the forum's token Computerologist.

I am Jewish. My practices are varied, but my philosophy is Modern Orthodox.

As you can guess, I believe there is one G-d. He created the world in an event known to modern science as the Big Bang, and by manipulating the creation process in a way that only He could fully comprehend, set in motion events that led to the development of intelligent life. How did He do it? Well, He's infinitely smarter than we are.
He also gave us laws in the Torah, and provided an oral tradition to explain everything.

My religion does have conflicts with multiple faiths and philosophies, mostly idolatrous religions and philosophies that contradict Judaism.
Judaism does not have a problem with racial equality - all races are equal under Jewish law, except for a few that no longer exist - the seven Canaanite nations (which got squashed when we invaded the Holy Land under G-d's direct command) and the nation of Amalek (which was destroyed as a political entity by King Saul, and will be finished off when the Messiah comes).
Judaism does not consider the sexes to be equal. According to Jewish tradition, women are created more perfect than men (at least with regards to their souls), and correspondingly have fewer commandments. In addition, while there are places where men could be said to have more rights than women, there is one CRITICAL place where women are superior:

Under Jewish law, if the wife wants to have sex, the husband may not refuse. However, if the husband wants to have sex, the wife may refuse.

Judaism may conflict with other faiths, but it does not require everyone to convert. A non-Jew may follow the Seven Noachide Laws and be fine:
Idolatry is banned
Murder is banned
Stealing is banned
Blasphemy is banned
Sexual immorality (see Jewish law for details) is banned
Eating a limb taken from a live animal is banned
Court systems must be set up (this is a communal responsibility)

And any of these laws may be violated in order to save a life.What a bs. And no-one ever invaded Canaan under any god's direct command.
btw the word is god, not g-d. The use of g-d only shows how stupid you consider your god, as if he or we would not realize what you mean even if you leave out one letter. So g-d and god are in fact identical, only that god is the proper word, no need for misspelling.
.

What a bs. And no-one ever invaded Canaan under any god's direct command.
btw the word is god, not g-d. The use of g-d only shows how stupid you consider your god, as if he or we would not realize what you mean even if you leave out one letter. So g-d and god are in fact identical, only that god is the proper word, no need for misspelling.
.

Do you really have to be so confrontational? It isn't as if his beliefs are going to hurt you.

What a bs. And no-one ever invaded Canaan under any god's direct command.
btw the word is god, not g-d. The use of g-d only shows how stupid you consider your god, as if he or we would not realize what you mean even if you leave out one letter. So g-d and god are in fact identical, only that god is the proper word, no need for misspelling.
.

I'm getting severely sick of people being so hostile to theism here. the use of the spelling G-d is not to "fool" god, it's a mark of respect. if you wear a suit every day of the week, wearing a suit is not "dressing up" for you anymore. nobody eats off their heirloom china every meal. many theists choose not to use certain names and titles outside of prayer and worship - because that's what those titles are for, prayer and worship. it's not about fooling god, it's about reserving certain words for the special occasions they were origionally for - so that those occasions stay special. theism is not the blantent stupidity you people keep implying it is.

Do you really have to be so confrontational? It isn't as if his beliefs are going to hurt you.

oh, but they will! there's a theist around every corner just waiting to oppress someone - because all of us are social and political conservatives who are practically jihadists. never mind that the harshest critcisms of orangised religion come from *religious* people, that religion is the oldest and strongest motivation for pacifism and equality - that quoting jesus fucking christ will get you called a marxist - all theists are evil conservatives, who will definately hurt people.:rolleyes:

I believe in God. I also have no desire to be a good Muslim. The 2 concepts are not intertwined unless the individual chooses to intertwine them. Why then do you make this choice?I find it always funny how folks do not seem to realize that by saying "I believe in God" they only say something about themselves but not anything about god. Belief is completely in one's mind and has no whatsoever connexion to the real world (with or without god). Belief is pointless. Either you know about god or you don't, there is no middle way.
.

I'm getting severely sick of people being so hostile to theism here. the use of the spelling G-d is not to "fool" god, it's a mark of respect. your best suit is not your best suit if you wear it everyday. nobody eats off their heirloom china every meal, and many theists choose not to use certain names and titles outside of prayer and worship - because that's what those titles are for, prayer and worship. it's not about fooling god - and theism is not the blantent stupidity you people keep implying it is.Judaism is a lie about Enki, and I do not know what "theism" really is supposed to mean. The opposite of atheism?
And of course the use of g-d is an attempt to fool everyone and to feign respect. Since when is leaving out letters a sign of respect? If you talk or write to someone, do you also leave out letters as a sign of respect. How stupid is that?
.

I have always felt that the idea that some sort of superior being exists, perhaps directs us and ultimately judges us was a scary, depressing, a horrible idea.

I've always been taught that I am the ultimate judge of my actions and my life. I make these decisions, and I bear the consequences for them.

A god making these decisions pointless would ultimately deprive me of my reason for existence - I don't want to exist to prove myself worthy to some deity! I don't want to exist for some divine amusement, or as part of some grand experiment in morality!

Apart from the obvious impossibility of the existence of some all-powerful being, that is.

I recently decided to fully commit to Islam after research and batting it around for awhile. So I decided to start the thread. And yes, I'm aware religion has been discussed once or twice on here but humour me if you will. Whats your faith(or lack there of), how did you come to it, and do you feel you or your religion are in conflict another religion or idea(such as modernity or freedoms).

Animist, mixed Euro-style.

Technically, animism is a type of religion, not a specific one, but there is no more specific name for my religion. It is completely non-organized, has no temples or clergy or liturgy. This was the second feature about it that attracted me to it. The first feature was that it harmoniously expresses my personal spiritual experiences and gives them form. I came to it because I had personal spiritual experiences, and went looking for a religion that would express them and give them form. Animism is the perfect fit, and I call my way of practicing animism "mixed Euro" because I try to stick with the traditions of my ancestors, but my ancestors are from five different places in eastern and western Europe.

As for conflicts, no, there are none. Animism is unusual among religions in that it is more involved with living in this world than planning for the next. Despite many creation myths, animism has little real interest in how the world got made. It mostly cares about how the world is, how it works, and how we should be living in it. As for worrying about the afterlife -- this life, the next life, the life before last, it's all one universe. The same rules apply in all the various places the soul may go.

Modernity, freedoms -- nope, no conflicts there. I think such conflicts tend to stem mostly from people having some idea of how the world is supposed to be and getting annoyed when reality doesn't match. Animism does not suffer from that. Animism assumes that life is mostly good; that change happens; that sometimes shit happens but not for long, relatively; and that whatever exists is to be judged on the merits of its own nature. It is about understanding how the universe is structured, about being mindful of all the spirits around you all the time, and maintaining harmonious relationships with all those spirits.

Also, though other religions are often in conflict with animism -- especially evangelical religions -- animism does not conflict with other religions. On the contrary, animism permits multiple faiths, meaning that you can be a Muslim and an animist at the same time. Same for all the other religions. Now, of course, Muslims (and Christians) don't think that, but animists do. So do Buddhists, which is why Buddhism and animism have become so syncretized all over Asia.

Judaism is a lie about Enki, and I do not know what "theism" really is supposed to mean. The opposite of atheism?
And of course the use of g-d is an attempt to fool everyone and to feign respect. Since when is leaving out letters a sign of respect? If you talk or write to someone, do you also leave out letters as a sign of respect. How stupid is that?
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

it's in any dictionary. I am not a monotheist, most theists are not jews, the OP is a muslim, therefore I used the term theism, as it is a term perfectly applicable to this situation.

feign respect? it's all an elaborate sham! the jews have remained a cohesive culture throughout centuries of oppression and hatred because they really are just pretending to respect their god. I bet you don't bow when you meet people, but that doesn't mean that when a japanese person does it, that it's not a way of showing respect.

edit:

and incidentally, if judaism borrowed from the religious practices of its neighbors (I believe it did) then it was El, a canaanite god, not a babylonian one, whose worship they emulated. by the time the jews came into close contact with babylonian culture, they developed a feirce resistance against it. the torah was likely first written in its final form after (and as a direct response to) the babylonian captivity. the laws against distinctly babylonian customs, such as those about wearing mixed-fabrics and styles of facial hair and such, indicate that those compiling the previously oral traditions of the hebrews were adding in a great deal to bolster a distinctly hebrew cultural identity - and one that was diametrically opposed to babylonian customs. there's extensive borrowing evinced from the canaanites, but nothing but antipathy towards babylonian religion and culture in general.

what are your other faiths?

I borrow some things from the other two abrahamic faiths. For instance, I follow Jewish Dietary laws, and celebrate a few Jewish holidays, namely passover. As for something from Islam, i regularly read parts of the Qur'an, and I pray at least 5 times a day, towards the east(towards Jerusalem, not mecca). I also meditate quite a bit, which is common among all religions. I do really whatever I feel will bring me closer to God, no matter who I am emulating in practice.

Animist, mixed Euro-style.

Technically, animism is a type of religion, not a specific one, but there is no more specific name for my religion. It is completely non-organized, has no temples or clergy or liturgy. This was the second feature about it that attracted me to it. The first feature was that it harmoniously expresses my personal spiritual experiences and gives them form. I came to it because I had personal spiritual experiences, and went looking for a religion that would express them and give them form. Animism is the perfect fit, and I call my way of practicing animism "mixed Euro" because I try to stick with the traditions of my ancestors, but my ancestors are from five different places in eastern and western Europe.

As for conflicts, no, there are none. Animism is unusual among religions in that it is more involved with living in this world than planning for the next. Despite many creation myths, animism has little real interest in how the world got made. It mostly cares about how the world is, how it works, and how we should be living in it. As for worrying about the afterlife -- this life, the next life, the life before last, it's all one universe. The same rules apply in all the various places the soul may go.

Modernity, freedoms -- nope, no conflicts there. I think such conflicts tend to stem mostly from people having some idea of how the world is supposed to be and getting annoyed when reality doesn't match. Animism does not suffer from that. Animism assumes that life is mostly good; that change happens; that sometimes shit happens but not for long, relatively; and that whatever exists is to be judged on the merits of its own nature.

another one? yay! animists unite! (or at least say hello) :)

the jews have remained a cohesive culture throughout centuries of oppression and hatred as if. judaism is a very weird conglomerate of all kinds of stolen traditions. "cohesive culture" is really a funny term to apply to jews. they have been the great replicators throughout their 2300 years history.
.

Judaism is a lie about Enki, and I do not know what "theism" really is supposed to mean. The opposite of atheism?
And of course the use of g-d is an attempt to fool everyone and to feign respect. Since when is leaving out letters a sign of respect? If you talk or write to someone, do you also leave out letters as a sign of respect. How stupid is that?
.
"How stupid is that?" How ignorant are you? You obviously know nothing about the belief of the power of words in the Jewish religion. You forget that, according to the Old Testament, the world was made by the Word of God. That wasn't just poetry, friend. He said it, and it happened. Presto. Read the Kabbalah -- the real texts and commentaries, not those "Madonna" fan-books -- if you want to understand what this is about. It's a very deep concept of what reality is. There are lots of very powerful words that are never spelled out fully in Jewish writings, except in the most controlled of circumstances. You may call that superstitious if you like, but to call it an attempt to fool their god shows nothing but your own foolishness.

there is absolutely *never* an option for my religion...and there are way more of us than jews or sikhs or whatever. I'm a Candombliero - it's an afro-brazilian religion consisting of african pantheism/animism, native american animism, and while 99% of its practitioners were enslaved (or converted by those who were) by catholics, they adopted catholic iconography and a catholic liturgical calender. <snip for length, even though it was informative and very interesting>
Yay, animist religions! The oldest and most widespread spiritual tradition on the planet and still going strong, no matter what those monotheist johnny-come-lately's like to claim.

How would violating the law of Idolatry or sexual immorality save a life?
If sacrificing to an idol will stop a human from being killed, perhaps? It makes sense when you consider the history of religious wars and forced conversions. Sometimes, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" is about a little more than politeness.

The sexual immorality thing? Well, one could argue that if you can make life worth living, that's tantamount to saving lives, but actually I'd rather not think about it in too much detail.

One question, though -- wouldn't you skip one of your daily prayers if you had to in order to save another person's life?

as if. judaism is a very weird conglomerate of all kinds of stolen traditions. "cohesive culture" is really a funny term to apply to jews. they have been the great replicators throughout their 2300 years history.

...regardless of where various elements of jewish culture come from, jewish culture remains distinct for a very, very long time. I could understand an ancient canaanite being slightly annoyed if the jews were credited with inventing everything in their religion (I said earlier that I recognize there was borrowing). polytheistic and pantheistic traditions *do not care* when you borrow their gods. there are actually instances of gods making it halfway around the world - there's a bodhisatva in japan that actually started out as the greek god heracles - he was adopted from greco-buddhist art in afghanistan into india, and then by way of indian buddhist missionaries into china and japan, where he is now worshipped alongside buddha. you cannot "steal" a god or a religious observance. I fully recognize that the vast majority of religious traditions have a certain level of syncretism - even islam, the most purely monotheistic tradition, has a slight element of pre-islamic arabic animism in it (read about the black stone in the ka'ba) - I also recognize that nobody with even the slightest familiarity with ancient religion would accuse religions of "stealing" from one another.

it is a fact that the jews have preserved a distinct and ancient cultural identity in the face of a great deal of persecution over a very long time. the fact that some elemements (though not many) of this culture were at one point practiced by others has absolutely no bearing on the truth of my origional statement.

edit: and I just checked your date. judaism is not 2300 years old. it dates from before the 8th century BCE, and I really don't feel like finding exactly when, because I doubt it's a clear-cut date anyway, but the ten northern tribes were conquered by assyria in the 8th century BCE, and judaism was a distinct religious tradition by that time - though I'm not going to claim it was identical to modern judaism, it could definately at least be *called* "Judaism".

Yay, animist religions! The oldest and most widespread spiritual tradition on the planet and still going strong, no matter what those monotheist johnny-come-lately's like to claim.

:D

I am Jewish. My practices are varied, but my philosophy is Modern Orthodox.

As you can guess, I believe there is one G-d. He created the world in an event known to modern science as the Big Bang, and by manipulating the creation process in a way that only He could fully comprehend, set in motion events that led to the development of intelligent life. How did He do it? Well, He's infinitely smarter than we are.
He also gave us laws in the Torah, and provided an oral tradition to explain everything.

My religion does have conflicts with multiple faiths and philosophies, mostly idolatrous religions and philosophies that contradict Judaism.
Judaism does not have a problem with racial equality - all races are equal under Jewish law, except for a few that no longer exist - the seven Canaanite nations (which got squashed when we invaded the Holy Land under G-d's direct command) and the nation of Amalek (which was destroyed as a political entity by King Saul, and will be finished off when the Messiah comes).
Judaism does not consider the sexes to be equal. According to Jewish tradition, women are created more perfect than men (at least with regards to their souls), and correspondingly have fewer commandments. In addition, while there are places where men could be said to have more rights than women, there is one CRITICAL place where women are superior:

Under Jewish law, if the wife wants to have sex, the husband may not refuse. However, if the husband wants to have sex, the wife may refuse.

Judaism may conflict with other faiths, but it does not require everyone to convert. A non-Jew may follow the Seven Noachide Laws and be fine:
Idolatry is banned
Murder is banned
Stealing is banned
Blasphemy is banned
Sexual immorality (see Jewish law for details) is banned
Eating a limb taken from a live animal is banned
Court systems must be set up (this is a communal responsibility)

And any of these laws may be violated in order to save a life.

*calls in flame strike*
Wow... just... wow... I can almost see where Hitler was coming from... Wow I think you just saved Christianity from being my most hated religion. (did I say wow enough?) I mean wow Chrisianity has some stupid rules but the whole sex thing is completely f--ked up (showing respect for fuck). Christianity and Judaism are both stupid either men are better or women are better thats BS they are equal. I mean at least Christianity doesn't give men less commandments.

*calls in flame strike*
Wow... just... wow... I can almost see where Hitler was coming from... Wow I think you just saved Christianity from being my most hated religion. (did I say wow enough?) I mean wow Chrisianity has some stupid rules but the whole sex thing is completely f--ked up (showing respect for fuck). Christianity and Judaism are both stupid either men are better or women are better thats BS they are equal. I mean at least Christianity doesn't give men less commandments.

s/he said that men had *more* commandments than women. even a passing familiarity with jewish culture and religious traditions would make it clear that it's never been any more sexist than the cultural context it existed within.

well...maybe slightly moreso than the ancient babylonians/egyptians/canaanites, who were downright modern about women's rights, but that's debatable.

I really don't understand you superstitious people.

I used to anthropomorphize my dog quite a bit. It was conscious self-deceit on my part, and I did it because it made me happy & was of no consequence to the wellbeing of my dog. Sort of a happy little fiction on my part, to improve my reality. In this respect, I can understand why some people may feel better about themselves, by anthropomorphizing reality. I don't share the desire, as I think reality is much grander on its own. I still get a sense of pure wonder when the weather's just right & cool rain drops on my face.

What I don't understand, is why some people feel they have to behave in certain ways to make themselves fit into the fiction they project onto reality. I'm sure a church is a good place to meet likeminded humans, but why must it be something akin to a sin to acknowledge how reality works?

What about when your brother or daughter falls in love with someone outside your shared superstition, who doesn't want to share your superstition? Why is it even an issue?

.... Argh. Superstitions are fucking silly. I don't care what they are, but there has to be a willingness on your part to acknowledge them for what they are & adjust. Far, far too many of you superstitious people makes me think of people running toward a cliff, merrily dismissing a world full of people warning you that you'll drop like a rock real soon if you don't look down.

In this respect, I can understand why some people may feel better about themselves, by anthropomorphizing reality.

I can see where you'd get the impression all of it involved anthropomorphisation (is that a word?), as the religions in most textbooks imply that gods make decisions and have wills and desires and preferences and so on, but I feel obligated to remark that not all of us who believe in the "supernatural" believe it's anthropomorphic, that we're made in god's image, etc. I think it's a bit like when people look at clouds - they see in an amorphus shape only things that allready populate their mind. the fact that many people look at divinity and see a man-shape doesn't mean that all religious devotion involves anthropomorphisation. our prehistoric ancestors looked at their own ancestors, or animals around them, and saw god - not vice-versa. still, I'm reluctant to talk about anything so personal as, well, personal religious devotions and my reasons for belief here - there are people on this board who mock and call idiots the people who say things as obvious as "the sky is blue" and "politicians are corrupt", so I'm not looking to cast my pearls before swine, so to speak. I'll just say that I put not stock in leaps of faith.

I really don't understand you superstitious people.

oh, and I'd say that for the most part, that's perfectly logical and fine. I doubt you'd understand an empty parking garage if you'd never seen a car...and looking at the modern religious institutions without first immersing yourself in more ancient forms of religious expression (the sort Jung and Josephn Campbell are somewhat passingly familiar with), you aren't going to guess why they exist, either.

Some atheists are as intolerant as the most bigoted religious fundamentalist.

Like religious fundamentalists, these particular atheists like to pretend that they have all the answers and that their belief is fact when it can't be proven any more than the existance of Shiva or Yahweh or Odin can. Nobody can know for sure, so it would be wonderful if people would stop acting like they do.

not all of us who believe in the "supernatural" believe it's anthropomorphic, that we're made in god's image, etc.

Exactly.

Atheist.
Mostly because every reason I can think of to believe in any particualar religion works just as well to believe in anyone else. Or in purple unicorns guiding man from Pluto, for that matter. It's just so arbitrary. So I'm atheist for the same reason that just about everyone else don't believe in said unicorns.

(Although that is a quote from Principia Discordia in my signature.)

No, because if they were inaccurate God would have sent another prophet to speak his word.
Well THAT'S certainly convincing (said in the most sarcastic tone there is).

Gotta love the tortuous twists of rationalizations that theists will go through.

Do you really have to be so confrontational? It isn't as if his beliefs are going to hurt you.
Yet the beliefs are idiotic and purile.

Trilby63;11910151']I might be Discordian but I'm not sure, I have no idea how I came to be that way and I'm sure my religion conflicts with everything.
Yay!
atheist, and a real one, not an agnostic.
Atheist and agnostic don't really have anything to do with each other, you can be both, or an agnostic theist.
Hooray for discordianism!
Hail Eris. Hail hail. Hail yes!
Yet the beliefs are idiotic and purile.

It still isn't as if they're going to hurt you.

I believe that we will never find proof if there is a god or not, but from that I reckon it logically follows that there is no god. I see how a benevolent, omnipotent god can be disproven, but I don't see how we can disprove some supernatural force. That said, I see no proof for this supernatural force and I will, until such time as the situation changes, say that this supernatural force does not exist. Does that make sense? Am I atheist or agnostic?

I believe that we will never find proof if there is a god or not, but from that I reckon it logically follows that there is no god. I see how a benevolent, omnipotent god can be disproven, but I don't see how we can disprove some supernatural force. That said, I see no proof for this supernatural force and I will, until such time as the situation changes, say that this supernatural force does not exist. Does that make sense? Am I atheist or agnostic?

Both, I think.

I can see where you'd get the impression all of it involved anthropomorphization [Now it's a word], as the religions in most textbooks imply that gods make decisions and have wills and desires and preferences and so on, but I feel obligated to remark that not all of us who believe in the "supernatural" believe it's anthropomorphic, that we're made in god's image, etc. <snippage>The reason I used my old pet as example, was to combat this misconception. I was talking about you projecting human traits, not necessarily imaginary humanoids.

I'm not completely ignorant of animism & the like, and my comments apply equally to the lot. You project intent & emotion that you want (or perhaps at times desperately don't want) to be there. It's got nothing to do with what's actually there, it's simply a fiction you infuse objects/concepts with, because it suits you. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a natural consequence of us being a highly empathic & social species. It seems to be a conscious effort for moth people to experience and/or interact with anything, without infusing it with human characteristics to some extent. My old dog is a fine example, and I'm clinically deficient in the empathy department. still, I'm reluctant to talk about anything so personal as <snip> I'll just say that I put not stock in leaps of faith.I have no intention of forcing you to say or feel anything you don't want, but you're not being honest. You do make leaps of faith an an animist. Until you can actually observe the supernatural in some manner, all such things are a leap of faith. You want it to be, so for you, it is. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do. I'm fairly certain all humans do it in some way or other, myself included, without ever realising it. But it still doesn't make it anything more than fantasy/superstition. oh, and I'd say that for the most part, that's perfectly logical and fine.At least your presumptious arrogance is every bit as solid as my own. Baby you have no idea what my prerequisites for entering this debate are. More importantly though, you didn't actually address what I was asking. I'm not saying I have the capacity to fathom an answer, but give me the benefit of the doubt, eh?

I'll try again; why do people let their superstitions dictate their lives to any extent? As an agnostic atheist, it simply doesn't make sense that people would invest reality with human qualities (like emotion & intent) for their own enjoyment, only to let this superstition bite them on the ass every so often. If there is an aswer, I'd love to hear it. Even if I'm too ignorant and/or vacant to understand it.

I cross my fingers for luck on ocation. Not becaus it works, but because it empowers or comforts me. I wouldn't do it if I was falling off a cliff though, I'd be busy grabbing for shit to cling on to. That's basically what I'm talking about.

Hamilay you are indeed both. You believe in no divinity, and believe a conclusive answer is unobtainable. Welcome to the club.

I've been brought up Budhist, and I still act like it to keep peace with my grandparents, but I'm leaning towards agnostism.

I've been brought up Budhist, and I still act like it to keep peace with my grandparents, but I'm leaning towards agnostism.

You can be both.

You can be both.

Well thats what I was thinking of being. Right now I have to be outwardly religiously Budhist, at least.

Both, I think.
And here we see NSG helping people understand themselves and their beliefs, especially regarding evil God-hating devil-worshipping liberal atheist ways. Keep up the good work. ;) Cheers, now I'm slightly less confused.

Agnostic scepticist,

but I'm not entirely sure.

And here we see NSG helping people understand themselves and their beliefs, especially regarding evil God-hating devil-worshipping liberal atheist ways. Keep up the good work. ;) Cheers, now I'm slightly less confused.

If there's anything we know on NS, it's how to help people understand their confusing God-hating-devil-worshiping-liberal-atheist-baby-eating desires.

If there's anything we know on NS, it's how to help people understand their confusing God-hating-devil-worshiping-liberal-atheist-baby-eating desires.
I wonder what reception you'd get if you started a counselling service with that mission statement?

I wonder what reception you'd get if you started a counselling service with that mission statement?

Interesting idea......*steals*

Pastafarian

Proud follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Even this one? (http://www.catholicworker.org/)

I always find it puzzling, that Jesus Christ, a person who spent his time healing, aiding and inspiring the poor, is more despised by leftists than right-wingers in America.


Isn't living life according to some doctrine, but not really having faith in God, useless at best and hypocritical at worst?

I don't think anyone despises Jesus, except perhaps those who use his name to do the very evils he worked against.

Yet the beliefs are idiotic and purile.

boo.

Until you can actually observe the supernatural in some manner, all such things are a leap of faith.

to be perfectly frank, I have. I don't believe in anything I haven't seen. I didn't say that at first because you (or someone else on the thread) will now call me insane, ask me if I've used drugs (I never have) tell me to see a shrink (I have, for depression, I mentioned what I've seen, he said not to worry and that as a shrink he had to recognize that sometimes people actually *did* see/hear the supernatural) - but yes, I have actually observed the supernatural. I have witnessed several poltergeists while in the company of others, seen no less than three apparations of beings other than the human dead - come into contact with more of said human dead than I can count - accurately predicted numerous events, read someone's mind from a sealed envelope, and sent and received messages by disembodied third parties which were later confirmed by their recipients.

you can call me either crazy or a liar - if you don't call me a liar you have to say that those who have observed these things in my company are also crazy. I do not make leaps of faith. as an occultist they are not necessary. I do not expect to win this argument, as I am completely confident you are not willing to accept the existance of these things, and frankly I have no desire to labouriously convince you that the sky is, indeed, blue.

You want it to be, so for you, it is. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do. I'm fairly certain all humans do it in some way or other, myself included, without ever realising it. But it still doesn't make it anything more than fantasy/superstition. At least your presumptious arrogance is every bit as solid as my own. Baby you have no idea what my prerequisites for entering this debate are. More importantly though, you didn't actually address what I was asking. I'm not saying I have the capacity to fathom an answer, but give me the benefit of the doubt, eh?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were incapable of anything.

I'll try again; why do people let their superstitions dictate their lives to any extent? As an agnostic atheist, it simply doesn't make sense that people would invest reality with human qualities (like emotion & intent) for their own enjoyment, only to let this superstition bite them on the ass every so often. If there is an aswer, I'd love to hear it. Even if I'm too ignorant and/or vacant to understand it.

again, I didn't mean to call you ignorant. I would completely agree with you if I had not seen what I had seen. even many christians acknowledge that the churches are dead, loathesome things. I should probably link to tolstoy saying that the institutional church has been antithetical to actual obedience and revernece to christ since the beginning. as we're writing in english, I won't talk about the institutional foundation of other religions, but no, most of us have seen no reason to believe anything but secular materialism. most people I talk to will admit to seeing shit only after I go out on a limb and say I have too. once they realize you won't call them crazy or think they're out to start a cult, people open up and admit that that wasn't a trick of the light, that it wasn't a coincidence, that they weren't just sleepy when they saw that thing right before their eyes.

I considered myself an atheist until I had *drumroll, please* a vision. my eyes were wide open, I was sitting in my room wide awake, and I had a vision. glowing supernatural being and all. call me insane - I'd prefer that to a liar, or presumptuous/superstitious. I do not believe in anything I haven't seen. I'm fully aware that claiming psychicism or whatever is not going to be taken well on this forum - I'll probably regret mentioning it later. if you think "maybe he really *is* some kind of troll", I can show you 4 years of nearly daily blogging which mention this sort of phenominon all the time. if you're actually interested, I could let you talk to any of my dozens of friends who have received tarot readings from me - dozens of other people who have seen ghosts and the like. if you're really interested I could probably teach you. I don't think I'm anything special, and I'd imagine if you were interested you'd be able, with time and practice, to make totally honest posts on stupid internet forums that other people will take as crocks of bullshit. still - let me repeat, call me insane or liar, but do not say I've jumped the gun here. a psychiatrist has told me I am not insane, numerous people can confirm spiritual events (I hate the word supernatural, it makes them sound like they're miraculous or life changing or something, they aren't 99% of the time) that they have experienced with me, or predictions I've made for them that have come true. hell, I practice a religion akin to voodoo - I have several satisfied friends who swear I've made their enemies do things like break out in boils. this is an every day thing for me. I would have to assume that despite being otherwise pretty damn sane, despite being told so by a shrink, that I hallucinate once every few hours, that my friends are liars, and that there are a great many coincidences out there. that room full of people in the santeria rite who had their minds read by the posessed man - the lady whose cyst he healed - the personal advice the worshippers received from a priest they'd never talked to before, that was all some sort of elaborate hoax. so were the other billion times it's been done by free latinos, south american slaves, and africans since the dawn of fucking time. there is no such thing as a leap of faith in this religion. there isn't a one of us who hasn't looked face to face with deity. (on a political note, Oshun said, at her festival in new york city last year, that the recent/current wars are our fault and the war-gods had nothing to do with it)

ok everybody, procede to insult me, ignore me, and discredit me. call my religion a cult. I'm probably brainwashed. I'm a troll. I've deluded myself. I'm probably living over some sort of natural gas vent that makes me go crazy. chemical imbalance, most likely.

I have made no leap of faith. except in actually posting that. I'm tempted to delete it but I guess it doesn't matter one way or another. whatever. *shrug*

It still isn't as if they're going to hurt you.
It's still isn't as if the beliefs are laudable and backed by anything other than a wish.

It's still isn't as if the beliefs are laudable and backed by anything other than a wish.

and 3000 years of other people believing the same thing. I'm sorry, even if there is nothing beyond dirt and empty space, when billions of people believe something, it's more than a wish. maybe not much more, but it definately deserves its own catagory.

and 3000 years of other people believing the same thing. I'm sorry, even if there is nothing beyond dirt and empty space, when billions of people believe something, it's more than a wish. maybe not much more, but it definately deserves its own catagory.
Human beliefs have as much power as humans choose to give them. If a billion people believe that the Earth is the center of the universe it won't make that true, but it could very well make a giant impact on humanity and our experience in the world.

God is, in my opinion, irrelevant. We will never know, nor can we, if there is or is not a God. God is significant only insofar as we are influenced by the beliefs other humans hold about God. God-belief shapes the world I live in, so God-belief is worth my attention, even if God itself is not.

Is that the sort of "category" you were thinking of?

Human beliefs have as much power as humans choose to give them. If a billion people believe that the Earth is the center of the universe it won't make that true, but it could very well make a giant impact on humanity and our experience in the world.

God is, in my opinion, irrelevant. We will never know, nor can we, if there is or is not a God. God is significant only insofar as we are influenced by the beliefs other humans hold about God. God-belief shapes the world I live in, so God-belief is worth my attention, even if God itself is not.

Is that the sort of "category" you were thinking of?

more or less yes, actually, though of course I disagree with you about the knowledge - I personally don't believe GOD - as in a theoretical all-knower all-controller - to be terribly significant anyway. like I said earlier...it's like gravity. all pervasive and vital to existance...but you really don't have to give a shit about it.

to be perfectly frank, I have. I don't believe in anything I haven't seen.And yet you either can't or are unwilling to confirm what you believe your expeciences are in a scientific setting.

I agree supernatural isn't the most useful of words. Superstition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition)is far easier to use in a sentence, and more precise as well. And it accurately describes your beliefs until independently falsified in a scientific fashion. There's plenty of people who'd love a shot at it if you're interested, by the way. Google is your friend.

I'll neither call you liar or anything else of the sort. Suggestible, probably, but that's about it. I see no reason to doubt you believe what you believe.

Insanity is a pretty subjective thing. In my opinion you're insane if the superstitions you hold are an obstacle to your freedom, happiness and/or prosperity, or that of others. Whether that's the case can quickly become a complicated argument, especially in this sort of media. I'm inclined to believe a psychologies would attempt to do something if you fit my criteria for insanity, however, and in any case, it's of no consequence to me.

It does bear on the quastion I was asking though. People impose limitations on themselves, to remain in harmony with the properties they've bestowed upon the reality they inhabit.
There's plenty of reasons to do so, not the least of which is our need not to tear eachother apart for shits & giggles.

Yet in the case of religion there's rarely, if ever, a rational explanation for why we moderate our behaviour. "God told me not to get an abortion, so I gave birth to a three-headed kid that suffered for three days before dying." Isn't rational behaviour. It's undue misery for both the mother & general family, and for the poor mangled infant(s). Of course it's a thought example, but not an entirely unrealistic one.

Better though, is the example of not marrying of a different faith, or disowning a family member for doing so. Or perhaps refusing to live with a person, because that person finds the concept of marriage nauseating. Those all happen every day across the globe, and are of some personal consequence to me presently.

I don't understand it. It seems completely mad to me that someone or some group will project human qualities onto reality, and then change their own human lives to meet the expectations they wish reality had.

Perhaps I should simply accept those people's desires & expectations are of greater importance to them than they want to admit, but on the other hand.. These very same people by & large stubbornly maintain that it isn't about their opinions & wants, but about the expectations they've invented for theiir superstitions.

It's all very confusing. And fucking annoying.

And yet you either can't or are unwilling to confirm what you believe your expeciences are in a scientific setting.

I agree supernatural isn't the most useful of words. Superstition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition)is far easier to use in a sentence, and more precise as well. And it accurately describes your beliefs until independently falsified in a scientific fashion. There's plenty of people who'd love a shot at it if you're interested, by the way. Google is your friend.

I'll neither call you liar or anything else of the sort. Suggestible, probably, but that's about it. I see no reason to doubt you believe what you believe.

Insanity is a pretty subjective thing. In my opinion you're insane if the superstitions you hold are an obstacle to your freedom, happiness and/or prosperity, or that of others. Whether that's the case can quickly become a complicated argument, especially in this sort of media. I'm inclined to believe a psychologies would attempt to do something if you fit my criteria for insanity, however, and in any case, it's of no consequence to me.

It does bear on the quastion I was asking though. People impose limitations on themselves, to remain in harmony with the properties they've bestowed upon the reality they inhabit.
There's plenty of reasons to do so, not the least of which is our need not to tear eachother apart for shits & giggles.

Yet in the case of religion there's rarely, if ever, a rational explanation for why we moderate our behaviour. "God told me not to get an abortion, so I gave birth to a three-headed kid that suffered for three days before dying." Isn't rational behaviour. It's undue misery for both the mother & general family, and for the poor mangled infant(s). Of course it's a thought example, but not an entirely unrealistic one.

Better though, is the example of not marrying of a different faith, or disowning a family member for doing so. Or perhaps refusing to live with a person, because that person finds the concept of marriage nauseating. Those all happen every day across the globe, and are of some personal consequence to me presently.

I don't understand it. It seems completely mad to me that someone or some group will project human qualities onto reality, and then change their own human lives to meet the expectations they wish reality had.

Perhaps I should simply accept those people's desires & expectations are of greater importance to them than they want to admit, but on the other hand.. These very same people by & large stubbornly maintain that it isn't about their opinions & wants, but about the expectations they've invented for theiir superstitions.

It's all very confusing. And fucking annoying.

WARNING: WILD SPECULATION AHEAD!

Ok, I could be totally off base about this, but here's how I've tended to look at it:

In most cases, people aren't superstitious for no reason. They have a reason to believe in the particular things they believe. Those beliefs serve some purpose for them, and satisfy some need or want that they have.

Many times, believers express that their faith gives them a sense of purpose. Others find motivation to push themselves, to strive to be good, or to achieve great things. Others find the strength to endure hardships. Some feel many of these, and I'm sure I'm leaving out many other benefits that individuals draw from their superstitious beliefs.

When you look at it that way, then their beliefs actually have tremendous value to them. Without these beliefs, they lose a whole lot of important factors in their life. This might make it easier to understand why they would be willing to sacrifice so much to preserve and sustain their beliefs. For instance, cutting out a family member over matters of belief might seem irrational or crazy to somebody who does not place much value on superstition, but to some people their superstitions are such a major part of their life that they actually can rival the importance of their familial bonds. (Also, some people have shitty relationships with their families, so cutting out a family member doesn't cost them much.)

In other words, the "irrational leap" is made way ahead of time, when the individual embraces a system of faith-beliefs or superstition and uses these beliefs as a foundation or source of strength for many other aspects of their life and personality. Once that has been done, it's actually quite reasonable for the person to be willing to make sacrifices to sustain what they have built.

I’m a working-atheistic Discordian.

Philosophically speaking, I’m an agnostic, but I live my day-to-day life as if I was an atheist with a passion for beautiful Eris.

WARNING: WILD SPECULATION AHEAD!That's basically what I've been thinking as well for the last couple of weeks, but it just seems a fucked up way of going about things. I suppose if I was religious, I'd dismiss this possibility, simply because I don't want it to be true.

On the positive side of things.. It doesn't seem like especially wild speculation.

I recently decided to fully commit to Islam after research and batting it around for awhile. So I decided to start the thread. And yes, I'm aware religion has been discussed once or twice on here but humour me if you will. Whats your faith(or lack there of), how did you come to it, and do you feel you or your religion are in conflict another religion or idea(such as modernity or freedoms).

I'm agnostic.
My father is catholic my mother is anglican. I was never baptized as my parents felt it was my choice. Growing up in london, religion was never an issue, so no views were forced on me. My parents have always been good people (treat others how you'd like to be treated, etc...).
While i was growing up i have english, irish, syrian, egytian, nigerian, indian, iranian, french and lebanese friends who were sikh, hindu, muslim (shia & sunni), christian (anglican & catholic) and jewish friends.
Over time i learnt bits and pieces about the faiths, talked with the parents, and found that they were all contridictory in some way with each other. So i starting believing there was no God and that science ruled. I mean what proof was there that God existed? What makes God any more real than Ammon-Ra or Shiva, etc...

Now it boils that to the fact that I don't think there is a God/afterlife but i know that on my death bed i will hope there is. So if there is there is if there isn't there isn't.

And yet you either can't or are unwilling to confirm what you believe your expeciences are in a scientific setting.

like I said, pearls before swine. several points:

1) if science figures this shit out...I don't want to be around when it happens. science has no moral compass. religion does, almost by definition. for all of human history we've handled this well (assuming it exists, which you won't be) as far as science controlling and using its abilities well...*snort*

2) for reasons explained below - when more emotional support is invested in a particular worldview than outside of it, a person will maintain that worldview. you've often seen this if you've gotten a religious person to agree with all your starting points, agree with each individual logical step, but when they are brought by hand to put it all together and disprove their belief system - their eyes go glassy and they don't understand at all. it's a psychological defense mechanism. I have no reason to belief that it's not exactly the same way with secular materialism - but as I have no belief that your souls are in jepodry, I see no reason to beat anyone over the head with it.

3) I have reason to believe, as per my friends/teachers experiences, that using this sort of thing to support oneself is perfectly reasonable - but using it for astounding financial gain is against some sort of rule. I see two possible reasons for this, either it's just against the functional rules of the universe somehow, or someone else has cornered the market and doesn't want anyone else doing so - and is capable of preventing them. I had a friend nearly die after winning a small local lottery by intuiting the numbers. lol, if the second position is true, I want to know as little as possible about whoever is doing it, because they are probably corrupt and unfriendly. if it's false, it's so rediculous it doesn't bear thinking about. either way...I struggle with the fact I am not a mendicant yogi or something similar. financial incentive doesn't really work with mystics.

4) who cares? you don't. I don't care that a bunch of strangers think I'm deluding myself. the vast majority of the world agrees, to some or another extent, with my belief in spiritual reality. I don't even like going to the dentist, and if you've read my other postings you'll see I've been arguing against the accumulation of wealth from the start. I have absolutely no incentive to go be a guinea pig.

They have a reason to believe in the particular things they believe.

generally speaking, as soon as someone has more of an emotional support group in one belief system than another, they convert. after conversion, they will come to believe they always found the arguments of this group compelling.

there's an excellent, excellent book on the topic done by a sociologist named Stark, called The Rise of Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Rodney-Stark/dp/0691027498) that explains in detail. if you're interested in religious history, sociology, or psychology, it would be a good read. I didn't finish it but I got through enough of it to get his point. he studied the rise of the moonies in san francisco, and watched people convert almost exactly at the moment their emotional support existed more inside than outside the religion. he cites testimonies of people who say the cult is bullshit, and then a month later when their best friend converts or their emotional support system otherwise shifts to be more within than without, they suddenly talk about how they always felt the truth pulling at their heart and mind. fascinating read. I highly recommend it!

I am not an occultist or practitioner of any ritual. I was once an atheist, and I remain very skeptical about everything. But I know god is, as I know I breathe air, as I know my appendectomy is still healing.

Years ago, I laughed and said: If god exists, he can come here and prove it to me.

And god did.

This was frustrating because this new information threatened to change everything I knew about life. I am still thinking about it. There are many things that are not reconciled in my head.

I do not consider my experiences to be associated with superstition in any way. I do not consider them beliefs, as there is no faith involved.

I can't even say that I know god exists, because knowledge implies fixity. The best way to explain it is thus:

I am learning that god is.

I'm KEEPING my shoes. I want God to FIX my toe. Or to give me $60.

Unless you have only had $60 your entire life, God has given you alot more than that!

I believe I'm a god, but thats just vanity....

Seriously, I'm an agnostic waiting to be converted, but too intelligent to place faith blindly.

No, because if they were inaccurate God would have sent another prophet to speak his word. But he did not, why? Because Mohammed(pbuh) had spoken the truth, the accurate word of God. This is something the bible failed to do. And by all means tell me if I have any mistakes.


He did. Joseph Smith. See www.lds.org

Unless you have only had $60 your entire life, God has given you alot more than that!

Doubtful. Buddha on the other hand... now there is generosity incarnate. Which reminds me that I must thank him for that bountiful fruit basket.

He did. Joseph Smith. See www.lds.org

from what I've read Joseph Smith has been widely discredited as a quack. (And I mean no disrespect by that) I'm simply stating what I've read.

One question, though -- wouldn't you skip one of your daily prayers if you had to in order to save another person's life?

Good point. yes I would

Doubtful. Buddha on the other hand... now there is generosity incarnate. Which reminds me that I must thank him for that bountiful fruit basket.


Buddha always has the good fruit baskets. Eris just hands out apples, and only to the pretty girls.

from what I've read Joseph Smith has been widely discredited as a quack. (And I mean no disrespect by that) I'm simply stating what I've read.

Quack or not, his followers numbered 12.5 million world-wide as of the end of last year, which is not too shabby for a religion that's not even 200 years old.

That's basically what I've been thinking as well for the last couple of weeks, but it just seems a fucked up way of going about things.

I don't think it's necessarily "fucked up," myself. I think there are plenty of valid reasons why a person might be religious, even if I happen to think that superstition itself is silly.

Religious communities provide a support system for a great many people. Shared religious beliefs provide an opportunity for bonding and social structure that reassures people. Religious convictions help people feel more confident about facing moral quandries and challenges in their lives. And the list could go on.

I don't personally believe religion is the best source of such positive support and internal value. I think it's a quick-and-dirty solution to a lot of complicated problems, and I don't think it's the ideal way to go. However, the world isn't an ideal place.

People have needs and wants that are not met by the empirical realities around them. I don't think they're crazy or stupid for seeking ways to satisfy those needs and wants. That's perfectly natural and normal. I happen to believe superstition is a bad choice in the long run, but that's just my opinion. I think there are often very sane reasons why people make bad choices. I think there are sound reasons why smart people do dumb things. Doesn't mean the choices are actually good choices, but it does mean that you don't have to worry that every person who does something nutty is actually an insane person. :D

Agnostics in da house! WUT!!!!111 :eek:
(braaaap braaaaap)

Agnostics in da house! WUT!!!!111 :eek:
(braaaap braaaaap)

Agnostics? I just don't know about them ...

Agnostics? I just don't know about them ...

Yeah. I'd say we're pretty much everywhere.

Quack or not, his followers numbered 12.5 million world-wide as of the end of last year, which is not too shabby for a religion that's not even 200 years old.

Particularly since it was never spread by the sword.

Yeah. I'd say we're pretty much everywhere.

Pity it is not possible to know that for certain ;)

Yeah. I'd say we're pretty much everywhere.

Pity it is not possible to know that for certain ;)

:D

Pity it is not possible to know that for certain ;)

"Pretty much" indicates a reasonable amount of doubt with respect to the main statement, which in this case was that agnostics are everywhere.

So yes, they can be everywhere, they just don't have to be.

from what I've read Joseph Smith has been widely discredited as a quack. (And I mean no disrespect by that) I'm simply stating what I've read.

I find it really hard to trust a religion founded by a man who supposedly was given golden tablets with all of his prophesies, copied them in secret, and then promptly "lost" them. You'd think golden tablets from God are something you would hang on to, wouldn't you?

I find it really hard to trust a religion founded by a man who supposedly was given golden tablets with all of his prophesies, copied them in secret, and then promptly "lost" them. You'd think golden tablets from God are something you would hang on to, wouldn't you?

You really should say "hang" when talking about Joesph Smith, you know.

correctism. (http://www.correctism.cjb.net/):cool:

you should try incorrectism aka wrongism

it's the belief that everything is wrong, no matter how logical, rational or nice it is

so of course that means wrongism is wrong and so is wrongism being wrong and wrongness in itself is wrong and all your emotions and stuff are wrong and of course the all knowing god is wrong, him existing is wrong and him not existing is wrong...

i'm sure you get the point;) well it's real eye opener and brilliant for arguing your position of faith

you should try incorrectism aka wrongism

it's the belief that everything is wrong, no matter how logical, rational or nice it is

so of course that means wrongism is wrong and so is wrongism being wrong and wrongness in itself is wrong and all your emotions and stuff are wrong and of course the all knowing god is wrong, him existing is wrong and him not existing is wrong...

i'm sure you get the point;) well it's real eye opener and brilliant for arguing your position of faith

You're wrong. :p

You're wrong. :p

the wise words of wrongism have reached yet another ear:)

the wise words of wrongism have reached yet another ear:)

Yea, I can see this going nowhere at all. But I might be wrong. :p

Yea, I can see this going nowhere at all. But I might be wrong. :p

MIGHT be wrong?!?! these are not the words of a wrongist, ah well i suppose the wrong words take time to sink in:p

(all the above is wrong)
(all the above is wrong)
(all the abo.....

Particularly since it was never spread by the sword.
Is that a swipe at Islam?

I find it really hard to trust a religion founded by a man who supposedly was given golden tablets with all of his prophesies, copied them in secret, and then promptly "lost" them. You'd think golden tablets from God are something you would hang on to, wouldn't you?

you would, if only for their value at a pawn shop:p

Is that a swipe at Islam?

Could just as well be a swipe at christianity or hinduism.

After a good couple years looking around at other religions, i decided on zen buddhism. Mostly because no one has EVER been mad at a zen buddhist.

I mean honestly, have you ever heard of a zen buddhist that got attacked over their beliefs? It would be pointless anyway, because we don't fight back. Hahahaha!

Could just as well be a swipe at christianity or hinduism.

true, it just seemed like he was hinting at Islam

The Jewish tradition is millenia old. It is believed that King David reigned around 1000 BCE, which would put the revelation at Sinai sometime in the second millenium BCE.
The Jewish tradition is hardly a conglomerate of other beliefs. The idea of a single, invisible, immaterial god was radical. And yes, I know there were other monotheistic faiths, but I do not know of one that believed in an IMMATERIAL god.
As for sexual immorality or idolatry, one could save one's own life. If a guy has a knife to your throat and says, "Bow down to this idol or die" a non-Jew should bow down to the idol. A Jew should not, but under rabbinic tradition, he is exempt from punishment if he does give in.
Finally, not spelling out G-d comes from the tradition of not spelling out G-d's name in writing, to avoid erasing the Name (which is a sin).

i'm an atheist as in i don't believe in any deity/creator/higher being/whatever, but i'm agnostic when it comes to 'spiritualism'. i find it hard to credit the idea that all there is to the universe is what we can perceive or test. i'm equally sceptical of scientific determinism and spiritualism.

and 3000 years of other people believing the same thing.
The length of time that something is believed means nothing. Unless, of course, you feel that argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't a fallacy.


I'm sorry, even if there is nothing beyond dirt and empty space, when billions of people believe something, it's more than a wish. maybe not much more, but it definately deserves its own catagory.
Not unless you feel that argumentum ad numerum isn't a fallacy.

Nope. Big Bang and all that, primordial chemical soup, the E-word ... and intelligence? I know you're not new to NSG ... :D
Mmmm... Primordial soup.... Tastes like bacteria.

The reason I used my old pet as example, was to combat this misconception. I was talking about you projecting human traits, not necessarily imaginary humanoids.

I'm not completely ignorant of animism & the like, and my comments apply equally to the lot. You project intent & emotion that you want (or perhaps at times desperately don't want) to be there. It's got nothing to do with what's actually there, it's simply a fiction you infuse objects/concepts with, because it suits you. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a natural consequence of us being a highly empathic & social species. <snip>
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm not challenging that, because it would be pointless to argue over whose view is correct about something that cannot be either proven or disproven, definitively. However, the problem I have with your statements is that they seem to be based on nothing but assumptions about what is going on in the minds of other people. You are hardly the first person I have seen tell other people what they think and why they think it, hardly the first to spin entire psychological profiles and analyses of other people, all without ever asking the other people what they think. You claim to be "not completely ignorant" of animism and other religions, but it seems that a little ignorance can go a long way sometimes. You have religious people of several stripes right here to ask questions of, but since you have already decided that all religious belief is "fiction" and since you have already decided that you know why people construct such fictions, I guess there's no reason for you to ask us anything, eh?

And yet you either can't or are unwilling to confirm what you believe your expeciences are in a scientific setting.
Another assumption.

A) What scientific setting are you hoping for?

B) What scientific setting is possible on an internet forum?

C) How do you know Vegan Nuts isn't at least willing to try?

I agree supernatural isn't the most useful of words.
I agree, but this is because I do not believe in the existence of the "supernatural," because I do not believe that anything that exists, exists beyond the limits of what is "natural." Thus, everything that is, is natural, and if there is such a thing as ghosts, then ghosts are a perfectly natural thing, i.e. not supernatural. But that's just my view. Thought I'd toss it out there.

Superstition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/superstition)is far easier to use in a sentence, and more precise as well. And it accurately describes your beliefs until independently falsified in a scientific fashion. There's plenty of people who'd love a shot at it if you're interested, by the way. Google is your friend.<snip>
Actually, no, "superstition" is not an accurate word to describe an idea that has not yet been independently falsified in a scientific fashion. A more accurate word for that would be "hypothesis."

However, "superstition" is the best word to use to describe a set of beliefs you wish to denigrate as somehow trivial and silly. This is another indicator of your personal, pre-existing bias.

It occurs to me that you are as blindly and subjectively devoted to your own beliefs about religion as you say religious people are devoted to their beliefs in religion. And your beliefs are just as unfalsified and untestable, and your motives for promoting them so forcefully seem just as personal. You have convinced yourself of your own rightness just as much as the most "superstitious" god-botherer.

Is that a swipe at Islam?

Only if you want it to be. It could be a swipe at Christianity as well. Or any faith that was spread with/uses violence.

Is that a swipe at Islam?

Defensive much?


What if it was?

A faith should be above a little razzing from an anonymous name on the internet.

Personally, I razz Islam as much as I razz Christianity.
What other religions are continuously being pains in so many asses, even to this day?

No religion can claim to be a "religion of peace", when to martyr yourself by killing innocents is perpetuated, or encouraged.
Likewise for Christianity, no religion can have so much blood on its hands and still claim righteousness.

This doesnt mean they dont both have positive messages in them.
I think its a shame that the positive examples of either faiths are getting harder and harder to find.


-Atheist.

Personally, I razz Islam as much as I razz Christianity.
What other religions are continuously being pains in so many asses, even to this day?
So Islam is a pain in the ass?

No religion can claim to be a "religion of peace", when to martyr yourself by killing innocents is perpetuated, or encouraged.

When members of the IRA, or the KKK, or the Lord's resistence army kill or terrorize in the name of Christianity does it mean that Christianity is not a religion of peace? I don't think it does. The same is true of Islam. Not to mention that reasons one chooses to become a Martyr many times has more to do with political or social reasons than it does with religious. Such is the case with Palestinians or Iraqis living under constant oppression.

Likewise for Christianity, no religion can have so much blood on its hands and still claim righteousness.

The actions of people who claim to do things for whatever religion they say does not mean the blood lies on the hands of the religion, but the rather the people themselves. Islam in itself is a beautiful and pure faith.

This doesnt mean they dont both have positive messages in them.
I think its a shame that the positive examples of either faiths are getting harder and harder to find.
I agree with that to a point. Speaking of Islam particularly, I think the majority of peaceful moderates need to speak out more against violent extremism that gets some much attention.

s/he said that men had *more* commandments than women. even a passing familiarity with jewish culture and religious traditions would make it clear that it's never been any more sexist than the cultural context it existed within.

well...maybe slightly moreso than the ancient babylonians/egyptians/canaanites, who were downright modern about women's rights, but that's debatable.

Hehe you slightly missed what I meant. I meant in christianity it views men as superior to women however it doesn't give them less commandments, whilst judaism views women as superior so they have less commandments.

like I said, pearls before swine. several points:You are, as always, completely free to ignore me ;)

1) if science figures this shit out...I don't want to be around when it happens. science has no moral compass. religion does, almost by definition. for all of human history we've handled this well (assuming it exists, which you won't be) as far as science controlling and using its abilities well...*snort*It's entirely your choice.

2) for reasons explained below - when more emotional support is invested in a particular worldview than outside of it, a person will maintain that worldview. you've often seen this if you've gotten a religious person to agree with all your starting points, agree with each individual logical step, but when they are brought by hand to put it all together and disprove their belief system - their eyes go glassy and they don't understand at all. it's a psychological defense mechanism. I have no reason to belief that it's not exactly the same way with secular materialism - but as I have no belief that your souls are in jepodry, I see no reason to beat anyone over the head with it.I think that's pretty arrogant, and I certainly hope you're wrong.
Human beings are sentient individuals. Unless we're incredibly prejudiced against certain ideas, there's no reason to think we'll shut down & simply ignore information conflicting with currently held ideas. I'm actually pretty sure we'd be unable to survive for very long if that was the case.
Regardless of what you may think, I'm not especially prejudiced against the existence of magic. I freely acknowledge I'm an agnostic. I just have no reason what so ever to believe in the existence of magic. To the very best of my knowledge, the universe functions just fine without it. I can't find it anywhere myself, and no one else offers me anything but vague stories and/or hear-say that can be otherwise explained.
Of course, I think the world is nicer without magic as well, but the existence of magic would have little, if any, impact on my life. The inclusion of it in my worldview would be no more significant than a unifying field theory.

3) I have reason to believe, as per my friends/teachers experiences, that using this sort of thing to support oneself is perfectly reasonable - but using it for astounding financial gain is against some sort of rule. I see two possible reasons for this, either it's just against the functional rules of the universe somehow, or someone else has cornered the market and doesn't want anyone else doing so - and is capable of preventing them. I had a friend nearly die after winning a small local lottery by intuiting the numbers. lol, if the second position is true, I want to know as little as possible about whoever is doing it, because they are probably corrupt and unfriendly. if it's false, it's so rediculous it doesn't bear thinking about. either way...I struggle with the fact I am not a mendicant yogi or something similar. financial incentive doesn't really work with mystics.This is pretty much a repeat of pt.1, as far as I can see, but at least it's related to what I was bitching about. Why do you need to base your morality in somthing other than what is desirable for humans?
Science is amoral, as in, having no morality. Philosophy is all about morality. I'm a humanist, and my morality is quite clearly defined. It requires no magic at all.

4) who cares? you don't. I don't care that a bunch of strangers think I'm deluding myself. the vast majority of the world agrees, to some or another extent, with my belief in spiritual reality. I don't even like going to the dentist, and if you've read my other postings you'll see I've been arguing against the accumulation of wealth from the start. I have absolutely no incentive to go be a guinea pig.You don't need to get defensive. I'm not the thought police, and I have no desire to make you my clone.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm not challenging that, because it would be pointless to argue over whose view is correct about something that cannot be either proven or disproven, definitively. However, the problem I have with your statements is that they seem to be based on nothing but assumptions about what is going on in the minds of other people. You are hardly the first person I have seen tell other people what they think and why they think it, hardly the first to spin entire psychological profiles and analyses of other people, all without ever asking the other people what they think. You claim to be "not completely ignorant" of animism and other religions, but it seems that a little ignorance can go a long way sometimes. You have religious people of several stripes right here to ask questions of, but since you have already decided that all religious belief is "fiction" and since you have already decided that you know why people construct such fictions, I guess there's no reason for you to ask us anything, eh?Mmmm... I can almost taste the fury.

Mur I wasn't out to offend you or tell you how you think. I presented an argument for how I percieve magic-based superstitions. If you think it is wrong, then refute it. Using fancy words to call me a shithead, while dodging the argument I presented, accomplishes nothing.

The entire popint of my rant was to provide an insight into the question I was asking you all - and I really was asking. There was nothing rethorical about it. If it had been, I'd simply have presented an argument similar to Bottle's & been done with it. Another assumption.Not really. It was the only possibilities I could deduce from VN's post, and as you can see, if you read his pt.1 I've quoted above, it wasn't at all wrong.A) What scientific setting are you hoping for?Hard science.B) What scientific setting is possible on an internet forum?None, presumably. Are you gonna attempt to conduct some sort of science experiment on Jolt's boards? Oh well.. Can't make the lag worse, I suppose.C) How do you know Vegan Nuts isn't at least willing to try?First he left no other possible interpretations. Secondly he confirmed he wouldn't. Maybe you should have read his posts?I agree, but this is because I do not believe in the existence of the "supernatural," because I do not believe that anything that exists, exists beyond the limits of what is "natural." Thus, everything that is, is natural, and if there is such a thing as ghosts, then ghosts are a perfectly natural thing, i.e. not supernatural. But that's just my view. Thought I'd toss it out there.The definition, as I recall, is something like this; if it exists within the confines of the universe, it is natural. If it doesn't, it is supernatural.
Should ghosts be bound by the confines of the universe, then they are indeed natural.

The supernatural is generaly identified as such by the people that believe in it, presumably because they don't wish their phantasmagoria bound by the framework that is the universe.

My objection to the word, is how hard it is to use in a sentence. My English is bad enough as it is.Actually, no, "superstition" is not an accurate word to describe an idea that has not yet been independently falsified in a scientific fashion. A more accurate word for that would be "hypothesis."

However, "superstition" is the best word to use to describe a set of beliefs you wish to denigrate as somehow trivial and silly. This is another indicator of your personal, pre-existing bias.As long as we have no compelling reason to think majic - the supernatural - is required for the universe & it's content to function in the manner it does, beliefs in supernatural things are by definition superstitions. It has nothing to do with personal bias. I neither invented the word, definition, nor wrote the damn dictionary.
And as long as this is the case, it cannot be considered a hypothesis in a scientific sense. The methodology doesn't allow that sort of thing.... And again, that's none of my doing.

You make it sound like it's a major sin to be superstitious, by the way. Why, I wonder?

It occurs to me that you are as blindly and subjectively devoted to your own beliefs about religion as you say religious people are devoted to their beliefs in religion. And your beliefs are just as unfalsified and untestable, and your motives for promoting them so forcefully seem just as personal. You have convinced yourself of your own rightness just as much as the most "superstitious" god-botherer.My original rant sprang from an argument with my significant other, so of course it's personal. I'm fairly certain I already made every attempt to explain I had personal reasons for wanting to hear some explanations.

I'm neither particularly blind or devoted when it comes to my opinions about superstitions. They're my opinions not something I think I know for fact. If you believe me to be wrong, then I'd love to hear why. Simply stating that I'm biased, blind or oblivius accomplishes nothing, except possibly making me think you daft. If you want to change my mind, it'll take something besides "You wrong bad man" - OK?

Just in case you actually do have a counter argument & some opinions of your own, please understand that I want to hear them. I'm not writing all this shit just because I like punching keys.

When members of the IRA, or the KKK, or the Lord's resistence army kill or terrorize in the name of Christianity

IRA members being almost exclusively Catholic=/=they were doing anything in the name of christianity.

Islam in itself is a beautiful and pure faith.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one. :p

Next you'll be telling us that religion wants peace and love and fluffy bunnies! :rolleyes:

Religion = violence, temporal power, corruption, unpleasantry, &c.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one. :p

Next you'll be telling us that religion wants peace and love and fluffy bunnies! :rolleyes:

Religion = violence, temporal power, corruption, unpleasantry, &c.

Aah grow up. It's not that bad. Just a system of beliefs.

Aah grow up. It's not that bad. Just a system of beliefs.Since every system of beliefs generates a system of actions, it is actually that bad.
.

Since every system of beliefs generates a system of actions, it is actually that bad.
.


Heheh yeah your right of course every system of belife such as, goverment, Atheism, any and all, clubs, football teams, music fans, art, litrature.

All of these are systems whos followers hold certian beliefs are indeed bad.

1. This thread is not about clubs, football teams, music fans, art, literature, government, etc.

2. Learn to spell. :rolleyes:
.

Some kind of non-abrahamic agnostic pagan hemetic occultist. 0_0

1) if science figures this shit out...I don't want to be around when it happens. science has no moral compass. religion does, almost by definition.

Religion doesn't innately have any more moral compass than science. Morality exists with or without religion. Religion is one way of convincing people to follow a particular moral code, but it's not the source of the moral code.

I've demonstrated this on a lot of other threads with the "kill a kitten" example. A lot of religious people claim that their morality comes from God, but it's quite easy to determine that the overwhelming majority of them have a moral compass that exists quite independent of God.

1. This thread is not about clubs, football teams, music fans, art, literature, government, etc.

2. Learn to spell. :rolleyes:
.


1. I was replying to the post which said that all systems of belife cause certian actions and thus are bad.

2. Fuck off!:eek:

Religion doesn't innately have any more moral compass than science. Morality exists with or without religion. Religion is one way of convincing people to follow a particular moral code, but it's not the source of the moral code.

I've demonstrated this on a lot of other threads with the "kill a kitten" example. A lot of religious people claim that their morality comes from God, but it's quite easy to determine that the overwhelming majority of them have a moral compass that exists quite independent of God.


Yeah I agree morality is not a function of religoin.

Yeah I agree morality is not a function of religoin.
I don't think religion answers a single question, it just gives people more confidence in sticking to the answers they've already found.

I don't think religion answers a single question, it just gives people more confidence in sticking to the answers they've already found.


I can't agree with that obviously.;) It does after all answer one very big question.

God did it!:eek:

Agnostic Discordian.

IRA members being almost exclusively Catholic=/=they were doing anything in the name of christianity.

Catholics are Christians. They did what they did largely because of their faith.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one. :p

Next you'll be telling us that religion wants peace and love and fluffy bunnies! :rolleyes:

Religion = violence, temporal power, corruption, unpleasantry, &c.

You should not confuse religion and faith with people you do things in the name of religion.

I am an agnostic, simply because I never really know that God exists and often change my mind about it. Still, I mainly follow scientific arguments and beliefs and have a suspicion that my fluctuating belief in God may be at least partly based on my fear of what would happen to me if I didn't believe that God existed.

I live in an area of the UK that is reasonably atheist, and scientific ideas are taught as fact at the schools there; religious ideas being only referred to in passing as beliefs. Still, we have a substantially large amount of theists here, mainly muslims and a few sikhs, since most of the christian population seem to be really old or just keep to themselves so much that nobody even notices them.

I once had an interesting science lesson where we were going over mock exam papers, and one boy got annoyed that he couldn't get any marks for putting 'because that's how God made it' as the answer to a 3 mark question about Red Shift or something. We then got this whole lecture about how your beliefs don't matter and what is taught in science must be assumed to be true, if not because of the evidence then because we would all fail otherwise.

<snip the parts that weren't addressed to me>

Mmmm... I can almost taste the fury.

Mur I wasn't out to offend you or tell you how you think. I presented an argument for how I percieve magic-based superstitions. If you think it is wrong, then refute it. Using fancy words to call me a shithead, while dodging the argument I presented, accomplishes nothing.
Project much, my friend?

I told you how your comments look to someone else. There was nothing in anything I wrote that in any way suggested that I think you are a "shithead." No, you brought to the table the notion that someone who does what I described is a shithead. It's your label, and you're the one slapping it on yourself. All I did was criticize your comments. If my criticism makes you think that your comments put you in a bad light, then maybe you should amend your comments rather than search about for something to hold against me.

The entire popint of my rant was to provide an insight into the question I was asking you all - and I really was asking. There was nothing rethorical about it. If it had been, I'd simply have presented an argument similar to Bottle's & been done with it.
Well, gosh, ya think maybe you could have included the actual question somewhere in the rant? That way we would have known you meant to ask us something, not just bitch at us for being "superstitious."

Not really. It was the only possibilities I could deduce from VN's post, and as you can see, if you read his pt.1 I've quoted above, it wasn't at all wrong.
Oh, was it? Based on what, other than your assumptions that (a) what he said really happened to him didn't really happen, and (b) that all beliefs in what is commonly called the "supernatural" are nothing more than "superstition"?

There was not enough information in what VN said for you to draw such a conclusion unless you added something more, in this case, your assumptions about religious belief.


Hard science.
I was under the impression that hard science is never completely satisfied with any result and that everything, no matter how often "proved," may still be subject to experimentation/falsification as new information and new theories are developed.

If that is so, then hard science would not say definitively, "What VN said is not possible, and thus, it is just superstition." What it would say is, "What VN said cannot be verified at this time and, thus, it is not accepted as scientific fact," and it would leave the matter open to further testing.

Of course, VN never claimed that what he said was scientific fact. He talked about his beliefs and about the personal experiences that led him to hold those beliefs, which was directly responsive to the OP.


None, presumably. Are you gonna attempt to conduct some sort of science experiment on Jolt's boards? Oh well.. Can't make the lag worse, I suppose.
You're the one demanding hard scientific proof. Since you acknowledge that hard science cannot be conducted on an internet forum, it seems a rather pointless demand. It's inappropriate to the context of the discussion.

First he left no other possible interpretations. Secondly he confirmed he wouldn't. Maybe you should have read his posts?
I did read his posts. What you mean to say is that he left YOU no other possible interpretations that appeal to YOU. You are still assigning a set of motives and a thought process to VN that he, himself, does not claim. The fact that he is not interested in fighting with your biases is not proof that you are right.


The definition, as I recall, is something like this; if it exists within the confines of the universe, it is natural. If it doesn't, it is supernatural.
Should ghosts be bound by the confines of the universe, then they are indeed natural.
That begs the question, "Does anything exist outside the confines of the universe?"

I personally do not believe that anything does, but that is just my personal point of view. So, according to my personal point of view, what is called "supernatural" is either fiction or it is perfectly natural but not fully understood. For an example of what I mean, I recommend the book Vampires, Burial & Death by Paul Barber, research associate, Fowler Museum of Cultural History, UCLA, in which he works through his thesis that belief in vampires (supernatural) was really nothing more than an inaccurate explanation of the natural processes of the decay of human corpses, which, during the times such beliefs prevailed, were often closely observed and accurately described, although the observers lacked the information to correctly explain what was happening.

The supernatural is an attempt to explain reality with insufficient data. It really has nothing to do with what religion is about or for.

The supernatural is generaly identified as such by the people that believe in it, presumably because they don't wish their phantasmagoria bound by the framework that is the universe.

My objection to the word, is how hard it is to use in a sentence. My English is bad enough as it is.
Mm-hm. You have no problem with using "phantasmagoria" in a sentence, though. I would think "supernatural" would at least be easier to type.


As long as we have no compelling reason to think majic - the supernatural - is required for the universe & it's content to function in the manner it does, beliefs in supernatural things are by definition superstitions. It has nothing to do with personal bias. I neither invented the word, definition, nor wrote the damn dictionary.
And as long as this is the case, it cannot be considered a hypothesis in a scientific sense. The methodology doesn't allow that sort of thing.... And again, that's none of my doing.
My point was that it is not appropriate to apply the requirements of science to religion. They are two different ways of thinking that serve two entirely different functions for people. For you to try to invalidate religion because it is not science is not very different, in my opinion, from those who try to invalidate science because it is not religion. Both arguments are similar to "I prefer apples to oranges; therefore apples are better than oranges; and oranges are useless because they are not apples."

You make it sound like it's a major sin to be superstitious, by the way. Why, I wonder?
I was commenting on your use of the word. Projecting again, Sim?

My original rant sprang from an argument with my significant other, so of course it's personal. I'm fairly certain I already made every attempt to explain I had personal reasons for wanting to hear some explanations.
Then you should ask for them. If you can do so politely, that will be much appreciated.

I'm neither particularly blind or devoted when it comes to my opinions about superstitions. They're my opinions not something I think I know for fact. If you believe me to be wrong, then I'd love to hear why. Simply stating that I'm biased, blind or oblivius accomplishes nothing, except possibly making me think you daft. If you want to change my mind, it'll take something besides "You wrong bad man" - OK?
Projecting again. Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. Also, don't work yourself into such a state, believing I insulted you when I didn't, that you go ahead and start lobbing insults at me. I repeat, I criticized your comments; I did not attack you. Drink a nice, calming cup of tea and go re-read my post, and you'll see that. Any "shithead," "major sin," or "bad man" remarks are entirely your own.

Just in case you actually do have a counter argument & some opinions of your own, please understand that I want to hear them. I'm not writing all this shit just because I like punching keys.
Oh? Well, I wish you would punch a few more keys, because you haven't made an argument for me to counter. Rant =/= argument.

Before you go to the trouble, I'll outline my position re religion:

1) It is a thought system (similar to philosophy) that is designed to harmonize people's inner thoughts with their personal experiences of outer reality in areas that are not (yet) answerable by science. For many people, it serves to relieve certain profound anxieties, particularly about death, misfortune and personal suffering. People look towards religion more or less, depending on how much of those anxieties they feel, and/or on the nature of their personal experiences.

2) I adhere to the religion I chose because of the nature of my personal experiences (rather than any anxieties), and my need to develop a coherent view of the universe that includes those particular experiences. My worldview includes both religion and science. The two do not conflict because they are about different things.

3) Because religion deals with things that cannot be proven scientifically (yet), it is pointless to argue about whether religion is true or not true. Since religion cannot be proven, "true" becomes a meaningless concept except in the broadest philosophical sense. Therefore, I will always argue against anyone who claims that religion/their religion is good because it's true, and I will also argue against anyone who claims that religion/someone's religion is bad because it's not true. I will also always try to debunk any claims of proof either way.

This is my thinking and the approach I take to all debates about religion. Now that you know what to expect from me, I'll be happy to address any argument you care to make. Also, if you have any questions or challenges you'd like to put to me, please feel free.

Agnostic Discordian.

discordian?

I find it always funny how folks do not seem to realize that by saying "I believe in God" they only say something about themselves but not anything about god.

That's "funny"?
That's misguided.

I wasn't attempting to say anything about God. I was saying something about myself. That should be readily apparent because I began the sentence with the subject "I".

I will put it terms you can understand. If Jesus tells you to turn the other cheek and you don't, are you worshipping as well as could be or being as good a Christian as you could be?


Those are not terms that I can understand your motivation at all.
Jesus taught a particular attitude to live by in the section you reference. He didn't teach a ritual to be acted out repeatedly.
If I somehow believed that in order to follow this particular teaching of Jesus that I was obligated to go out twice a day and find someone to strike me on the cheek so that I can turn the other one, then I would see the parallel.


But back to the question, why do YOU believe that following the Qu'ran's instructions regarding diet and/or ritual times of prayer etc allow you to worship God better?


Because Islam is purist form of what God wants. The Qu'ran is the purist word of God. The Torah and bible strayed from the true word of God.

What leads you to the conclusion that Islam and the Qu'ran have this purity?

yes, of course. Which is why God needed to send his last prophet to tell his true word. If they had been accurate, there would have been no need for Mohammed(pbuh) or the Qu'ran.

No, because if they were inaccurate God would have sent another prophet to speak his word. But he did not, why? Because Mohammed(pbuh) had spoken the truth, the accurate word of God. This is something the bible failed to do. And by all means tell me if I have any mistakes.

By the statements you present here, you really ought to be Mormon then.
Joseph Smith is claimed by the Latter Day Saints to be a Prophet, and he came significantly later than Mohammed.

I agree that it is certainly possible to be a member of a religious organisation without such communal thinking, but it seems to me like that is the essential point of such bodies that they are communities unified by a specific set of ideas. The question bears thinking then that, if not drawn by the appeal of such unity of thought, then for what other reason or purpose would you subscribe to it?

Many reasons. For instance, just some of the reasons I go to church are to be able to hear different people's takes on Scripture and what it means to them, to be able to accomplish things that we cannot do as individuals -- such as helping with large scale missions -- and yes, for fellowship. Sometimes, it's nice to spend time with people who share your beliefs. That is not inherently wrong. Just because some people allow themselves to be misled does not mean that it is a bad idea to seek to spend time with people who can encourage you in a way that someone who does not share your values cannot.

I am learning that god is.

I like that =)

He did. Joseph Smith. See www.lds.org

oy vey. whatever floats your boat. just don't try and control others - if you deny the LDS church higher-ups haven't been doing that, I could present a fairly good case that their status as a religious non-profit should be revoked - an instance of direct campaign funding in hawaii I think it was, and of course rampant corruption in utah's government. BYU's administration is downright draconian in many ways, too.

After a good couple years looking around at other religions, i decided on zen buddhism. Mostly because no one has EVER been mad at a zen buddhist.

I mean honestly, have you ever heard of a zen buddhist that got attacked over their beliefs? It would be pointless anyway, because we don't fight back. Hahahaha!

go buddhism! I like tibetan, personally, but zen rocks.

The length of time that something is believed means nothing. Unless, of course, you feel that argumentum ad antiquitatem isn't a fallacy.

oh, I don't mean to say they're *correct*, just that a 3000 year old tradition being followed by a single person now, does not necessarily imply that individual is doing any sort of "wishful thinking" - at least I think that was the context of my origional statement.

C) How do you know Vegan Nuts isn't at least willing to try?

I am for individuals. for the scientific community at large, I'm not. most non-believing individuals who have expressed interest have been convinced - I got a few hardcore evangelical christians to feel prana/chi/energy once. most people don't need much convincing after you give them something that they detect with their own senses. admitedly, having friends feel/see that kind of thing doesn't qualify as scientific evidence, but I don't care particularly.[/QUOTE]

You are, as always, completely free to ignore me ;)

haha, I'll bear that in mind, though you've been nice enough so far.

I think that's pretty arrogant, and I certainly hope you're wrong.
Human beings are sentient individuals. Unless we're incredibly prejudiced against certain ideas, there's no reason to think we'll shut down & simply ignore information conflicting with currently held ideas. I'm actually pretty sure we'd be unable to survive for very long if that was the case.

oh, I'm not saying I don't do it too! if I were, that would be arrogant. but I have done it - I only left my parents evangelical church when I'd put more of an emotional investment in my atheist best-friend than within the church. I left basicly assuming I would go to hell, but that I'd prefer his company in hell than a bunch of stuck up snobs' in heaven. I'm cerebral by nature, so I had a bit of a justification for it, but I certainly operate on the same principle.

and as far as survival - I'm not talking about things like natural disasters or whatever...though people *do* deny those are happening too, at least momentarily. rock-solid facts people still go into denial over - death, being an excellent example. with something like a belief system, usually much more important to someone than a relationship with an actual person, how much easier would it be to maintain denial? if mothers will attempt to breastfeed the corpses of infants, if people will scream and shake the most obviously-dead bodies of their loved ones to "wake them up", I don't think it's really that out of line to say that people will do the same with belief systems. gods don't leave corpses, either, so it's even harder to break through. I'm not saying it can't be done...just that it usually isn't.

Regardless of what you may think, I'm not especially prejudiced against the existence of magic. I freely acknowledge I'm an agnostic. I just have no reason what so ever to believe in the existence of magic. To the very best of my knowledge, the universe functions just fine without it. I can't find it anywhere myself, and no one else offers me anything but vague stories and/or hear-say that can be otherwise explained.
Of course, I think the world is nicer without magic as well, but the existence of magic would have little, if any, impact on my life. The inclusion of it in my worldview would be no more significant than a unifying field theory.

fair enough. like I said, I don't think there's any particularly compelling reason to convert anyone. if I'm right, you'll be just fine after death without agreeing with me...though a little study beforehand wouldn't hurt you, by any means, it's only the difference between you popping out on "the other side" (for lack of a better term) and already knowing how to swim, or just learning it as you go. if I'm wrong...well, there's not much to be done - only thing my particuarly religion is setting me back is some cool-looking artwork, really - I'd probably live more or less the same as an atheist, so no worries.

Why do you need to base your morality in somthing other than what is desirable for humans?

I agree there. my religion has no universal code of ethics. don't be a jerk and one wouldn't really have any problems. I can't think of any specific taboos that exist in candomble/santeria/voodoun that don't exist in secular society at large - like I've said before, the only rule I've observed to be any stricter in candomble than in mainstream culture is that incest is even more taboo. other than that, we/they tend to be more accepting than most. I know the religion is a haven for artistic expression, and the "homophobic latin culture" I've heard tell about is exactly the opposite of santerian/candomble culture. PETA has objected to our existance, over the occasional chicken sacrifice, but I'm a vegetarian and I actually don't care. I've had people occasionally, in between bites of a chicken sandwich, object to our killing of chickens...but I ignore them.

Science is amoral, as in, having no morality. Philosophy is all about morality. I'm a humanist, and my morality is quite clearly defined. It requires no magic at all.

I didn't mean to say that agnostics/atheists were amoral - I meant to say that religion safegaurds this sort of thing better than science safegaurds its secrets. anyone who's literate can find most of the worst things science has ever produced. spiritualists, relatively speaking, are much better at keeping their weapons burried and out of the wrong hands.

Religion = violence, temporal power, corruption, unpleasantry, &c.

correction: *some* religion, or, *the only religion I have ever bothered to see*, or, *codified, book religion*

Some kind of non-abrahamic agnostic pagan hemetic occultist. 0_0

yay! Hermes Trismegistus = teh sex

Religion doesn't innately have any more moral compass than science. Morality exists with or without religion. Religion is one way of convincing people to follow a particular moral code, but it's not the source of the moral code.

I've demonstrated this on a lot of other threads with the "kill a kitten" example. A lot of religious people claim that their morality comes from God, but it's quite easy to determine that the overwhelming majority of them have a moral compass that exists quite independent of God.

ok, fair enough. religion always pretends to have a moral compass...but it usually doesn't. I agree there - sorry to have mispoken.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
C) How do you know Vegan Nuts isn't at least willing to try?
I am for individuals. for the scientific community at large, I'm not. most non-believing individuals who have expressed interest have been convinced - I got a few hardcore evangelical christians to feel prana/chi/energy once. most people don't need much convincing after you give them something that they detect with their own senses. admitedly, having friends feel/see that kind of thing doesn't qualify as scientific evidence, but I don't care particularly.
Well, of course, trying to "prove" a spiritual experience to the whole scientific community would be goofus. I mean, you'd be just one of the thousands of unconvincing non-scientists who write books of "proof" (read: tripe) and end up with a reputation for being whackos. That's not how science works. The scientific community must be left free to experiment with the propositions on their own. Trust me, science has heard plenty about prana/chi/energy. Some scientists think it's bunk. Others think there may be something to it and are quietly experimenting away. Give them a hundred years -- they'll write a paper eventually.

My personal view is that the experiences of "prana/chi/energy" are too common to be dismissed as fictions. The only question remains, what is it? In the absence of hard data, there are hundreds of speculative answers. Based on my own experiences as well as history, I think it is obvious that it is a natural phenomenon, but what kind of phenomenon, why it exists, or what meaning, if any, it has, that I do not know.

I am a Christian, but I am a very Postmodern Christian with bits of fatalism and determinism thrown in on the side. By Christian I mean adhering to the Bible, ignoring all stereotypes. I don't care about alcohol, I don't care about swearing, etc. As far as Postmoderism goes, I believe that deconstructionism comes into play a lot more than people think. I may read a book, hey let's just say Jennifer Government, and get a lot out of it whereas another person may get absolutely nothing out of it because they choose not to. When people talk about a good read, they never talk about the "bad" parts. Why? Because they cut those out. You will always get what you take out of literature, music, movies, television, and even life itself. Aside from deconstructionism, I believe that really nothing can be proved other than existence at some level ("I think therefore I am" - Descartes).


Yay.

The only question remains, what is it? In the absence of hard data, there are hundreds of speculative answers. Based on my own experiences as well as history, I think it is obvious that it is a natural phenomenon, but what kind of phenomenon, why it exists, or what meaning, if any, it has, that I do not know.

I think it's just part of the metabolism, somehow. I'm tempted to point to hinduism as it has the most complex system (not sure if it has the *Best* one) to explain its use and its connection with emotions and whatnot. I know lots of people who *swear* by acupuncture - which depends entirely on the eastern concept of bio-energy. haha, one episode of "myth busters" had people using the baghdad battery to give a mild electrical charge to acupuncture needles.

there was a period where I thought I must be just boosting blood-flow to certain areas or something, but one day my friend just asked me to teach her to do it, and I did - I fealt hers and she fealt mine. after that I got a bit bolder and tried it with a few total skeptics, all but one of whom felt it right off. *shrug* I've also had several experiences with parasites that produce a sort of negative flow of it...I just assume it's sort of the spiritual equivolent of blood. or something akin to a magnetic field. hell I don't know. in candomble/santeria it's called "Ashe" - which is also a generic word meaning blessings/good health. there are days when I can tell where someone is standing behind me because of it, and others I can't do anything with it at all. it also seems to releive pain somehow. heh, a good friend of mine can use it to make smoke or mist move around however she wants...pretty neat trick. not particularly useful, but neat all the same. I also knew a girl who could charge objects with more than their usual share of it - heh, that made for a bit of amusement, though the unsuspecting bystanders who got zapped when picking up a book or whatever usually wrote it off as a weird static electricity thing - since it can feel similar sometimes.

I think it's just part of the metabolism, somehow. I'm tempted to point to hinduism as it has the most complex system (not sure if it has the *Best* one) to explain its use and its connection with emotions and whatnot. I know lots of people who *swear* by acupuncture - which depends entirely on the eastern concept of bio-energy. haha, one episode of "myth busters" had people using the baghdad battery to give a mild electrical charge to acupuncture needles.

there was a period where I thought I must be just boosting blood-flow to certain areas or something, but one day my friend just asked me to teach her to do it, and I did - I fealt hers and she fealt mine. after that I got a bit bolder and tried it with a few total skeptics, all but one of whom felt it right off. *shrug* I've also had several experiences with parasites that produce a sort of negative flow of it...I just assume it's sort of the spiritual equivolent of blood. or something akin to a magnetic field. hell I don't know. in candomble/santeria it's called "Ashe" - which is also a generic word meaning blessings/good health. there are days when I can tell where someone is standing behind me because of it, and others I can't do anything with it at all. it also seems to releive pain somehow. heh, a good friend of mine can use it to make smoke or mist move around however she wants...pretty neat trick. not particularly useful, but neat all the same.

Hmmm. I am not really into mysticism, but it is interesting all the same. I guess my stance would be people will see what they want to see.

Hmmm. I am not really into mysticism, but it is interesting all the same. I guess my stance would be people will see what they want to see.

I think that's true of just about everything. good stance. buddha would approve, lol

Yeah I would go so far as to say that people will see things that are untrue if they want to also. Of course, that raises the question of what is true? And that of course comes down to faith. Faith that I believe in truth, that you do or don't, etc.

I love philosophy, but it has so many loose ends. So I guess my goal (that I fail miserably at) would be to show Christ's love to others.

I think it's just part of the metabolism, somehow. I'm tempted to point to hinduism as it has the most complex system (not sure if it has the *Best* one) to explain its use and its connection with emotions and whatnot. I know lots of people who *swear* by acupuncture - which depends entirely on the eastern concept of bio-energy. haha, one episode of "myth busters" had people using the baghdad battery to give a mild electrical charge to acupuncture needles.

there was a period where I thought I must be just boosting blood-flow to certain areas or something, but one day my friend just asked me to teach her to do it, and I did - I fealt hers and she fealt mine. after that I got a bit bolder and tried it with a few total skeptics, all but one of whom felt it right off. *shrug* I've also had several experiences with parasites that produce a sort of negative flow of it...I just assume it's sort of the spiritual equivolent of blood. or something akin to a magnetic field. hell I don't know. in candomble/santeria it's called "Ashe" - which is also a generic word meaning blessings/good health. there are days when I can tell where someone is standing behind me because of it, and others I can't do anything with it at all. it also seems to releive pain somehow. heh, a good friend of mine can use it to make smoke or mist move around however she wants...pretty neat trick. not particularly useful, but neat all the same. I also knew a girl who could charge objects with more than their usual share of it - heh, that made for a bit of amusement, though the unsuspecting bystanders who got zapped when picking up a book or whatever usually wrote it off as a weird static electricity thing - since it can feel similar sometimes.
"It must be some form of magnetism." That quote really needs the wacky cartoon voice. I think it's from the old "Gigantor." It was said by a scientist character, too. ;)

I know what you mean, though. I've had similar experiences. Some people get very weird about it, but such things never struck me as particularly unusual. I mean, those real chi masters who do all kinds of superhero-esque tricks, they are impressive, but so are gymnasts and jugglers and people who are good at math (to me, at least). These are skills that anyone can learn, if they want to. I've had some experiences with occult experiments that some people got het up about, but there are countless things that could have been happening, the most plausible of which involve that mysterious natural energy. What is certain is that the energy exists. What it's good for, if anything, is up for debate. I personally buy into the idea that we can improve our health and achieve other beneficial conditions by being mindful of it, but I also believe that chicken soup is a good back up to medicine when you've got the flu. Many doctors agree with that nowadays.

"It must be some form of magnetism." That quote really needs the wacky cartoon voice. I think it's from the old "Gigantor." It was said by a scientist character, too. ;)

lol

I know what you mean, though. I've had similar experiences. Some people get very weird about it, but such things never struck me as particularly unusual. I mean, those real chi masters who do all kinds of superhero-esque tricks, they are impressive, but so are gymnasts and jugglers and people who are good at math (to me, at least). These are skills that anyone can learn, if they want to. I've had some experiences with occult experiments that some people got het up about, but there are countless things that could have been happening, the most plausible of which involve that mysterious natural energy. What is certain is that the energy exists. What it's good for, if anything, is up for debate. I personally buy into the idea that we can improve our health and achieve other beneficial conditions by being mindful of it, but I also believe that chicken soup is a good back up to medicine when you've got the flu. Many doctors agree with that nowadays.

exactly. it's not like people who can do this sort of thing are "spiritually elevated" or anything. it's like gymnastics. though, of course, I believe there's an actual sort of enlightenment/spiritual elevation element that *can* come into play, you can just as easily learn this sort of thing without ever really bothering to go into the life-changing element.

I am a Satanist. Of all the religions I've seen, its the only one that fits me and the way I see the world.

lol



exactly. it's not like people who can do this sort of thing are "spiritually elevated" or anything. it's like gymnastics. though, of course, I believe there's an actual sort of enlightenment/spiritual elevation element that *can* come into play, you can just as easily learn this sort of thing without ever really bothering to go into the life-changing element.
I agree, but if it is used as a tool for finding enlightenment or seeking spiritual elevation, then that is really due to the person using it, not necessarily the phenomenon itself.

I am a Satanist. Of all the religions I've seen, its the only one that fits me and the way I see the world.

laveyan or freelance?

lol, I'm sorry, but I have to be critical of the name. they could've called the belief system something else - yes I know lucifer is a benevolent minor greek deity and all (son of Aurora and cupid, wasn't he?) and that the philosophy isn't particularly different from the whole "enlightened self interest" thing folks like ayn rand (:sniper:) advocate (I'm obviously not a fan...but I don't think it's PURE EVIL either...just infantile) , but geeze, the name just sounds like you're sacrificing babies and shit.

heh...

Aleister > Anton

:D

I agree, but if it is used as a tool for finding enlightenment or seeking spiritual elevation, then that is really due to the person using it, not necessarily the phenomenon itself.

yes, exactly.

laveyan or freelance?

lol, I'm sorry, but I have to be critical of the name. they could've called the belief system something else - yes I know lucifer is a benevolent minor greek deity and all (son of Aurora and cupid, wasn't he?) and that the philosophy isn't particularly different from the whole "enlightened self interest" thing folks like ayn rand (:sniper:) advocate (I'm obviously not a fan...but I don't think it's PURE EVIL either...just infantile) , but geeze, the name just sounds like you're sacrificing babies and shit.

heh...

Aleister > Anton

:D

LaVeyan.

As for the name, I suppose had LaVey been borne in a different culture, he would have chosen a different name, but being raised in christian America, "Satanism" as a name was inevitable. Ayway "Satanism" sounds better than "enlightened self interest" though they are essentially the same philosophy.

On a side note: Someone once described Satanism to me as atheism with more drama. Sounds about right to me.

On a side note: Someone once described Satanism to me as atheism with more drama. Sounds about right to me.

haha, definately. I can't help but appriciate a good sense of melodrama. ayn rand by herself bothers the shit out of me - I despise that sort of thinking. LaVey, (ayn rand in a cape), however, makes me happy. capes make everything better. as do candles and sex rituals. I really should join a traditional european esoteric fraternity, just for the melodrama. OTO here I come!

haha, definately. I can't help but appriciate a good sense of melodrama. ayn rand by herself bothers the shit out of me - I despise that sort of thinking. LaVey, (ayn rand in a cape), however, makes me happy. capes make everything better. as do candles and sex rituals. I really should join a traditional european esoteric fraternity, just for the melodrama. OTO here I come!

I am impressed at your keen grasp of what Satanism is all about. There are not that many people out there who are a perceptive as you seem to be.

I am impressed at your keen grasp of what Satanism is all about. There are not that many people out there who are a perceptive as you seem to be.

lol, you could've been being sarcastic, but I'm thinking you weren't. I've been around the occult block a few times.

I've spent 3 years reading everything I possibly could find on any sort of esoteric religious practice, period. I settled on candomble/santeria, but not before drifting through theosophy and thelema and chaos magic(k) all the other assorted occult movements that are or were in vogue during the last 200 years or so. I figure there's go to be *something* I can do that will let me make a career out of continued flirtation with esoterism (if that's a word...)...haha, I'll probably end up either an anthropologist or owning a botanica. or both, who knows.

edit:

or I could start a cult. that would be fun...joseph smith and L. ron hubbard did well enough...hrrmmmm

lol, you could've been being sarcastic, but I'm thinking you weren't. I've been around the occult block a few times.

I've spent 3 years reading everything I possibly could find on any sort of esoteric religious practice, period. I settled on candomble/santeria, but not before drifting through theosophy and thelema and chaos magic(k) all the other assorted occult movements that are or were in vogue during the last 200 years or so. I figure there's go to be *something* I can do that will let me make a career out of continued flirtation with esoterism (if that's a word...)...haha, I'll probably end up either an anthropologist or owning a botanica. or both, who knows.

edit:

or I could start a cult. that would be fun...joseph smith and L. ron hubbard did well enough...hrrmmmm


I have studied various occult traditions for some 20 plus years off and on. My choice of Satanism was an informed one to say the least.

Since we are both qualified to form cults to bilk little old ladies out of their life savings I give you this warning: Don't go poaching on my territory. I will sick one of several snaggle-toothed demons on you.:D

lol, you could've been being sarcastic, but I'm thinking you weren't. I've been around the occult block a few times.

I hope he was. Saying that LaVey Satanism is all about capes, candles and orgies is like saying Christianity is all about drinking eachothers blood, nailing people to crosses and shunning fruit.

I hope he was. Saying that LaVey Satanism is all about capes, candles and orgies is like saying Christianity is all about drinking eachothers blood, nailing people to crosses and shunning fruit.

Umm...You all A: don't know me very well, or B; Left your sarcasm detectors in your other suits.

Umm...You all A: don't know me very well, or B; Left your sarcasm detectors in your other suits.

I meant "I hope he was sarcastic". As the comparision with "Christian practices" hopefully made clear ;)

I meant "I hope he was sarcastic". As the comparision with "Christian practices" hopefully made clear ;)

Actually, I keep hoping to find a good Satanic orgy, but alas I am not a 4th degree High priest yet, so they refuse to invite me. *It could be the goat thing, but I'm not sure*

I hope he was. Saying that LaVey Satanism is all about capes, candles and orgies is like saying Christianity is all about drinking eachothers blood, nailing people to crosses and shunning fruit.

lol, sorry, but if st paul had died in 1997, had been saying absolutely nothing that other secular philosophers hadn't been saying for years, and had insisted his followers wore capes and had lots of sex...I would say christianity was about capes and sex too. laveyan satanism as a philosophy is not new, and the mere fact he called it "satanism" indicates that he was *definately* just wanting to ruffle some feathers and have a bit of fun. most belief systems will bend over backwards to avoid being called satanic, particularly young ones. laveyan satanism is about sex in capes.

edit:

I wikied the man. look what he named his son:

"Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey"

this man's life reads like a running exitentialist joke.

I hope he was. Saying that LaVey Satanism is all about capes, candles and orgies is like saying Christianity is all about drinking eachothers blood, nailing people to crosses and shunning fruit.
What? Huh? Fruit? :confused:

lol, sorry, but if st paul had died in 1997, had been saying absolutely nothing that other secular philosophers hadn't been saying for years, and had insisted his followers wore capes and had lots of sex...I would say christianity was about capes and sex too. laveyan satanism as a philosophy is not new, and the mere fact he called it "satanism" indicates that he was *definately* just wanting to ruffle some feathers and have a bit of fun. most belief systems will bend over backwards to avoid being called satanic, particularly young ones. laveyan satanism is about sex in capes.

edit:

I wikied the man. look what he named his son:

"Satan Xerxes Carnacki LaVey"

this man's life reads like a running exitentialist joke.
There's gold in them thar laughs, friend. Don't argue with results. Little Satan by now should be able to afford his therapy.

You gotta at least grudgingly love anybody who can build a whole lifestyle and a whole religion out of fashion and satire.

I don't think anyone despises Jesus, except perhaps those who use his name to do the very evils he worked against.
When you despise every group that is inspired by Jesus it's more or less the same thing. I don't like a lot of Christian groups either, but I don't make stupid generalisations.

I have a theory that left-wing atheists in America despise Christians because they ignorantly view them all as right-wing theocrats. They feel they have a personal feud with them. Which is sad, since leftists have great potential to make great Christians. In my opinion their mindset is more in tune with the Christian ethos than most rightists.

God-belief shapes the world I live in
How so? I would imagine that politics, big business and a number of other facets of human civilisation influence your world more than religion.

Personally, I razz Islam as much as I razz Christianity.
What other religions are continuously being pains in so many asses, even to this day?
Pains they may be to some, but they are also great comforts to billions of people.

Likewise for Christianity, no religion can have so much blood on its hands and still claim righteousness.
Killing in the name of religion is an evil action. The majority of Christians and Muslims cannot logically be associated with those acts. The truth is still true.

This doesnt mean they dont both have positive messages in them.
I think its a shame that the positive examples of either faiths are getting harder and harder to find.
How are they getting harder? If anything, surely, the era of blood-soaked theocracy is slowly fading away.

What? Huh? Fruit? :confused:

A piece of fruit got us kicked out of paradise ;) Not to mention that some fundamentalists seem to shun what the fruit represents.

Those are not terms that I can understand your motivation at all.
Jesus taught a particular attitude to live by in the section you reference. He didn't teach a ritual to be acted out repeatedly.
If I somehow believed that in order to follow this particular teaching of Jesus that I was obligated to go out twice a day and find someone to strike me on the cheek so that I can turn the other one, then I would see the parallel.


But back to the question, why do YOU believe that following the Qu'ran's instructions regarding diet and/or ritual times of prayer etc allow you to worship God better?


The Holy Qur'an is the word of God. If I do not do what God as commanded of me, I am not worshipping as I should since I would be defying him. Do you see now?

What leads you to the conclusion that Islam and the Qu'ran have this purity?
because of the type of man the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) was and the way the Qur'an was protected and created. An example of this is that it was written in a language still spoken today, Arabic. This is unlike the bible which means less of a chance things would be lost in translation.

... what the fruit represents.That would be what?
.

By the statements you present here, you really ought to be Mormon then.
Joseph Smith is claimed by the Latter Day Saints to be a Prophet, and he came significantly later than Mohammed.

The difference is Joseph Smith has been all but disproven.

The Holy Qur'an is the word of God. If I do not do what God as commanded of me, I am not worshipping as I should since I would be defying him. Do you see now?

because of the type of man the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) was and the way the Qur'an was protected and created. An example of this is that it was written in a language still spoken today, Arabic. This is unlike the bible which means less of a chance things would be lost in translation.The Qur'an is surely not the word of god. It's not even the word of Muhammed (who is not its author although tradition tells thus). The Qur'an holds some interesting extra information though that the Bible leaves out (e.g. on Moses).
.

The difference is Joseph Smith has been all but disproven.Yeah, just like L. Ron Hubbard. Joseph Smith was an idiot and a liar, and everyone with at least half a brain knows that.
.

I am an Agnostic Buddhist, I would try being a full buddhist but I so dont have the discipline for it.

I am an Agnostic Buddhist, I would try being a full buddhist but I so dont have the discipline for it.I used to be Buddhist, but I got bored. Now I am an anti-stupid-monotheistic-religions guy.
.

The Qur'an is surely not the word of god. It's not even the word of Muhammed (who is not its author although tradition tells thus). The Qur'an holds some interesting extra information though that the Bible leaves out (e.g. on Moses).
.

What leads you to believe it is not the word of God?

What leads you to believe it is not the word of God?I know that the Jewish god is a combination of distorted perspectives of Yah and El. And since the Qur'an dwells entirely on the Jewish perpective of this merged god, it cannot possibly be the word of this god, as it tells the same fabricated story as does the Tanakh. If it were the word of Yah or El/Allah it would not feature a monotheistic approach.
.

I know that the Jewish god is a combination of distorted perspectives of Yah and El. And since the Qur'an dwells entirely on the Jewish perpective of this merged god, it cannot possibly be the word of this god, as it tells the same fabricated story as does the Tanakh. If it were the word of Yah or El/Allah it would not feature a monotheistic approach.
.

The Qur'an is based on one God yes. However the Qur'an corrected the many flaws found in the Torah and bible.

The Qur'an is based on one God yes. However the Qur'an corrected the many flaws found in the Torah and bible.Well it did not correct the most important flaw: monotheism. All other flaws are secondary in comparison.
.

Well it did not correct the most important flaw: monotheism.
.

why is that flawed?

why is that flawed?Because this monotheism has no past.
.

Because this monotheism has no past.
.

compared to what?

compared to what?No comparison. It has no past. It was copied from the monotheism that the Jews encountered when the Persians conquered the Babylonian realm and it was put into a book by Jews in the Ptolemaic era and it was used for political ends by the Hasmoneans and it was changed and spread by Christians and Muslims. But it remains a theology and ideology without a past. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the Judges, David, Jedidiah, down to Zedekiah were all polytheists. So why would anybody be a monotheist now when they were not?
.

What evidence do you have that Abraham et Co were polytheists, and that all the events prior to the Ptolomeic era were falsified?

Also, Persian Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic. It was dualistic - Good v. Evil. Judaism believes in one god.

The only pre-Judaic monotheistic faith I know of was the worship of Aten, a short-lived Egyptian religion. And while Atenism acknowledged a single god, they worshipped the sun, not the invisible, immaterial G-d of Judaism.

And Soviestan, the Torah is written in Hebrew, a language that was preserved over the years. True, for a time Hebrew ceased to be a commonly spoken language, but people knew it.

Hooray for a lack of inclusion

:sniper:

A piece of fruit got us kicked out of paradise ;) Not to mention that some fundamentalists seem to shun what the fruit represents.
Oh, right. Forgot about that.