MoFo's Religion

[firegod]

What is your religion, if any?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Not religious. I am agnostic.

[spudracer]

May I ask why Christianity wasn't on the poll list?

I would put it in there, but I'm gonna wait for your approval before doing so. :)

I am Christian. :)

[Yoda]

Ditto. Me smells a debate. Goody :licklips:

[Raziel1]

Whats up with not putting christian up there.


ANY BAPTISTS IN THE HOUSE.:D :D :D

[spudracer]

Originally posted by Yoda
Ditto. Me smells a debate. Goody :licklips:

In the words of Miles Lane, "Let's get it on!"

Originally posted by Raziel1
ANY BAPTISTS IN THE HOUSE.:D :D :D

*raises hand*

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Raziel1
Whats up with not putting christian up there.


ANY BAPTISTS IN THE HOUSE.:D :D :D :laugh: I think firegod has something against us (Chris, Kently, ME) ;D

[Raziel1]

i don't know whats up with this guy.maybe he's atheist.
well atleast all that fire will come in handy

[Yoda]

He is an Atheist. :yup:

[sadesdrk]

What is your avatar of Raz?

[spudracer]

That's what I would like to know as well. :)

[Yoda]

I believe it's from a video game called Soul Reaver.

[sadesdrk]

Oh.

??
:bashful:

[firegod]

Catholics and Protestants make up the vast majority of Christians. Other Christians should choose the "Other" option.

[Yoda]

I don't mean to be confrontational (:laugh: will anyone believe me when I say that?), but I don't think that's the best way to go about it...when you've got an "Other" option covering too many potential choices, the poll fails to provide an accurate breakdown of what people chose. That's just my opinion, of course...naturally I'd probably have constructed the poll very differently altogether.

[firegod]

I'd be willing to bet that one of the others is non-Christian and the other is Protestant.

[Raziel1]

I totally agree with you youse. To many other religions in that other catagor. I mean why even start a thread about it knowing it might offend others.I mean there are obvious differences in between the religions in the other catagory as well. so why evn bother.

p.s. my avitar is of the character Raziel from the game Soul Reaver.hence my name is started

[Yoda]

Well, both of those who voted for the Other option posted in this thread...I thought the idea of the poll was to let you know who was/wanted what at a glance...and that reading the thread itself was supplemental. Not that there are "Poll Rules" or anything. It's your poll. :)

You don't seem likely to change your mind here, so I'm not going to force the issue. I'll vote for Protestant, because I think it's probably the most accurate choice on the board for me, roughly. Don't quote me on that, though.

[firegod]

This is to both Raziel and Commish. If you aren't Protestant, what are you? I think it would be obvious that others should post what they are, like Jason did.

[Yoda]

I don't have an official denomination, really...if I had to pick one, I suppose it'd be Episcopalian. I'd appreciate even broader options (or much, much more specific ones), but Protestant is close enough.

[Raziel1]

If you would read your own thread you would see I already said i am Baptist. and no i will not say i am protetant because their are SO many differences between the two. Believe me i went to a Baptist college for a semester and a half in pastoral training so please i beg u don't go there:)

p.s. this post was not to offend protestants. Your religion is your buisness and has no place in a movie board. Hint.. Hint...

[firegod]

So a Baptist thinks he isn't a Protestant so I should have been a psychic, known that, and listed Baptist when you can only list 10 options? Hmm.. Makes a lot of sense. And telling me what I should and shouldn't post won't get you anywhere with me.

[Raziel1]

First of all I didn't tell you what to do. and i never said be psychic..i was merely reiterating what yoda stated so don't go gettin all huffy man. Its your thread man your entitled to your own opinions even if they clash with mine. Like i said your religion. Your buisness

[firegod]

You had an attitude, so I responded in kind. Your atheist remark was an obvious showing of hatred towards atheists. As for the options I chose, if I had added Baptist, I would have had to add about 100 others, and you can only add 10. Since most Baptists consider themselves to be Protestants, I figured they were included. Since you don't feel that way, the "other" option seems fine to me, and I don't know why it is a problem.

[Raziel1]

i never said it was a problem. i have no hatred towards anyone and. my beliefs are my beliefs. if you would like to know about them then ask i will tell you about them.

sorry religion is a touchey subject with me.


Hey youse I thought this was a movie board and not Billy Grahman hour

[firegod]

This is Miscellaneous chat. This is where MoFo's go to talk about things not having to do with movies. Check out the other threads. Let me say that I didn't intend this thread to offend anyone, and it is my opinion that if religious talk offends you, it might be a good idea not to participate. I'm not telling you what to do; it just seems logical to me.

[Yoda]

Crap. I was hoping this thread would quickly degenerate into another debate on the merits of religion (it's been far too long since we've had a good argument around here)...instead it's become a disagreement on poll etiquette. :laugh: Not nearly as much fun. Ah well...I'll just keep waiting. :D

[Raziel1]

it doesn't offend me much..I just don't like people gettin huffy at me. I come in peace man:D

[firegod]

I'm pretty sure I only responded with a similar attitude that was shown in what I was responding to, but ok. Peace is cool. :)

[Raziel1]

I mean how much religion is instiled in u your avitar is a picture of something that looks like satan..:yup:

[firegod]

I have no religion at all. The avatar is easy enough to explain. About 14 years ago, I picked the name firegod for a dial up BBS. I can't remember why I picked that name; it might have had something to do with D&D. I've used the nick ever since. When I came here, I searched the internet for a pic small enough to fit here, and I thought this one looked real cool. Voila.

[Raziel1]

exactly so y post about religion. why would u care. Except ding ding to start some sort of contraversy. well mission accomplished.

by the way church is not a hypocracy.:frustrated:

[Yoda]

If you're upset by some of his signatures, I say start a thread on it. You know I'll join in. :D

[firegod]

I care because I am a student of religion. I am intrigued by it. By how it came about, how it continues, how it rules so many people's lives. The whole thing is very interesting to me, and I know a whole lot about it.

[Raziel1]

i'll leave it be

[Mary Loquacious]

I am a Mary-ist. I believe in me, and my people. I am my own Pope, although technically, as a lapsed Catholic, Denis Leary is my Pope.

[firegod]

Lol. I knew you would have something cool to say. Leary is awesome. However, if he ever blew smoke in my face, he might find one of those cigs planted so far up his ass, he'd be able to smoke without trying. :)

[Raziel1]

here we go again man:yup: :yup:

[Mary Loquacious]

However, if he ever blew smoke in my face, he might find one of those cigs planted so far up his ass, he'd be able to smoke without trying.

:laugh: I'm the only smoker left among my friends, and every time--every time--we hang out I always get accused of deliberately blowing smoke into their faces. So now I have to go for the Old Faithful exhale.

They keep bagering me about quitting, but I'm not giving in to peer pressure. I've seen the commercials. I just say, "No." I'm no quitter.

[Raziel1]

that is hilarious. you go ahead and smoke if lung cancer is your thing.

hey different strokes for different folks i guess :laugh: :laugh:

( i know i am full of good news today)

[Yoda]

Well, I don't think Ms. Kenobi is particularly fond of lung cancer. I'm not fond of diabetes, but I sure love ice cream. :licklips: My philosophy is that if they know the risks involved and they still wanna go for it, that's their right. The only people I'd say anything to are the ones who may not know what they're getting into.

[Raziel1]

well put i gree with ya youse i am just havin a little fun:laugh: :laugh:

[Mary Loquacious]

you go ahead and smoke if lung cancer is your thing.

Well, sh*t. You mean cigarettes actually cause cancer?

Those misrepresentin' bastards. On my pack of Camel Turkish Gold it says clearly, "Partaking of these fragrant delights could result in unicorns and daisies."

Swear. Unicorns and daisies.

I'm throwing 'em all away, right now, including the loose tobacco that I eat straight from the bag.

[firegod]

:rotfl: Man, I gotta stop reading your f*cking posts... I'm going to break a rib or something.

[Sullivan]

I'm agnostic.

[Raziel1]

eww.:sick: :sick: :sick: that is some nasy stuff

p.s. smart a$$

[Mary Loquacious]

Well, it's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. How else are the bigwigs at Phillip Morris gonna stay in caviar and silk sheets? I ask you, how?

[firegod]

Sullivan, would you say you have no religion? Just curious.

[Raziel1]

i thought the line was fagnostic
" my dad says your fagnostic"

[Raziel1]

fire why u startin again

[Mary Loquacious]

Perhaps we should refer to the immortal words of Edie Brickell:

"Religion is a smile on a dog."

But she's not aware of too many things...

[firegod]

Because this is a thread about what our religions (or lack thereof) are. It might bother you, but I doubt it bothers Sullivan. If it bothers you, WHY READ THE THREAD? :)

[Sullivan]

Yes, I would say I have no religion. That's the literal truth, given my definition of religion.

I would not say, however, that I have no faith, nor would I say I have no spirituality.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Sullivan
I would not say, however, that I have no faith, nor would I say I have no spirituality.

I find that to be the case with most agnostics. I, however, have no faith and no spirituality. Some would say I do, but I think they are mistaken. :)

[Sullivan]

Well, perhaps you're a pragmatist.

So why study religion if you have none, and furthermore have no faith and no spirituality?

[Mary Loquacious]

My experience with religion as an institution is that it acts as a kind of buffer between the believer and the world. Maybe I'm speaking mainly of Christians when I say this, especially those who are born-again hard. It takes a certain amount of responsibility out of their hands, almost like a parent-child relationship.

[Yoda]

More importantly, I'd ask why he should be concerned with anything other than his own comfort and survival.

My experience with religion as an institution is that it acts as a kind of buffer between the believer and the world. Maybe I'm speaking mainly of Christians when I say this, especially those who are born-again hard. It takes a certain amount of responsibility out of their hands, almost like a parent-child relationship.
Yes, and no. In one sense, you're right...but a person who has absolute morals to live by is being given MORE responsibility, not less. A person who doesn't believe in any purpose or meaning or any REAL right and wrong has much less responsibility than someone who not only believes in such things, but believes it is their duty to follow those rules to the letter.

[Mary Loquacious]

I would say that you don't have to belong to a religon to study it--it's a cultural phenomenon, and a damn interesting one at that. Do you have to believe in the truth of something in order to study it?

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
My experience with religion as an institution is that it acts as a kind of buffer between the believer and the world. Maybe I'm speaking mainly of Christians when I say this, especially those who are born-again hard. It takes a certain amount of responsibility out of their hands, almost like a parent-child relationship.

Yes, it can function in this way. The question then becomes whether it always functions this way, or even does so in the majority of cases, and how we distinguish this sort of agency of religion from a more authentic agency.


More importantly, I'd ask why he should be concerned with anything other than his own comfort and survival.

Pure curiosity? :)

[Mary Loquacious]

Originally posted by Yoda
Yes, and no. In one sense, you're right...but a person who has absolute morals to live by is being given MORE responsibility, not less. A person who doesn't believe in any purpose or meaning or any REAL right and wrong has much less responsibility than someone who not only believes in such things, but believes it is their duty to follow those rules to the letter.

I see what you mean, and for a less hard-core religious person, that's absolutely valid. But if you believe that God chooses for you, and I know many that do, then where is the control over your own life?

[Yoda]

Pure curiosity :)
Perhaps...but even though I don't know him, I know it must go beyond that. For whatever reason, virtually every atheist in existence gives a crap about other people. They give a crap about things that don't effect them directly, and they give a crap about what'll happen to their family/children/friends after they die. WHY?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
I see what you mean, and for a less hard-core religious person, that's absolutely valid. But if you believe that God chooses for you, and I know many that do, then where is the control over your own life?
I couldn't agree more. Christians who like to chalk EVERYTHING up to being "part of God's plan" and act as if everything is pre-determined are one of the banes of my existence. Seriously. An enemy is usually less threatening than a friend dismantling you unwittingly from the inside. IMO, people who subscribe to those sorts of beliefs are giving religious beliefs a bad name, and assocating Faith with impotency, in a way.

[Mary Loquacious]

The question then becomes whether it always functions this way, or even does so in the majority of cases, and how we distinguish this sort of agency of religion from a more authentic agency.

The problem there is authenticity--who's to say what's authentic and what's not, especially in spiritual matters. For all I know, the born-agains have it right, and I am going to hell.

[Sullivan]

But if you believe that God chooses for you, and I know many that do, then where is the control over your own life?

DON'T ASK. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

;)

I don't know of too many religious individuals who believe entirely in predestination, and I would absolutely love to avoid that particular rhetorical quagmire.

Perhaps...but even though I don't know him, I know it must go beyond that. For whatever reason, virtually every atheist in existence gives a crap about other people. They give a crap about things that don't effect them directly, and they give a crap about what'll happen to their family/children/friends after they die. WHY?

Because humans are naturally curious beings. If you don't have a system of belief or a metaphyiscal system that explains the unanswered questions in life, I think you're going to wonder.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Sullivan
Well, perhaps you're a pragmatist.

So why study religion if you have none, and furthermore have no faith and no spirituality?

I already addressed this question. Because I find religion to be a very interesting subject. It happens to be one of the most dominant, and in my opinion, destructive forces on the planet. Maybe that's an understatement. That is just one reason why it intruiges me so much.

Originally posted by Yoda
More importantly, I'd ask why he should be concerned with anything other than his own comfort and survival.

Ah. Once again, we witness your wacky inability to understand why others besides theists should care about anyone but themselves and have any opinions more valid than which color is the best color. I tried to explain it to you before; I think I'll give up on you getting it, and let someone else try to explain it to you :)

[Yoda]

I don't know of too many religious individuals who believe entirely in predestination, and I would absolutely love to avoid that particular rhetorical quagmire.
I see several possibilities:

1 - Free will does not exist.
2 - Free will does exist and therefore God does not have things all mapped out.
3 - Free will exists, God kinda has things mapped out, and we as humans are not technically capable of understanding why there is no contradiction.

Because humans are naturally curious beings. If you don't have a system of belief or a metaphyiscal system that explains the unanswered questions in life, I think you're going to wonder.
Well, yes...of course. That's not quite what I mean, though. I'll explain after quoting firegod...

Ah. One again, we witness your wacky inability to understand why others besides theists should care about anyone but themselves and have any opinions more valid than which color is the best color. I tried to explain it to you before; I think I'll give up on you getting it, and let someon else try to explain it to you :)
Hmmm, well, first of all, I assure you no valid reason was ever given. :) Secondly, I think there's a miscommunication here. And it is this:

I am not asking why you would feel the impulse of compassion. Obviously that's engrained into your mind...be it through a deity or some sort, or millions of years of natural selection. However, if you can identify this instinct as NOT serving you, but only the survival of your race, then why don't you resist it? Why don't you fight it?

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious

The problem there is authenticity--who's to say what's authentic and what's not, especially in spiritual matters. For all I know, the born-agains have it right, and I am going to hell.

What I think you're asking about is the possibility of a source of absolute moral values. For a lot of people, this is God. For atheists or agnostics, it's something else, or it's nothing. Moral relativism has never tickled my pickle, though.

I think it's safe to say that fundamentalist Christians do not share your particular values, and you don't share theirs. So, you each have a set of values. Which value is more objectively "right"? Well, what measuring stick are you using?

I think you see the problem.

[firegod]

Miscommunication? I used the same word you did: should. I have my morals because of instincts, reason, and emotion. I have never found any reason to fight those morals. Why should I?

[Yoda]

Miscommunication? I used the same word you did: should. I have my morals because of instincts, reason, and emotion. I have never found any reason to fight those morals. Why should I?
No, no, no! :) I'm not asking you why you have moral impulses...or why you feel something is right...but rather, why you ADHERE to it.

You, I imagine, believe that we feel that killing is wrong because, aside from being brought up that way, we've evolved as a race because races that DON'T value life in some way are doomed to die quickly. That makes logical sense.

However, that only explains why you have those impulses...why your emotions and instincts point that way. However, you and I both know that emotion and instinct is only half the battle. Reason comes into play. Now, doesn't your reason tell you that the emotion and instinct involved do nothing to serve you at all, but only your race as a whole? Surely it does.

So then why do you care? If you and I are nothing more than a smatter of chemicals and cells, with no meaning, purpose, right, or wrong behind us or our reason for being here, then why would you ever yield to your instincts when you logically know that they do nothing to help you as an individual?

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Yoda

I see several possibilities:

1 - Free will does not exist.
2 - Free will does exist and therefore God does not have things all mapped out.
3 - Free will exists, God kinda has things mapped out, and we as humans are not technically capable of understanding why there is no contradiction.

Atch. But that's assuming there is a God in the picture. I know where you're coming from, but to really struggle with the issue of free will I think you have to look comprehensively at free will alongside the possibility of monotheism as well as systems of belief with many or no gods.

Besides which, I find it too easy to just throw in the "we are incapable of understand" card. Sure, maybe we are: I'm willing to accept that possibility. But as soon as you say that, it seems that a lot of people lose interest in TRYING to understand, and that bothers me. Even if I have no chance at all of ever understanding something, I'm still going to keep trying, indefinately.

Added: I hate to leave in the middle of these discussions, but I've got to go do something else for a while. Keep it going folks.

[Yoda]

Well, it's not a "card" because I'm not "playing it" per se. I don't think it's a viable argument...I think it's a cop-out...but I have to acknowledge it as a possibility, which is all that I'm doing here.

Yes, it is sticky...but there's really no argument to be made about free will unless we're talking about God anyway. If no God exists, then what does it matter? Yeah, we've got free will under that scenario. There's no argument to be made as far as I can see.

[firegod]

Originally posted by Yoda
No, no, no! :) I'm not asking you why you have moral impulses...or why you feel something is right...but rather, why you ADHERE to it.

I realized that months ago.


You, I imagine, believe that we feel that killing is wrong because, aside from being brought up that way, we've evolved as a race because races that DON'T value life in some way are doomed to die quickly. That makes logical sense.

However, that only explains why you have those impulses...why your emotions and instincts point that way. However, you and I both know that emotion and instinct is only half the battle. Reason comes into play. Now, doesn't your reason tell you that the emotion and instinct involved do nothing to serve you at all, but only your race as a whole? Surely it does.


One thing that is important to know in this stupid "why should atheists adhere to their morals" debate is that I don't COMPLETELY understand how all of my morals and beliefs came about. I say it is mostly reason, but I don't understand all of it completely. Having said that, all I can do is go with my morals and beliefs. Why would I fight my anti-murder moral and go around killing people? Because my reason tells me that moral only helps others and not me? That makes absolutely no sense at all.


So then why do you care? If you and I are nothing more than a smatter of chemicals and cells, with no meaning, purpose, right, or wrong behind us or our reason for being here, then why would you ever yield to your instincts when you logically know that they do nothing to help you as an individual?

I don't know exactly why I care. But I do care, and I think that is enough. I never said my morals don't help me as an individual. Most of my morals come from logic, and to me, they make perfect sense to have.

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Yoda
Well, it's not a "card" because I'm not "playing it" per se. I don't think it's a viable argument...I think it's a cop-out...but I have to acknowledge it as a possibility, which is all that I'm doing here.

Okay....I could have used better language there. Point taken.


Yes, it is sticky...but there's really no argument to be made about free will unless we're talking about God anyway. If no God exists, then what does it matter? Yeah, we've got free will under that scenario. There's no argument to be made as far as I can see.

I don't think God is necessary to the idea of free will. For instance, you could ask if man can make choices independent of his social, intellectual and biological pressures. That's the nature vs. nurture question, and I think it's a very legitimate one.


Added: Whee. Another interesting thread killed with poor timing and obscurity. Dammit.

[Yoda]

One thing that is important to know in this stupid "why should atheists adhere to their morals" debate is that I don't COMPLETELY understand how all of my morals and beliefs came about. I say it is mostly reason, but I don't understand all of it completely. Having said that, all I can do is go with my morals and beliefs. Why would I fight my anti-murder moral and go around killing people? Because my reason tells me that moral only helps others and not me? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Reason says you shouldn't go around killing people because it would result in your destruction or imprisonment. And I think it is far from "stupid." I can't necessarily be held responsible if you just don't seem to see what it is I'm saying. :) I think I've made it pretty darn simple at this point.

I don't know exactly why I care. But I do care, and I think that is enough. I never said my morals don't help me as an individual. Most of my morals come from logic, and to me, they make perfect sense to have.
What about the ones that don't? Example: there's no reason for you to care about what happens to people after you die. But I'll bet you'll care anyway. Why? If it's nothing more than instinct, and you've identified it as such, then WHY?

I'm not sure what you mean by it being "enough." I'm glad you care, and I think I know why you care, but based on your beliefs, you care about things that, logically, you shouldn't care about. Things that don'te help you at all. Try to see things from an alternative perspective: you don't believe in right and wrong, yet you adhere to a personal right and wrong. You (seemingly) try to base your life around logic, let you give in to instinct and emotion even when it's clear they do not benefit you.

I see something that recurs in these discussions of ours: you act as if it's nonsense to propose this or that, but I think you're forgetting that I'm arguing from your standpoint here. In your world, right and wrong simply DO NOT exist. So why should it be absurd that you would do whatever it takes to get you what you want? Many evil people (or at least, evil by most standards...Hitler's no more evil than you or I without a deity) have led happy lives.

So, I ask you again: if there is no right and wrong...if this whole world is a chaotic mess of genetic crap...if a lot of your instincts are built into you to benefit humans as a whole, and not you as an individual, why, when you recognize one of them, would you fail to fight it?

I don't think God is necessary to the idea of free will. For instance, you could ask if man can make choices independent of his social, intellectual and biological pressures. That's the nature vs. nurture question, and I think it's a very legitimate one.
Fair enough...though I've yet to come across anyone making that argument. Outside influence is 100% inevitable...free will doesn't require absolutely no interference or attempts at persuasion. I wouldn't say consumers viewing a television station saturated with Pepsi ads lack the free will to buy something else, obviously.

Whee. Another interesting thread killed with poor timing and obscurity. Dammit.
Naw...I just needed to get myself to bed. :D

[Yoda]

Did anyone else notice that Mr. Pike chose None? Surprise surprise, eh? It's a shame he isn't likely to hop in the ring for a few rounds. I wouldn't mind a quick dance; and surely he has nothing to fear from a teenage homeschooler. :modest:

[Raziel1]

ok fellas let me break it down for ya.man is given free will from God, but God already knows the choices he is going to make. Therefore He has control and will always have control.:yup: :yup: :yup:

[Yoda]

I disagree. If God knows everything that will happen, I don't think we can reasonably be said to have Free Will...and I find Free Will essential to Christian beliefs.

[Holden Pike]

BTW, I for one noticed I chose NONE, and boy did you nail it, Commishy: I'm oh so afraid, and that's why I choose to believe in an invisible man in the sky who watches everything we do and loves us, unless of course we go against him and he'll send us to eternal damnation.

Oh, wait, I don't believe in that at all. Nevermind.

How truly horrible that I don't have religion in my life. At least I do have a sh!tload of LDs and DVDs to keep me entertained while upon this mortal coil.


As you all were.

[Fez Wizardo]

I was going for nothing but hit "other" by accident.

god help me.


:D

[Yoda]

What a ridiculous way to look at things. Who said He SENDS us anywhere, Holds? Or did you just fill in that blank yourself? Or have you been taking Pat Robertson seriously?

[Yoda]

Nevermind. I'm not going to get a response. I should know better than to reason with someone who takes theological lessions from George Carlin. :rolleyes:

[Raziel1]

Originally posted by Yoda
I disagree. If God knows everything that will happen, I don't think we can reasonably be said to have Free Will...and I find Free Will essential to Christian beliefs.



thats why we can never fully understand God and his will.Our minds are to simple to understand.

[Yoda]

Well, I suppose that's possible...but I don't believe that, personally.

[Raziel1]

well i do its in the BIBLE

[Yoda]

Is it? Indulge me. :)

[firegod]

First of all, I shouldn't have tried to have that conversation when I was as tired as I was last night. With my head reasonably clear, I realize that logic makes up much of my morality, but not most. A great deal of it is comprised of instinct, (which I mentioned before, and which does include emotions) and experience (which I neglected to mention). I believe that most theists get much of their morals the same way. For example, I think your experience, logic and instincts tell you that torturing someone for 3 days straight with thumbscrews is worse than working on the Sabbath. Don't you see the paradox in believing that, and also
believing that the Ten Commandments are the ten most important morals? Which Commandment says you shouldn't torture people? What about rape or child molestation? If I am going to be asked to defend my morals, I think it only fair that you should be asked to defend yours.


What about the ones that don't? Example: there's no reason for you to care about what happens to people after you die. But I'll bet you'll care anyway. Why? If it's nothing more than instinct, and you've identified it as such, then WHY?


I'm not exactly sure why I care, or why I should. I don't think I need to.


I'm not sure what you mean by it being "enough." I'm glad you care, and I think I know why you care, but based on your beliefs, you care about things that, logically, you shouldn't care about. Things that don'te help you at all. Try to see things from an alternative perspective: you don't believe in right and wrong, yet you adhere to a personal right and wrong. You (seemingly) try to base your life around logic, let you give in to instinct and emotion even when it's clear they do not benefit you.


Again, why do I need to know exactly why I care? You believe in a god, so all of your beliefs and cares are justified? Just because you have reason to believe in a god (giving you purpose and explanations) doesn't in the slightest show that that god really exists. Someone could easily write a book about a flying elephant god to give us a reason to have our morals; would the followers of that book have a better explanation for morals than those who believe our morals mostly come from experience, logic and instincts? I think they don't, and that you don't either. You have an explanation that you except. Others find that explanation to be rather silly, and no good explanation for morals at all.


I see something that recurs in these discussions of ours: you act as if it's nonsense to propose this or that, but I think you're forgetting that I'm arguing from your standpoint here. In your world, right and wrong simply DO NOT exist. So why should it be absurd that you would do whatever it takes to get you what you want? Many evil people (or at least, evil by most standards...Hitler's no more evil than you or I without a deity) have led happy lives.

So, I ask you again: if there is no right and wrong...if this whole world is a chaotic mess of genetic crap...if a lot of your instincts are built into you to benefit humans as a whole, and not you as an individual, why, when you recognize one of them, would you fail to fight it?

I think a good question is why SHOULD I fight it? Whether I fully understand why I believe something or not, why should I go against my morals or beliefs just because I don't believe in your particular deity?

[Yoda]

Oooh, I'm liking this reply. But I've gotta jet. I'll be back in an hour or two to keep this train movin'. :)

[Raziel1]

I believe sin is sin.. The ten commandments were given to us by God to base things off of you know. anyways in my belief those terrorists that caused 911 are no worse then the kid who stole a cookie from the jar.
I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but thats the way it is.

[firegod]

I had a mistake in there that I am now going to edit. It completely changed the meaning of an entire sentence. Sorry about that.

[Raziel1]

Sure now try to correct yourself:laugh:

[Mary Loquacious]

anyways in my belief those terrorists that caused 911 are no worse then the kid who stole a cookie from the jar.

So you don't believe in mortal vs. venal sin?

In terms of the whole "free will" issue, I like this description of God:

"He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."

[firegod]

Originally posted by Raziel1
I believe sin is sin.. The ten commandments were given to us by God to base things off of you know. anyways in my belief those terrorists that caused 911 are no worse then the kid who stole a cookie from the jar.
I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but thats the way it is.

Raz, I'd like to ask you the same kind of question I have asked Commish (Yoda): Do you believe that coveting your neighbor's possesions is worse than taking a knife and cutting off someone's fingers, torturing them for hours and hours? If so, I think that is pretty sick. If not, how do you explain away the contradition there, since torture or any kind of physical attack other than murder is not mentioned in the ten commandments? Aren't the ten commandments the most important morals? Not working on the Sabbath and not using God's name in vain are more important than not molesting children?

[Raziel1]

what the heck did u say.

your a teacher try some english:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Mary Loquacious]

what the heck did u say.

Come on. You said this:

I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but thats the way it is.

If you're going to join a debate on religion and make statements like that, then you should know a bit more about the subject.

If you were being sarcastic, I apologize, but I don't think you were.

And I too must go. I'll catch this thread later. :D

[Raziel1]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious


So you don't believe in mortal vs. venal sin?

In terms of the whole "free will" issue, I like this description of God:

"He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."


I just didn't understand what you were saying is all

[Raziel1]

Originally posted by firegod


Raz, I'd like to ask you the same kind of question I have asked Commish (Yoda): Do you believe that coveting your neighbor's possesions is worse than taking a knife and cutting off someone's fingers, torturing them for hours and hours? If so, I think that is pretty sick. If not, how do you explain away the contradition there, since torture or any kind of physical attack other than murder is not mentioned in the ten commandments? Aren't the ten commandments the most important morals? Not working on the Sabbath and not using God's name in vain are more important than not molesting children?

Don't mean to double post, but to say no they aren't the most important they were the laws in like biblical times.and something to base the rules off of. Greatfully we are not under the law anymore we are under grace.

to answer your question no i don't think torturing or stabbing someone is worse then stealing, i think it is basically the same thing. my sin is no worse then theres

[firegod]

Ok. My argument is only for those who believe that the Ten Commandments are the most important laws. I find it very strange and SCARY that some people actually think longing for someone's property is worse than raping someone.

[Yoda]

For example, I think your experience, logic and instincts tell you that torturing someone for 3 days straight with thumbscrews is worse than working on the Sabbath. Don't you see the paradox in believing that, and also
believing that the Ten Commandments are the ten most important morals? Which Commandment says you shouldn't torture people? What about rape or child molestation? If I am going to be asked to defend my morals, I think it only fair that you should be asked to defend yours.
It's my opinion that some sins are worse than others, yes. I don't have a Sin-O-Meter to tell me how the various sins stack up, but no, I don't think the Ten Commandments are necessarily the ten worst things you can do.

I'm not exactly sure why I care, or why I should. I don't think I need to.
You're right, you don't need to. There's no logical reason (that I can see, at least) for you to exert any real effort towards improving the comfort of your "loved ones" after you pass away. But I'll bet you will. I'm asking you why.

Again, why do I need to know exactly why I care? You believe in a god, so all of your beliefs and cares are justified? Just because you have reason to believe in a god (giving you purpose and explanations) doesn't in the slightest show that that god really exists.
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. You're looking at things from the belief that nothing is true. I'm making my arguments using YOUR beliefs. I'm putting myself in your head. In your head, you have no self-benefitting reason to care. So, if you can realize this (I think you obviously do), then logically, you should fight the impulses and instincts and do things to benefit yourself instead.

No, my belief in God doesn't show that He exists...I've never claimed such a thing, nor will I. However, under my beliefs, caring makes sense. Under yours, it doesn't. I'm making this argument under the assumption that what you say is true.

Someone could easily write a book about a flying elephant god to give us a reason to have our morals; would the followers of that book have a better explanation for morals than those who believe our morals mostly come from experience, logic and instincts? I think they don't, and that you don't either. You have an explanation that you except. Others find that explanation to be rather silly, and no good explanation for morals at all.
Now I'm just about certain that there's been a miscommunication.

I've been trying to put aside our beliefs. I haven't been arguing with you about your atheistic beliefs in this thread. I've been saying that, since YOU think it is true, shouldn't you do so-and-so?

Put another way: you may think my belief in God is silly, but ASSUMING my belief in God is correct, then my behavior becomes rational, doesn't it? Well, assuming your beliefs are correct, your behavior is irrational.

I think a good question is why SHOULD I fight it? Whether I fully understand why I believe something or not, why should I go against my morals or beliefs just because I don't believe in your particular deity?
No, not my particular deity: any deity. :) There's a difference.

You should fight it because, unless you're a very rare sort of human being (in many, many ways), you put yourself through a significant amount of trouble, toil, and pain for the benefit of others...that effort could be used to benefit you.

He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.
Certainly eloquent...but I don't agree. :nope: Call me cray-zay (and I know ya'll will. :D), but I think God has left an indelible watermark on each of us, that only very few deny the existence of.

Ok. My argument is only for those who believe that the Ten Commandments are the most important laws. I find it very strange and SCARY that some people actually think longing for someone's property is worse than raping someone.
I find it scary as well...but I think it's important to get past the nutbags. Associating Pat Buchanon with Christianity as a whole is no better than picturing Satan as Jon Lovitz in a red jumpsuit with a pitchfork, and then laughing the entire concept off as being ridiculous.

[firegod]

It's my opinion that some sins are worse than others, yes. I don't have a Sin-O-Meter to tell me how the various sins stack up, but no, I don't think the Ten Commandments are necessarily the ten worst things you can do.

Ok. I thought for sure you had told me in our other debate that you thought they were the top ten morals.


You're right, you don't need to. There's no logical reason (that I can see, at least) for you to exert any real effort towards improving the comfort of your "loved ones" after you pass away. But I'll bet you will. I'm asking you why.

For the same reason you do, because I care about them. I may not completely understand the human nature and emotions that make me care, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't act on them.


You're looking at this from the wrong angle. You're looking at things from the belief that nothing is true. I'm making my arguments using YOUR beliefs.
And you are misrepresenting my beliefs. I care. Whether I completely understand why or not, I see absolutely no reason to go against my caring. You keep insisting that I do, but I don't.

I'm putting myself in your head. In your head, you have no self-benefitting reason to care. So, if you can realize this (I think you obviously do), then logically, you should fight the impulses and instincts and do things to benefit yourself instead.

I see no reason to fight my morals. They usually make sense to me, and even when they don't, I realize that they come from human nature. You think that human nature comes from a god, while I think it comes from evolution. You have given me absolutely no reason to fight my morals, whether they come from human nature or not. I do not WANT to commit murder. I do not WANT to steal. I do not WANT to hurt people. So I don't. Pretty simple. You have a hard time accepting that these morals can make sense without a god. I don't.

No, my belief in God doesn't show that He exists...I've never claimed such a thing, nor will I. However, under my beliefs, caring makes sense. Under yours, it doesn't. I'm making this argument under the assumption that what you say is true.

Under your beliefs, and under any belief that has some kind of supreme being. So if someone believes in the boogey man, it makes sense to be scared of her closet. Despite what you say, that DOESN'T make sense, whether it is a boogey man, or a god.

Now I'm just about certain that there's been a miscommunication.

I've been trying to put aside our beliefs. I haven't been arguing with you about your atheistic beliefs in this thread.
Yes you have. You are basically saying that there is no good reason for atheists to follow their morals; they should just go around and do what ever benefits them: lying, cheating, stealing, as long as they don't get caught. And you are also saying that the reason most atheists don't is because a god gave us our morals. Until you prove that your god exists, your "God-given" morality will have no more legitimacy than any other kind of morality, including someone who believes in some flying unicorn as the supreme being. Just because you believe in the referee of the universe, doesn't make the referee-given morality makes sense, because you can believe in ANYTHING, including a 400 foot tall toad that tells us we should all cut off our heads before the year 2009. How can you sit there and act like you aren't claiming your sense of morality is better than other kinds? You obviously are.

Put another way: you may think my belief in God is silly, but ASSUMING my belief in God is correct, then my behavior becomes rational, doesn't it?
And the behavior of following the giant toad becomes rational too. Believing in Leprechauns is rational if you believe in them. I need a good reason to believe in leprechauns; once I find them, then I will think believing in leprechauns is rational. Same with your god.

Well, assuming your beliefs are correct, your behavior is irrational.

You have not demonstrated why I would think my morals are irrational.

[Yoda]

For the same reason you do, because I care about them. I may not completely understand the human nature and emotions that make me care, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't act on them.
But I believe that I care about them for a very specific reason. You don't know why you do, and see no particular personal benefit to it. So, if what I believe is true, my behavior makes perfect sense. If what you believe is true, yours does not. That's what I'm saying.

I don't quite understand why your policy is "give into the instinct or impulse simply because it's there." You deny other impulses on logical grounds, don't you? So, if you find no logical basis for acts of kindness...then why bother? Why should these impulses be any different?

I see no reason to fight my morals. They usually make sense to me, and even when they don't, I realize that they come from human nature. You think that human nature comes from a god, while I think it comes from evolution. You have given me absolutely no reason to fight my morals, whether they come from human nature or not. I do not WANT to commit murder. I do not WANT to steal. I do not WANT to hurt people. So I don't. Pretty simple. You have a hard time accepting that these morals can make sense without a god. I don't.
You may not WANT to simply because resisting instinct is not always the easiest thing. How can you not see the pointlessness in caring about things only because you've been born that way? Shouldn't you do the things that reason and logic dictate you do?

Example: logic dictates that I ought to eat healthy food. I don't, always, but I still acknowledge that there's no truly good reason for me not too. Well, every single day, you do something that doesn't benefit you at all...in fact, it's something that hurts you in a way, because it requires some work or effort of you, and only benefits someone else, who you may or may not ever see again.

Under your beliefs, and under any belief that has some kind of supreme being. So if someone believes in the boogey man, it makes sense to be scared of her closet. Despite what you say, that DOESN'T make sense, whether it is a boogey man, or a god.
I think you're trying to argue something different here: I'm not debating the merits of your beliefs just yet. I'm debating the logic under which you should operate if your beliefs are true.

Yes you have. You are basically saying that there is no good reason for atheists to follow their morals; they should just go around and do what ever benefits them: lying, cheating, stealing, as long as they don't get caught.
You've misunderstood. You're mistaking an argument on what you OUGHT to believe for an argument on what you actually believe. I'm not arguing for the existence of God with you right now. You seem to think I am.

And no, I'm not saying there's no good reason for Atheists to follow their morals...I'm saying there's no good reason for Atheists to HAVE morals, for the most part. At least, not from THEIR point of view. I'm glad they have moral beliefs anyway...but logically, from their point of view, they shouldn't. Right and wrong don't exist.

And you are also saying that the reason most atheists don't is because a god gave us our morals. Until you prove that your god exists, your "God-given" morality will have no more legitimacy than any other kind of morality, including someone who believes in some flying unicorn as the supreme being.
I'm not claiming to have any special legitimacy. I'm only arguing for the existence of SOME kind of God, anyway.

Just because you believe in the referee of the universe, doesn't make the referee-given morality makes sense, because you can believe in ANYTHING, including a 400 foot tall toad that tells us we should all cut off our heads before the year 2009. How can you sit there and act like you aren't claiming your sense of morality is better than other kinds? You obviously are.
What exactly is the point of this? Yes I believe my morality is correct. If I didn't believe it was correct, why would I believe it? You have your own morals, too, and if you thought you saw someone with BETTER morals, you would adopt them.

So yes, of course I believe my sense of morality is generally correct. I'm sure I have holes and flaws, but I think the basics morals I follow are the correct ones. I wouldn't really follow them otherwise, now would I? So, I ask you two things:

1 - What gave you the impression I was denying that I believe what I follow?

2 - What exactly is the problem with this, seeing as how anyone in their right mind believes that their method is the one to use, seeing as how they themselves use it?

The rest of that paragraph was just re-hashed. I don't know why you feel the need to excessively bleat things akin to "you can't prove it." Isn't that obvious? If either of us had any proof, we wouldn't be talking about this. So let's stick to the things that matter.

And the behavior of following the giant toad becomes rational too. Believing in Leprechauns is rational if you believe in them. I need a good reason to believe in leprechauns; once I find them, then I will think believing in leprechauns is rational. Same with your god.
That's exactly right...if you saw a Leprechaun, all the people who believed in them would suddenly be seen as rational, instead of irrational. You don't need to believe in God to argue logistically as if He existed, though...and I certainly don't need to become an Atheist to argue about the logistics involved there.

If you want to argue about the existence of God, you know I'll be more than happy to...but that's not what we've been discussing so far. My argument has been that ASSUMING you are correct, and I am wrong, you ought to act a certain way. It's a "suppose you're right" kinda thing. It's assuming for the sake of argument. I don't understand why you're getting caught up elsewhere.

You have not demonstrated why I would think my morals are irrational.
I think I most definitely have. I see no logical reason for you to care about what happens to your family after you die. I don't believe you've given one either. Your basic reply has been "I care because I do." But that gets us nowhere: we already know why you care...either God, or evolution, most likely. The question is not why you care, but why you continue to care even when you have failed to produce a logical reason for caring.

Now, I imagine at this point you might think to yourself that caring is not logical. And you're right. But seeing as how emotion is really a chemical reaction, and nothing more, why aren't you trying to rise above this individual weakness?

Moving along to a slightly related subject, I have to wonder: what does an Atheist tell his or her spouse? How would it feel if you told them you love them, knowing full well that all that REALLY meant was that some chemicals inside your body had mixed in a certain way, or that this supposed "love" was largely hormonal?

Furthermore, can you look at a child (YOUR child, if you have one), and truly say to yourself that if someone were to harm them, it would only be wrong by opinion?

As I'm sure you've noticed, this is what I keep coming back to: right and wrong. I find it amazing that those who disbelieve in God, still follow many of His moral standards. As far as I'm concerned, that's the key to this. Regardless of the time you're born into, or the circumstances you're raised in, you've got that Moral Law...that watermark...embedded inside you.

While we're on the subject of all this, why not dive into another pool of thought? How do you think the Universe began?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Has anyone ever imagined what it would be like if there was nothing? No life... no people... no outer space... not even a dark void. No God, no souls, no afterlife. There would always just be nothing....

Isn't it astonishing that we at least have life and we have everything? How and why? If you say because of outer space and the particles and gases started it all, why is that there? Why can't there just be NOTHING?

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Jason
Has anyone ever imagined what it would be like if there was nothing? No life... no people... no outer space... not even a dark void. No God, no souls, no afterlife. There would always just be nothing....

Isn't it astonishing that we at least have life and we have everything? How and why? If you say because of outer space and the particles and gases started it all, why is that there? Why can't there just be NOTHING?
Exactly. I like the way Lews put it: people sit and think, think, think about what it all means and why it might be here...and whether or not there's any evidence for the existence of God...not realizing that the mere act of THINKING is evidence of His existence.

Why should there be anything at all? There's no reason for there to be, from an Atheist's point of view. There's no reason why we should all be here. There's no reason for ANYTHING, under that set of beliefs. There's no reason, purpose, or right and wrong. What I'd like to know is how a person who believes we live in chaos can also claim to have identified, from within, that same chaos for what it is.

[Raziel1]

well put youse. i guess i can put the gloves back on for a while.

the atheists philosophy usually is what the scientists believe. you know the whole big bang theory(crap), evolution, and all that stuff. they believe man is the center and creator of all and answers only to himself. Whereas with christians we believe God is the center of all and We answer to him.

[firegod]

First of all:

1 - What gave you the impression I was denying that I believe what I follow?

I never said anything like that.

Your whole "If there is no god, then why should atheists have morals" argument is a good argument for why one would WANT there to be a god. When you believe in that god, you find explanations that athiests don't have, just like the followers of the giant toad do. It doesn't make sense, but at least you have your answers while atheists don't, right? I never claimed to have all the answers. I just go with what my morals are, whether they come from logic, instinct, experience, or a combination, or even if they come from a god. You haven't given me any reason why I should find that to be a bad or irrational way of acting.

When we love people, you think you know exactly why, while I don't claim to fully understand the instincts that make us love. What does that prove? It proves only that you believe things I don't, and that you THINK you have answers that I don't claim to have. It in no way suggests that I shouldn't love if there is no god or gods.

If my instincts don't make sense to me, yes, I tend to go against them. When have I ever said I don't? Which of my morals tend to go against logic, or my own personal benefit? Compassion? When I help people, it makes me feel good, and makes me feel like I am making a positive difference. Whether that compassion comes from a god or some other kind of nature, where is the reasoning that I shouldn't do it? There is none. Just because I don't belive in a deity and just because I don't fully understand my morals doesn't mean that I should fight my morals. You have not adequately explained why that is not the case.

Now, I'm done with the whole atheist morals thing for now. I'll only concentrate on the other subjects for awhile, so I can spend my time on movie subjects as well as religious debates where you and I are not basically saying the same things over and over.


While we're on the subject of all this, why not dive into another
pool of thought? Where do you think the Universe began?

I don't know. I don't claim to know everything or follow something that does. I don't think we will ever completely understand the origin of the universe, if there is one, but I think we will continue to try. The Big Bang Theory and The Steady-State Theory are both definately more logical than the creation story found in Genesis.

[Yoda]

I never said anything like that.
It wasn't implied through this?

How can you sit there and act like you aren't claiming your sense of morality is better than other kinds?

Your whole "If there is no god, then why should atheists have morals" argument is a good argument for why one would WANT there to be a god. When you believe in that god, you find explanations that athiests don't have, just like the followers of the giant toad do. It doesn't make sense, but at least you have your answers while atheists don't, right?
No, it's an argument for one thing and one thing only: trying to show an Atheist just what disbelieving in God really means. It means that, unless they're very unlike the overwhelming majority of people in this world, they act in highly illogical ways, even when most of them champion logic as its own religion, in a way.

And no, that last sentence is not at all the way I think of things. However, what I don't understand is why your "default setting" is to do things without basis. It's simple: if you don't believe in God, there's not much motivation to do good unless it benefits you, aside from race-benefitting instincts. If you can't come up with another reason, why do you adhere to it?

I never claimed to have all the answers. I just go with what my morals are, whether they come from logic, instinct, experience, or a combination, or even if they come from a god. You haven't given me any reason why I should find that to be a bad or irrational way of acting.
I don't have all the answers, either. And I don't see how I've failed to give you a reason...I've stated it again and again: it is inherently irrational for someone with your set of beliefs to care about what happens to people after they die.

I'll ask you again: why do you deny some impulses on logical grounds, but not this one? If you claim that it IS logical, then give me a reason why, aside from "why not?"

When we love people, you think you know exactly why, while I don't claim to fully understand the instincts that make us love. What does that prove? It proves only that you believe things I don't, and that you THINK you have answers that I don't claim to have. It in no way suggests that I shouldn't love if there is no god or gods.
I never said you shouldn't love. I never even implied it. I asked a question...nothing more. I'm not sure what you were trying to say in the first half of that paragrapih.

If my instincts don't make sense to me, yes, I tend to go against them. When have I ever said I don't? Which of my morals tend to go against logic, or my own personal benefit? Compassion? When I help people, it makes me feel good, and makes me feel like I am making a positive difference. Whether that compassion comes from a god or some other kind of nature, where is the reasoning that I shouldn't do it? There is none. Just because I don't belive in a deity and just because I don't fully understand my morals doesn't mean that I should fight my morals. You have not adequately explained why that is not the case.
There is none? Have I even been talking? :)

Here's some reasoning: it's difficult. Haven't you ever helped anyone even though it wasn't pleasant to do so? I'd imagine so. Helping people is not easy...if it was, it wouldn't be particularly helpful in the first place. Even though I don't know you, I know you've surely gone to significant lengths to do things for other people at several (or many) points in your life. Why should you care about making a "positive difference" when it's not likely to effect you during your lifetime?

Now, I'm done with the whole atheist morals thing for now. I'll only concentrate on the other subjects for awhile, so I can spend my time on movie subjects as well as religious debates where you and I are not basically saying the same things over and over.
Well, it takes two, so if you're not going to talk about it anymore, I'm not going to push the subject.

I don't know. I don't claim to know everything or follow something that does. I don't think we will ever completely understand the origin of the universe, if there is one, but I think we will continue to try. The Big Bang Theory and The Steady-State Theory are both definately more logical than the creation story found in Genesis.
I didn't ask you if you knew...because it's obvious you don't know. And neither do I. I only asked you what you thought. And despite your implication (veiled as it was), Christianity does not claim to know everything.

As for Genesis: I don't find either of those theories more logical or believable than the story in Genesis. However, that's assuming that Genesis is meant to be taken literally...I have no idea how symoblic it is meant to be, but in the end it all boils down to something coming from nothing, or something having always been here...no matter what you believe. That "something" might be God...or it might be a bunch of random crap...I don't think either has any logical edge from this standpoint.

I have a few more questions, if you'd be willing to indulge me...

1. In your opinion, how did human life come to be?
2. What are your thoughts on the Intelligent Design theory?
3. Do you care about the future of mankind? If so, why?

[firegod]

1. In your opinion, how did human life come to be?
Through a process known as evolution.

2. What are your thoughts on the Intelligent Design theory?
I don't see any good reason to believe in it.

3. Do you care about the future of mankind? If so, why?
As I have said time and time again, I don't know exactly why I care. It has something to do with human nature, and who I am as an individual. Do you have a point, other than your old, tired, BORING points about atheists and morals that you have tried to make about a BILLION times? :)

EDIT:
And despite your implication (veiled as it was), Christianity does not claim to know everything.
The only implication there was that some people claim to follow a being that knows EVERYTHING, while I don't. Nothing more.

[Yoda]

Through a process known as evolution.
How do you believe the planet Earth came into being?

I don't see any good reason to believe in it.
You don't see any logic or truth to the statement that high degress of complexity demand an intelligent force, unless some other special explanation is present?

As I have said time and time again, I don't know exactly why I care. It has something to do with human nature, and who I am as an individual. Do you have a point, other than your old, tired, BORING points about atheists and morals that you have tried to make about a BILLION times? :)
I'm here to make a point...not to entertain you. :) Besides, I HAVE made that point...whether you realize it or not. :D

Anyway, I wasn't asking you about morals. Perhaps I should re-phrase my question: what do you consider to be "good" for mankind, and what do you think its goal should be as a race? And yes, I am going somewhere with this.

The only implication there was that some people claim to follow a being that knows EVERYTHING, while I don't. Nothing more.
I thought you implied more, but if you say that's not so, I'll take your word for it.

[firegod]

I thought you implied more, but if you say that's not so, I'll take your word for it.

I don't claim to know everything, or follow something that does. It's pretty clear. You follow a god that knows everything, right?

I'll respond to your questions later; I have to log out now.

[Yoda]

You follow a god that knows everything, right?
That depends on what you mean. I'd have to learn towards believing that God does not know just exactly what I'm going to do at every given moment. I don't think he has mapped out my actions. However, I do believe He knows everything that can be known...he knows everything, but events in the future resulting from Free Will (which I believe we have), well, I don't know if those are necessarily "things" at all, if you get my meaning.

[Raziel1]

but youse that's where your wrong He does know all. Evey action you are going to make and have made. If He didn't that would mean He is not omnipitent. Which would make His word a lie. Which in the end would make our salvation a lie and we would all be damned.

[Yoda]

Ominpotent really just means "all-powerful" -- and I believe He is. But "all-powerful" can mean a few things. For one, it could just mean "the most powerful," don't you think?

Anyhoo, I believe He has WILLINGLY given up His ability to see all, by giving us Free Will. I think that's a much more logical, likely explanation than saying that we do have Free Will, but can't comprehend why that does not contradict with His power. That feels very much like a cop-out answer to me. No offense intended, of course.

[Raziel1]

Like I said believe what you want, but we have free will, we make the choice, but He knew already that we would make that choice. Our minds are just to simple to understand.

Any Baptists with the same views as me I need a little backup here I am now getting triple teamed here.:)

[Sullivan]

Most rational people I've talked to acknowledge the unmistakable authenticity of evolution. It just seems that we run into problems when people somehow get the idea that evolution contradicts their religious views. The same applies to the Big Bang theory.

Let me pose this rhetorical question. If we don't have Free Will, how do our lives ever change? And if we do have Free Will, how do our lives manage to stay the same?

My point is just that all our lives contain elements of both change and constancy-- a static and a dynamic component. The process of living is the process by which dynamic patterns become static patterns, and are themselves replaced with new dynamic patterns. To ask the question "Does man have free will?" is missing the whole point.

In general, I have trouble even recognizing the term 'atheist'. Not that I disrespect people who chose NOT to adhere to monotheistic religions (because I don't), but just to say that the word "God" should, I think, encompass a lot more than a traditional deity figure. As the Commissioner was implying, people have different Gods. Science is God to some people, money is God to others, biology is God to still more, power, etc. I think any concept, selected and isolated and attended to with ritual worship and an all-encompassing reverence, becomes God for that individual. And I've seen people act that way towards coffee and chocolate.

[Yoda]

F*ckin' A, Sully. Whether you believe in some "supernatural" God or not, you ARE going to have a God of some sort. Something's going to be the focus of your life.

As for evolution: surely it exists on some scales...I just don't believe that a puddle of slime can form the human brain over time. Or at least, not quickly enough to be at all plausible. But technically, yes, evolution could be the tool of some sort of God. It wouldn't shock me completely.

I have to take issue with this, however...

My point is just that all our lives contain elements of both change and constancy-- a static and a dynamic component. The process of living is the process by which dynamic patterns become static patterns, and are themselves replaced with new dynamic patterns. To ask the question "Does man have free will?" is missing the whole point.
...I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. Nor do I understand the (shorter) paragraph before this one. If we have Free Will, everything else is out the window; we make our own decisions internally independent of everything else. We can collect data, but in the end, our mind chooses to do this, or that, without being actually forced. That's what Free Will means, to me.

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Yoda
As for evolution: surely it exists on some scales...I just don't believe that a puddle of slime can form the human brain over time. Or at least, not quickly enough to be at all plausible. But technically, yes, evolution could be the tool of some sort of God. It wouldn't shock me completely.


My contention is just that evolution is going on all around us at all times. It has been going on for the entire duration of human history, and prehistory, etc. Why do I say this? Because of the second law of thermodynamics. If everything tends towards entropy, what explains the complexity and organization we see in the universe? The "world" has been around for a pretty long time. If the Second Law is so inescapable, why is all this complex, organized "stuff" still going on?

It would be a poor choice of words to say that "evolution" is the principal organizing force responsible for complexity. I think it would also be a poor choice to say "creation". "God" might be a better world, as would "Dynamic Quality" or "truth" or "beauty" or "rta" or "arete". All manner of cultures and peoples have different names for it, but I think the one thing we can agree on is that it exists: and when I say "it" I mean a complex, dynamic organizational force that consistently opposes the Second Law.


On Free Will
What I'm getting at is the fact that, with both static and dynamic forces in play in our lives, the question of whether or not we have free will cannot be answered in the positive or the negative. Freedom and determinism coexist, and because of this, framing the question as "Do we have free will or DON'T we?" is in some ways an obfuscation of the reality of our lives. Which is what I mean when I say it's missing the point.


If we have Free Will, everything else is out the window; we make our own decisions internally independent of everything else.

Absolutely not. You have a quart of ice cream in the freezer. You've just finished dinner. Do you eat some ice cream or not? What goes into that decision? Think about it, and I guarantee that the factors of your decision will not turn out to be internal or indepdent of everything else.


We can collect data, but in the end, our mind chooses to do this, or that, without being actually forced. That's what Free Will means, to me.

When you touch a hot stove involuntarily, when do you decide to pull your hand away, and what factors go into that decision? "Who" makes the decision to pull your hand away, and is it a voluntarily decision?

[Yoda]

My contention is just that evolution is going on all around us at all times. It has been going on for the entire duration of human history, and prehistory, etc.
Well, I don't think the debate is so much about evolution, but rather, macroevolution. I've never met anyone so foolish as to deny any sort of evolution altogether.

Absolutely not. You have a quart of ice cream in the freezer. You've just finished dinner. Do you eat some ice cream or not? What goes into that decision? Think about it, and I guarantee that the factors of your decision will not turn out to be internal or indepdent of everything else.
Well, that sentence was taken out of context. You quoted it a moment later...I'm not saying we take in no input to base our decision on...only that the final decision truly rests with us.

When you touch a hot stove involuntarily, when do you decide to pull your hand away, and what factors go into that decision? "Who" makes the decision to pull your hand away, and is it a voluntarily decision?
We make the decision to pull our hand away. And whether or not it is voluntary depends on what you mean by the word. It is a reflex, yes, and most of us, I'm sure, would pull our hand away without REALLY thinking deeply about it...but just because some less-than-totally-concious part of our brain is making the decision doesn't mean it's not still OUR decision. I don't think there's any God or Life Force pulling our hand away for us.

What I'm getting at is the fact that, with both static and dynamic forces in play in our lives, the question of whether or not we have free will cannot be answered in the positive or the negative. Freedom and determinism coexist, and because of this, framing the question as "Do we have free will or DON'T we?" is in some ways an obfuscation of the reality of our lives. Which is what I mean when I say it's missing the point.
I'm still not following you. That may be my fault, however, and not yours. Perhaps I can better understand by asking you what you consider "Free Will" to be.

[Sullivan]

So what is your attitude towards macroevolution?

The ice cream decision. Yes, the decision rests "with us", as long as you are willing to define "us" as necessarily being at least partially a composite of biological, social and intellectual patterns of values. The "final decision" is made with a variety of inputs, and some of those inputs are not under our direct control. So, while we have the illusion that we arrived at the conclusion "yes, I will eat ice cream now" or "no, I will not eat ice cream now" entirely by ourselves, I am arguing that the components of our decision are not up to us, and therefore the decision is not entirely up to us.

The stove decision. A vast majority of individuals, upon inadvertently brushing a hot stove, will withdraw their hand immediatley and involuntarily. The nerve impulse that jerks the hand away will be triggered one-half a second before they experience the touch sensation. There is no engagement of intellectual faculty, and therefore no decision, involved. The withdrawal occurs on a biological level, because the cells "know" that they are in danger of being damaged, and therefore make a self-interest decision to remove themselves from the source of damage.

My argument is just that, in this sense, it is not "us" making a decision, but the biological pattern of values that is our body making a "decision" (which is really just a reaction, an exercise in self-preservation). I'm saying that it is a life force pulling our hand away "for" us.

I'm not really sure what I consider to be "free will". I'd have to do a lot of thinking before I was satisfied enough to put forth a single-sentence definition.

To be honest I don't like the phrase "free will". The world "will", by iteslf, seems to include some element of non-determinism. I'd be more comfortable asking whether man has any will or not; but again, this is missing the point, because he clearly does, and at the same time cannot exercise that will with impunity.

[spudracer]

Don't you guys see....


Sorry Silver, I know that's your line :)

[firegod]

How do you believe the planet Earth came into being?

I don't claim that this is fact, but I think that when our sun was young, gasses and dust collided to form billions of planetesimals.
The gravitational pull of the bigger ones swept up the smaller ones, creating the planets.

You don't see any logic or truth to the statement that high degress of complexity demand an intelligent force, unless some other special explanation is present?

Nope. I have no reason to believe that. If complexity requires an intelligent creator, then doesn't God need an intelligent creator, obviously being complex?

I'm here to make a point...not to entertain you. Besides, I HAVE made that point...whether you realize it or not.

In my opinion, it is a poor point. The only thing you can do with the point, as far as I can tell, is try to make it over and over, rewording it over and over and claim that I don't understand the actual point you are trying to make. In my opinion, it will never be a good point, no matter how many different ways you phrase it.

Anyway, I wasn't asking you about morals. Perhaps I should re-phrase my question: what do you consider to be "good" for mankind, and what do you think its goal should be as a race? And yes, I am going somewhere with this.

I consider peace to be good. I consider the search for truth to be good. I consider hurting each other as little as possible to be good. I think that, for now, its goal should be to achieve as much peace, truth and happiness on Earth as possible. I think there should be additional goals once we start "spreading out" across the galaxy, which I definately think will happen eventually.

What about you? What do you consider to be good for mankind, and what do you think its goals should be?

[Yoda]

I don't claim that this is fact, but I think that when our sun was young, gasses and dust collided to form billions of planetesimals.
The gravitational pull of the bigger ones swept up the smaller ones, creating the planets.
You don't have to say you don't claim it as fact; I'm not gonna jump down your throat. :)

So, basically, we just happen to be on the only planet anywhere nearby (as far as we can tell) that supports life? And as complex as this planet is, it came about through PURE chance?

Nope. I have no reason to believe that. If complexity requires an intelligent creator, then doesn't God need an intelligent creator, obviously being complex?
God's always been here. Sounds like a paradox, but as we've already established, some sort of bizarre explanation like that is inevitable...making it a moot point.

What I don't understand is how you can fail to see the basic merits of the theory, however. If you found a giant stone sphere laying around, you'd never assume it got that way on it's own. You'd assume that someone or something created it that way specifically.

In my opinion, it is a poor point. The only thing you can do with the point, as far as I can tell, is try to make it over and over, rewording it over and over and claim that I don't understand the actual point you are trying to make. In my opinion, it will never be a good point, no matter how many different ways you phrase it.
I only rephrase it in hopes of making you understand why it makes sense. You're entitled to your opinion, but the best explanation you've been able to give me in response is that you don't know why you follow your instincts, but that you just do, basically. You follow a "right" and "wrong" that have no basis in anything other than opinion. Nothing has any meaning according to you, but you still behave as if kindness and caring are actually wholly "good."

Animals are a fine example. They're much more concerned with their own survival and comfort in general. But for some reason, you concern yourself with others. Now, don't get me wrong...from where I'm standing, it's a good thing...but from where you're standing, it doesn't make much sense.

I'll summarize it as best I can with one simple question: Why would you follow an impulse that requires effort and toil on your part, yet benefits you in no way? What logical basis is there for that? "I just feel like doing it" or "I don't know why I care" does not make up a logical basis.

I consider peace to be good. I consider the search for truth to be good. I consider hurting each other as little as possible to be good. I think that, for now, its goal should be to achieve as much peace, truth and happiness on Earth as possible. I think there should be additional goals once we start "spreading out" across the galaxy, which I definately think will happen eventually.
So what then? Do we simply go on consuming natural resources as long as possible from planet to planet until we can't go on? Seems rather futile.

Indulge me further, if you would: what makes peace good? And what about truth? What if the two conflict?

What about you? What do you consider to be good for mankind, and what do you think its goals should be?
To serve God. All of mankind will never agree on such a thing on Earth, however...or any other planet, for that matter.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Originally posted by Yoda
All of mankind will never agree on such a thing on Earth, however...or any other planet, for that matter.

Just like all of us can't agree that firegod's famous blue sweater looks good on him. I think his blue sweater may be God... excuse me while I go build The Church of Blue Sweater.

[Monkeypunch]

I used to be a christian, then I wasn't anything for a long time, now I try to be a Buddhist, which is really satisfying for me, even if I don't have the whole "Inner Peace" thing happening just yet. I still get mad, and overreact, but at least I'm trying to be a better person, I think.

[Raziel1]

I think I am gonna stay away from this thread for a while. You guys are just to much for me man.

p.s. evolution is wrong. I mean creation is in the Bible. It's all there in black and white.

[Yoda]

That doesn't mean anything if you don't believe in The Bible. And even if you do, we all know some parts of The Bible are not meant to be taken literally. No one can say for sure what is symoblic and what is not (within reason).

[Raziel1]

Wrong again....Man why do I keep getting sucked into this thread

[sadesdrk]

Wow.
Reading through this thread was frustrating. I'm sorry I missed it. Hopefully, people haven't tired of it yet, and I'll be able to ask some members some questions. :D

First, it seems as though some people are under the impression that Christians try to live under the law (The Ten Commandments). That's not true. The Commandments were set up before the coming of Jesus. After His coming and His teachings, the Commandments served merely as an example of how we fall short; not that it isn't obvious...but that's it's purpose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only a handful of faiths that still think they can get to heaven based on their works and good deeds; Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses, to name a few.

Secondly, the question of sin. I know I've said this somewhere else, but I'll say it again. There is no separation or "levels" of sin. Again, some faiths to seem to think that there are different severities of sin, but my faith (non demnominational Christian. Basically, I just believe in the Bible. I don't get muddled with doctrine and tradition. I'm not religeous. I don't follow any "man made" belief system)
anyhoo, my faith simply accepts sin as sin.
I believe that God, is so unlike man, that he views sin, ALL sin...the same.
It might be a hard concept to swallow, but that's our human nature talking. We'd all like to think that a child rapist is worse off than a shoplifter, but God is capable of forgiving both sinners.
Also, I personally belive it takes more faith to believe in nothing, than it does to believe in something.
I mean, what the hell is the purpose of life? I have answers...do you firegod? Sully?

[Raziel1]

thank yo i agree with u fully now i can get some tag team action goin on..

Sades your in for a while. These guys are makin me tired:sleep:

[Yoda]

my faith simply accepts sin as sin.
I completely agree, however, I do think we are intended to use our best judgement in some ways. I have little doubt God intends for us to punish different sins differently, for example.

I believe that God, is so unlike man, that he views sin, ALL sin...the same.
You're right, but that statement (and other statements like it) have a tendency to cause a lot of eyebrow-raising. It can be hard to get your head around that sort of concept. I do agree, however, that sin is sin, and that, in the end, what kind of sin it is won't matter. It only matters to us now because this is all we know.

I mean, what the hell is the purpose of life? I have answers...do you firegod? Sully?
I can't speak for fire, but I imagine he'd reply along these lines: neither of us has answers, but you think you do. He wouldn't use those exact words, but I'm fairly certain that that would be the gist of it.

But I get your meaning anyway...I'm still amazed at how Atheists go through life using words like right, wrong, fair, unfair, etc., when these things are not absolutes to them (or at least, they claim they are not), but rather, abstract thoughts.

Anyhoo, ya'll know my position. Far too many coincidences. Too many convienences. Too much complexity...it necessitates intelligence.

Holden: bowing out so quickly? You stop in to make one comment that doesn't make all that much sense (and is quoted nearly verbatim from a stand-up comedian), and then subsequently ignore all challenges or questions in reply? :skeptical:

[Raziel1]

He just doesn't want to put the gloves on with ya youse. Do you blame him?:laugh:

[firegod]

So, basically, we just happen to be on the only planet anywhere nearby (as far as we can tell) that supports life?
Probably.

And as complex as this planet is, it came about through PURE chance?
Yes, but I don't look at it like it would take a miracle for life to happen. Instead of thinking of it like a lottery, with there being only one ticket, and if it's picked, life would be created, I think of it more like a lottery, with there being trillions of random tickets spread throughout the universe. Is life rare? Certainly. But is rarity evidence of a miracle or some all-powerful creator? Of course not.

What I don't understand is how you can fail to see the basic merits of the theory, however. If you found a giant stone sphere laying around, you'd never assume it got that way on it's own. You'd assume that someone or something created it that way specifically.
I'm not sure that is true; it would depend on a few things. But supposing it is true, so what? Are you comparing that to things that we generally assume came about naturally, through no help of an intelligent creator? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume there is some intelligent creator out there, just because we find some complexity in an animal or some other natural thing. What we do is we TRY to understand how it came about. We understand how many complex things in nature came about, and we will understand more in the future. Assuming that there is an intelligent creator, just because we haven't EXACTLY figured out how the eyeball evolved, seems pretty silly to me.

So what then? Do we simply go on consuming natural resources as long as possible from planet to planet until we can't go on? Seems rather futile.
What do you suggest we do? I'm not sure what this has to do with religion.

Indulge me further, if you would: what makes peace good? And what about truth? What if the two conflict?
You don't like peace because your religion tells you to, and I think you know that. You like peace, because without it, you suffer. When you see other people without peace, you feel bad for them. When peace and truth conflict, we simply make the best decision we can. If a woman asks me what she looks like in a dress, and the answer would make her feel bad, I use my experience, logic and compassion to try to make a good decision. Do you have a point yet?

To serve God. All of mankind will never agree on such a thing on Earth, however...or any other planet, for that matter.
Agreed

Ok. Now it is your turn to sit in the hot seat, and answer some of my questions. :devil:

According to Christianity, a peaceful, charitable, hardworking, non-violent, law-abiding atheist will go to Hell, to be tortured in the most horrible manner imaginable, unless she eventually believes that Christ is her savior. Also, if someone kidnaps 150 children, and slices them up into small pieces, he is still capable of finding Jesus, and if he does, he will go to Heaven to live in peaceful bliss for an eternity. Can you explain to me why that makes sense, and why any reasonable person would think the god in question is a good god?

Do you believe every word of the bible? If so, does that mean you agree with Exodus 35:2 when it says people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death? Or do you think that is a part of the bible not meant to be taken literally? What about verses like Exodus 21:7 that govern how we should go about putting our kids into slavery? Agree with it? Were these verses written by an all-good god?

Why do you think there is absolutely no proof of anything of a supernatural nature? If there are ghosts, gods (or one god), angels, demons, psychics, etc., why can't anyone or anything ever prove it? For example, if you give a psychic a test to see if he really is psychic, without allowing him to get information before hand, or use his con artist trick known as cold reading, he fails every single time. Now, I have no idea if you believe in psychics or not, but you do believe in the supernatural, so I ask again: why is there no proof of supernatural things anywhere?

I might have more later.

[firegod]

Originally posted by sadesdrkAlso, I personally belive it takes more faith to believe in nothing, than it does to believe in something.
Really? So if I believe in hobgoblins, I have less faith than if I believe in nothing without evidence of its existence? Hmm...

I mean, what the hell is the purpose of life? I have answers...do you firegod? Sully?

I only have my own beliefs: try to be happy, try to help people, so on. Is your purpose in life to work for your god? Is your purpose supposed to be any more legitimate than the puprose of someone who works for a completely different god than yours, like one of the thousands of gods that have been believed in?

[Yoda]

Probably.
So, we're just damn lucky? Don't you think it's a little convienent?

Yes, but I don't look at it like it would take a miracle for life to happen. Instead of thinking of it like a lottery, with there being only one ticket, and if it's picked, life would be created, I think of it more like a lottery, with there being trillions of random tickets spread throughout the universe. Is life rare? Certainly. But is rarity evidence of a miracle or some all-powerful creator? Of course not.
Hell yes it's evidence! Not proof, no, but evidence? Abso-frickin-lutely. Realize that you're asking me to believe that we just happen to be a very rare, evolved species on a very rare type of planet.

I'm not sure that is true; it would depend on a few things.
What things would it depend on?

But supposing it is true, so what? Are you comparing that to things that we generally assume came about naturally, through no help of an intelligent creator? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume there is some intelligent creator out there, just because we find some complexity in an animal or some other natural thing. What we do is we TRY to understand how it came about. We understand how many complex things in nature came about, and we will understand more in the future. Assuming that there is an intelligent creator, just because we haven't EXACTLY figured out how the eyeball evolved, seems pretty silly to me.
That's not why at all. It's mathematical, to put it bluntly. Nobel Prize winning scientists have stated that the mathematical probability of us evolving to this highly advanced state is so low that it is rendered practically impossible.

You believe in chaos. A bunch of crap all mixed around in the Universe. Therefore, if you find a high amount of ORDER in that chaos, it needs to be explained. Why is the concept of intelligence and preciseness so hard to grasp? If you found a planet full of jagged rocks, and one that was all smoothed over in the shape of a near-perfect Hexagon, there's no flippin' way you'd fail to assume that some intelligent being was behind it...because a chaotic universe does not produce such precise things. Because it's CHAOTIC.

What do you suggest we do? I'm not sure what this has to do with religion.
From my standpoint? Serve God, of course. From yours? Well, from yours, there's nothing TO do. It's all futile and pointless eventually.

You don't like peace because your religion tells you to, and I think you know that. You like peace, because without it, you suffer. When you see other people without peace, you feel bad for them. When peace and truth conflict, we simply make the best decision we can. If a woman asks me what she looks like in a dress, and the answer would make her feel bad, I use my experience, logic and compassion to try to make a good decision. Do you have a point yet?
I might...but rather than answer those first two questions, you just threw 'em right back at me. If you don't want to answer them, well, fine, I'm not gonna nag...but I'd like it if you did.

I like peace for several reasons. But that's not what I asked.

Ok. Now it is your turn to sit in the hot seat, and answer some of my questions. :devil
Gladly. :)

According to Christianity, a peaceful, charitable, hardworking, non-violent, law-abiding atheist will go to Hell, to be tortured in the most horrible manner imaginable, unless she eventually believes that Christ is her savior. Also, if someone kidnaps 150 children, and slices them up into small pieces, he is still capable of finding Jesus, and if he does, he will go to Heaven to live in peaceful bliss for an eternity. Can you explain to me why that makes sense, and why any reasonable person would think the god in question is a good god?
Under your description, you're right, God seems like an a**hole...however, as is typical Atheistic practice in such debates, you've used hyperbole to try to make a point.

There's no definite reason to believe that Hell involves any actual torture. My belief is that "Hell" is simply the name given to a life without God. Some people (myself included, I think...though I'm far from sure) believe that Hell is CHOSEN overall...that people in Hell are bitter and proud, and don't even WANT to leave. C.S. Lewis wrote about this in The Great Divorce, which I highly recommend to anyone, whether they believe in God or ont.

Now, Hell aside, from my perspective, actions on Earth do not carry as much weight as they do for others. If you don't believe in God, your life here is all you have, and therefore something like murder can't really be forgiven or rectified in any way. However, if you look at this life in comparison to the life of our actual Souls, well, I don't think it's hard to imagine just how insigificant it can seem.

Do you believe every word of the bible?
Literally? No.

If so, does that mean you agree with Exodus 35:2 when it says people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death? Or do you think that is a part of the bible not meant to be taken literally? What about verses like Exodus 21:7 that govern how we should go about putting our kids into slavery? Agree with it? Were these verses written by an all-good god?
Let's clarify a few things: something being said in The Bible is not the same as something being commanded in The Bible. The Bible, for example, contains numerous kinds of texts...such as letters from one person to another, or from a person to a group of people. Obviously these letters are not necessarily being written to US, and therefore the directives within them do not necessarily apply. Context is everything.

Why do you think there is absolutely no proof of anything of a supernatural nature?
Because if we had proof, it wouldn't be considered "supernatural" anymore. Some of the things we believe today were previously considered "supernatural," but are now seen as perfectly natural, now that they've been explained and demonstrated.

If there are ghosts, gods (or one god), angels, demons, psychics, etc., why can't anyone or anything ever prove it?
Why is the word "ever" in there? Who said we'll never be able to? It took us a hell of a long time to discover and prove a lot of things...and obviously we've got a lot more to learn.

For example, if you give a psychic a test to see if he really is psychic, without allowing him to get information before hand, or use his con artist trick known as cold reading, he fails every single time. Now, I have no idea if you believe in psychics or not, but you do believe in the supernatural, so I ask again: why is there no proof of supernatural things anywhere?
See above. And no, I don't believe in pyschics...just folks blessed with the uncanny ability to read other people and situations extremely well.

I might have more later.
Keep 'em coming.

In the meantime, however, I can see this debate over the supernatural has hit a roadblock right off the bat. It might help if you define just what you mean by "supernatural." I think you might be surprised at the definition you arrive at.

[Yoda]

Really? So if I believe in hobgoblins, I have less faith than if I believe in nothing without evidence of its existence? Hmm...
I believe she meant that there's enough evidence in support of SOME force beyond us out there that you'd be excercising more Faith to ignore it than you would to believe it. I think you knew what she meant, too. :)

I only have my own beliefs: try to be happy, try to help people, so on. Is your purpose in life to work for your god? Is your purpose supposed to be any more legitimate than the puprose of someone who works for a completely different god than yours, like one of the thousands of gods that have been believed in?
That's an odd question: who decides what is legitimate?

[Raziel1]

Round and round we go. Do I believe the Bible? Yes every word LITERALLY....The quote from exe. about the sabath. We are not under the law anymore we are under Grace. You see after Christ died on the cross for our sins the price for sin was paid and we were no longer under the law. So to explain about the whole person who is good, but doesn't accept Christ as their Savior is going to hell.First of all there is no good people. We are all low down dirty sinners including myself, but God loved you so much He sent His son to die for you and me. So yes there are a zillion nice people tormenting in hell, but that was there choice.

[firegod]

I believe she meant that there's enough evidence in support of SOME force beyond us out there that you'd be excercising more Faith to ignore it than you would to believe it. I think you knew what she meant, too. :)
It doesn't matter whether it is a supreme being or a hobgoblin. Me believing in it requires evidence, and I haven't seen any.

That's an odd question: who decides what is legitimate?
That's basically what I am asking her.

Commish, you have now answered for both Sades and me. I think we can speak for ourselves, mmk?

[Raziel1]

Someones getting kind of defensive.mmmk

[firegod]

Originally posted by Raziel1
Round and round we go. Do I believe the Bible? Yes every word LITERALLY....The quote from exe. about the sabath. We are not under the law anymore we are under Grace. You see after Christ died on the cross for our sins the price for sin was paid and we were no longer under the law. So to explain about the whole person who is good, but doesn't accept Christ as their Savior is going to hell.First of all there is no good people. We are all low down dirty sinners including myself, but God loved you so much He sent His son to die for you and me. So yes there are a zillion nice people tormenting in hell, but that was there choice.

Ok, then you believe in the talking snake and that Jonah lived inside a whale?

[Yoda]

It doesn't matter whether it is a supreme being or a hobgoblin. Me believing in it requires evidence, and I haven't seen any.
Yes, I realize that that's what you believe. I'm simply saying that I think you know exactly what she meant by what she said...you may not agree, but you're not really expected to.

Commish, you have now answered for both Sades and me. I think we can speak for ourselves, mmk?
Both times I made it clear that I do NOT speak for the person in question. You can indeed speak for yourselves, but if the answer is plain as day, I feel obliged to say something. If this somehow bothers you, I'll make sure not to even guess as to what you MIGHT say from now on. Better? :)

[firegod]

Sure.

[Yoda]

Goody. :)

Just about bedtime for me. I anxiously await your response, though. It feels good to be back at it again.

[Naisy]

i am wiccan and i was greatly pleased and srprised to see that was an option on the list. I hope that none of you now start treating me like a evil witch because i am not.

[firegod]

Lol, not me. I know a couple of Wiccans, and they have taught me a little about what they believe. One of my fave religions, no doubt about it.

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by firegod

Do you believe every word of the bible? If so, does that mean you agree with Exodus 35:2 when it says people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death? Or do you think that is a part of the bible not meant to be taken literally? What about verses like Exodus 21:7 that govern how we should go about putting our kids into slavery? Agree with it? Were these verses written by an all-good god? Firegod, in the Old Testiment, God also burned people up on the spot. Those are the kinds of things that happened before Christ came. Those are the old ways.

Why do you think there is absolutely no proof of anything of a supernatural nature? If there are ghosts, gods (or one god), angels, demons, psychics, etc., why can't anyone or anything ever prove it? There are tons of accounts of people seeing angels and the like. I could just as well say these things about aliens. Just because there isn't any concrete evidence they exist or don't exisit, doesn't mean perhaps one person actually saw one. What are you getting at? Miraculous things happen everywhere to lots of people ALL the time...stuff science can't explain or give an appropriate answer for, you're just not looking. ;D

[Mary Loquacious]

Knightmare, you rock on with your Wiccan self! Most of my best friends are Wicca, and I'm endlessly fascinated by their beliefs. :yup:

Sades, I can see your point about the Old-New Testament representations of God... The OT God is the Hebrew god, and they needed a god who could, and would, strike out on their behalf. The NT God is the Christian god, who works more through messengers and representatives like Jesus. I don't know if I'm just backing up your point or just clarifying it for myself, but I felt the need to type all that crap out. :D

And, forgive me for going off on a tangent, but I want to say something that is totally random.

I don't really believe in anything aside from what is around me. I barely even believe in Outer Mongolia--sure, they tell you it's there, but I've never seen it except in pictures, and those can be doctored. But I do think there is something out there that links everything together. My friend Ange calls it the Universal Conciousness, and that might be the closest thing to a name for what I'm thinking of that I'll ever find.

Religion as an institution is for people, though, and it's through the people that religions thrive. And while I believe there are some harmful aspects to any type of religion, especially in its most extreme forms (anything, taken to an extreme, can be harmful), I am glad religion exists, and that people believe, for one reason: it gives me hope.

Not for my own salvation, but for the salvation of humanity, because the core of almost every major (and many minor) religions basically says, "Treat other people the way you want to be treated." Following that very common-sensical rule might be the best and only way we as humans can make Earth a truly good place, a great place, to live in and to raise our children in. If religion can help us get there, then that's an important thing.

Okay, now I've stopped with the sappy. I just wanted to say that stuff--I've been thinking a lot about it lately. Gee, I wonder why that is... :D

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
Religion as an institution is for people, though, and it's through the people that religions thrive. And while I believe there are some harmful aspects to any type of religion, especially in its most extreme forms (anything, taken to an extreme, can be harmful), I am glad religion exists, and that people believe, for one reason: it gives me hope. Agreed. Man has a cra-zay way of screwing things up and twisting facts to make things more comfortable. I don't follow any one thing because of those reasons...

"Treat other people the way you want to be treated." Following that very common-sensical rule might be the best and only way we as humans can make Earth a truly good place, a great place, to live in and to raise our children in. If religion can help us get there, then that's an important thing. Hmmm...don't get me started on the whole," All roads lead to God" debate. :nope: but I get your drift.

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
I mean, what the hell is the purpose of life?

I'm in the process of finding that out right now.

I have answers...do you firegod? Sully?

I don't have any answers. I don't want to be able to kick back in a recliner, sip Bacardi, and think "Yeah....I know what's up with life, the universe, and everything." I have no belief system or metaphyiscs that everything fits neatly into.

I have no assurance of what will happen when this mortal coil bites this dust. I am profoundly unafraid of death.

Why would you WANT answers? What's the fun in that? What's the point? If you have an answer for every theological or philosophical question, your belief system is static. And a static belief system, to me, equals spiritual death. If there are no unasnwered questions, there's no reason to explore, and no reason to grow.

I was raised a Protestant. All my life my parents, and their parents, and our church members and pastors and Bible study leaders and youth group leaders, handed me nothing but answer after answer. After a while, I got disgusted with it. Being fed lines is NOT spiritual growth....it's not spirituality at all. It's cultic. I'll take care of my own soul, thanks.

[Yoda]

Being fed lines is not growth, no...but what is the point of growth if not to grow as much as possible? And if there are answers, how is it somehow bad to want them, and be glad to potentially have them? No, one should not get complacent and assume they have everything nailed down...but I don't understand the concept that it'd be BAD to actually have the answers to life's spiritual questions. I think it'd be a GOOD thing...though obviously unrealistic.

[Sullivan]

Absolutely, the point of growth is to grow as much as possible. And what "is possible" is something that is supremely undefined, as far as I can tell.

It's not really my contention that it's bad to WANT answers. If I didn't want answers I wouldn't ask questions....I'd just accept all that doctrine I was fed in my youth. It's not that I feel it's "bad" to want them: and it's not even that I feel it would be bad to get them.

My problem arises with the concept of "finishing" or "completion". Having answers to life's spiritual questions....ALL of life's spiritual questions....would seem to me to be a sort of dead end, a place from which there can be no further movement. A sort of existential equillibrium, if you will. The idea of nirvanna is something like this, as it is a "place beyond which nothing meaningful can be said about a man." The Buddhists define this as an escape from the suffering that is the cycle of death and rebirth, and in a way, having answers to all life's spiritual questions would be a similar thing.....based on the assumption that, if you could answer all those nigglign questions about the true nature of life, the universe and everything, you would finally be "content" or "fulfilled".

But that's exactly what bothers me. If you were completely fulfilled and perfectly knowledgeable, spiritually.....if you knew everything and apprehended everything and understood everything.....then what more is there?

And if we're talking about a situation in which you don't know the answers to ALL of life's spiritual questions, but rather only SOME of them, then I'm fine. As long as there are things to explore and work at and strive for, I'm cool. I only run into problems when total and complete understanding and enlightenment is reached, because at this point, it seems there would be nothing at all left to do.

[Raziel1]

Originally posted by Yoda
Being fed lines is not growth, no...but what is the point of growth if not to grow as much as possible? And if there are answers, how is it somehow bad to want them, and be glad to potentially have them? No, one should not get complacent and assume they have everything nailed down...but I don't understand the concept that it'd be BAD to actually have the answers to life's spiritual questions. I think it'd be a GOOD thing...though obviously unrealistic.

It's not bad. You'll just find out when/if you get to Heaven.

Don't take offense to the if I can't judge what's in your heart

[Yoda]

But that's exactly what bothers me. If you were completely fulfilled and perfectly knowledgeable, spiritually.....if you knew everything and apprehended everything and understood everything.....then what more is there?
There is only practice, then. If you're asking me for my opinion, in Heaven we all improve our skills and learn. We just don't learn about major spiritual things anymore.

And if we're talking about a situation in which you don't know the answers to ALL of life's spiritual questions, but rather only SOME of them, then I'm fine. As long as there are things to explore and work at and strive for, I'm cool. I only run into problems when total and complete understanding and enlightenment is reached, because at this point, it seems there would be nothing at all left to do.
You're speaking in nearly the EXACT same way one of the characters in C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce does. The character (I forget his name...he may not have even had one) was sitting, as one of the damned, in Heaven, talking to someone saved, who he knew on Earth. He was eventually horrified to find that there is no more debate. That there are no more questions, because the Truth is readily apparent to all. He can't bear the thought.

But just because we can't fathom it, or don't like it, doesn't mean it is not the case, of course. Perhaps you could indulge me: what "problems" do you run into when you think of such a scenario?

[Naisy]

Originally posted by firegod
Lol, not me. I know a couple of Wiccans, and they have taught me a little about what they believe. One of my fave religions, no doubt about it.


Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
[B]Knightmare, you rock on with your Wiccan self! Most of my best friends are Wicca, and I'm endlessly fascinated by their beliefs. :yup:


well i wouldnt have guessed it, around here people hear Wiccan and they want to burn you literally it would be ok if they knew what they were talking about but they hear witch without understanding what it is, thank you all for being kind about it and not threatening me. I do not preach that you should all be wiccans but if it is something you are interested in knowing more about please just email me OR PM me, i will be happy to help in letting you understand more.

[Raziel1]

No thanks don't want that stuff. sorry.

Only love God over here

[Sullivan]

Originally posted by Yoda

There is only practice, then. If you're asking me for my opinion, in Heaven we all improve our skills and learn. We just don't learn about major spiritual things anymore.


So, can we continue improving our skills forever?


But just because we can't fathom it, or don't like it, doesn't mean it is not the case, of course. Perhaps you could indulge me: what "problems" do you run into when you think of such a scenario?

Well, it doesn't mean it IS the case, either.....even though we think it might be nice.

I guess the problem I run into is the question of stagnation. What do we do after the truth is readily apparent to all? What more is there to say, or work for? Do we just.....sit?

[Naisy]

Originally posted by Raziel1
No thanks don't want that stuff. sorry.

Only love God over here

i like God as well, but my craft is magick (im not sure if thats how americans spell it) as long as you dont tell me whats wrogn with me and i wont say anything bad about you, we will be good friends still for much time to come. My offer still applies to other people though

[Yoda]

I guess the problem I run into is the question of stagnation. What do we do after the truth is readily apparent to all? What more is there to say, or work for? Do we just.....sit?
I can't really say. I will say this, though: while the thought of simply going on without striving to break new grounds in Truth may seem unthinkable to us, it might be highly appealing and reasonable in the life after this one. However, all we know is a world without limits on such things.

i like God as well, but my craft is magick (im not sure if thats how americans spell it) as long as you dont tell me whats wrogn with me and i wont say anything bad about you, we will be good friends still for much time to come. My offer still applies to other people though
Where do you believe your "powers" come from?

[Monkeypunch]

Wow, an angry argument...and I didn't start it! Cool!

[Raziel1]

Originally posted by Knightmare


i like God as well, but my craft is magick (im not sure if thats how americans spell it) as long as you dont tell me whats wrogn with me and i wont say anything bad about you, we will be good friends still for much time to come. My offer still applies to other people though

I got no problem with you man.

[Naisy]

I got no problem with you man.


and i have no prob with you Raz


Where do you believe your "powers" come from?

i dont know if thats a proper question or a laugh at me, but as its Chris i think its a question that i will anwser it all the same. The power comes from within and from nature, to be honest im not Wiccan for the magic side of things but for the rules it implies for eg "harm none and do what ye will" and the three fold law, which is where if you do something good it comes back to you three times and the same applies if you do evil. Magic comes from God or what we call "the lady" we cant make fireballs form in our hands or that sort of fantasy stuff, but we can create good luck. We must only use magic to bring OURSELVES needs or enhance the lives of the ones we love. Wicca is far from evil IMO.

[Yoda]

It might be evil. Isn't it a possibility these powers come from a place other than the one you think? After all, if Satan does exist, don't you think it'd make perfect sense for him to ensnare people with that sort of thing? I would if I were him. :yup:

Anyway, "harm none and do what ye will" isn't a far cry from some of the basics of Christianity. I think the difference is that Christianty knows that you WILL harm others eventually with self-destructive behavior, and that "harm none" encompasses all people...including yourself.

[Naisy]

Originally posted by Yoda
It might be evil. Isn't it a possibility these powers come from a place other than the one you think? After all, if Satan does exist, don't you think it'd make perfect sense for him to ensnare people with that sort of thing? I would if I were him. :yup:

Anyway, "harm none and do what ye will" isn't a far cry from some of the basics of Christianity. I think the difference is that Christianty knows that you WILL harm others eventually with self-destructive behavior, and that "harm none" encompasses all people...including yourself.

i have often thought that it might be evil which is why i would rarely consider messing with magic, im wiccan for the values of helping fellow man and even SB would agree that i do care alot about everyone else. Look Chris you mistake the religion, no offence is meant by this but i do believe your a little closed minded. I try to harm none but as with Christianity people will make mistakes and people do break the rules, its life. Wicca is a craft more than a religion, it is possible to be christian AND wiccan.

If Satan is behind this and he is to capture my soul for doing as much good in the world as i can before i go, than thats the price i will pay to help others.

If you go to this site, i hope it will help you understand, i am not using magic for any sort OR form of evil but to help those i care about:

Wicca Information (http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm)

ps i am not telling you that you are wrong because i truely dont know the anwsers but i do still have faith in my religion as you will probably have faith in yours

pps i too believe in Satan, if there can be a surpream good (god or the lady) than there can probably be a surpream evil. I truely do not know the anwsers which is the good part of religion, no one KNOWS we just have FAITH and BELIEVE.:yup:

[Yoda]

i have often thought that it might be evil which is why i would rarely consider messing with magic, im wiccan for the values of helping fellow man and even SB would agree that i do care alot about everyone else.
Christianity is based around, among other things, helping your fellow man. So why Wiccan?

Look Chris you mistake the religion, no offence is meant by this but i do believe your a little closed minded. I try to harm none but as with Christianity people will make mistakes and people do break the rules, its life. Wicca is a craft more than a religion, it is possible to be christian AND wiccan.
People will make mistakes and break rules no matter what they believe. And no, I don't think it is possible to be Christian and Wiccan. Partially because of this:

Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me

Some mysterious life force that gives you powers ("The Lady" I think you called it) is indeed another God.

If Satan is behind this and he is to capture my soul for doing as much good in the world as i can before i go, than thats the price i will pay to help others.
Um, I'm a Christian and I strive to do good as well. Why does someone need to be Wiccan as opposed to Christian to do that?

ps i am not telling you that you are wrong because i truely dont know the anwsers but i do still have faith in my religion as you will probably have faith in yours
Surely...and I'm not going to belittle you for these beliefs. What I am wondering, though, is what you get out of Wicca that you think is lacking in Christianity. You make it sound like Christianity does NOT encourage the good things you're speaking of...but it most definitely does.

EDIT: Thanks for the link...it sounds rather ridiculous, though. It's got one funky definition of Witchcraft...it's not really consistent with the dictionary definition.

[Naisy]

Originally posted by Yoda
Christianity is based around, among other things, helping your fellow man. So why Wiccan?


well chris, i guess another question i could ask is why not? my faith is in my beliefs and ONE of my beliefs is in wicca, its as like asking why Christian? it is just what your heart believes and the path you choose to follow. Wicca is just part of my life.


I don't think it is possible to be Christian and Wiccan. Partially because of this:
Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me
Some mysterious life force that gives you powers ("The Lady" I think you called it) is indeed another God.


Chris, i personally do not talk to "the lady", i talk to God, correction i pray to god. I do think it is possible to have a mix, but i do not stress the point because i know there are many others who disagree and there are those that will agree.


Um, I'm a Christian and I strive to do good as well. Why does someone need to be Wiccan as opposed to Christian to do that?


No im not saying that you have to be wiccan to help someone, im sorry you got the wrong idea, but as i stress many times i do have my faith in wicca, just as you have yours in christianity.


What I am wondering, though, is what you get out of Wicca that you think is lacking in Christianity.


Chris i never said Christianity is lacking anything it just isnt the total belief system for me, i still believe in God, i still share many beliefs that Christians do, but Wicca is my path that i have choosen


You make it sound like Christianity does NOT encourage the good things you're speaking of...but it most definitely does.


No Chris i REALLY didnt mean it to sound like that, but there have been friends of mine who are wiccan, who have been bashed and threatened (by Christians who i believe misunderstand us) to be burned just for being "a witch", which i believe is not something God would approve of.


EDIT: Thanks for the link...it sounds rather ridiculous, though. It's got one funky definition of Witchcraft...it's not really consistent with the dictionary definition. [/B]

There are many forms of witchcraft Chris, ours is just as we interpret it.

[Yoda]

well chris, i guess another question i could ask is why not? my faith is in my beliefs and ONE of my beliefs is in wicca, its as like asking why Christian? it is just what your heart believes and the path you choose to follow. Wicca is just part of my life.
Why not? Well, personally, I don't believe something under that sort of assumption. I think the burden of proof lies with the belief...not against it. IE: it doesn't make sense to believe in something just because there's no really good reason not to, but rather, because there's a good reason to.

Chris, i personally do not talk to "the lady", i talk to God, correction i pray to god. I do think it is possible to have a mix, but i do not stress the point because i know there are many others who disagree and there are those that will agree.
Well, doesn't the Wiccan religion follow more than one Godlike figure? All I'm trying to say is that it appears to me that this religion does indeed conflict with Christianity.

No im not saying that you have to be wiccan to help someone, im sorry you got the wrong idea, but as i stress many times i do have my faith in wicca, just as you have yours in christianity.
I see what you're saying, but in my opinion, we should all have good reasons for believing what we believe. When asked why you believe in what you believe, you say things a bit like "because it promotes good will between people" -- but the fact of the matter is that many other religions do that. So what is it about Wicca that attracts you to it rather than other religions? There must be something it has that the others do not that attracted you to it.

No Chris i REALLY didnt mean it to sound like that, but there have been friends of mine who are wiccan, who have been bashed and threatened (by Christians who i believe misunderstand us) to be burned just for being "a witch", which i believe is not something God would approve of.
I'm not sure what God would approve of...probably not that, but then again, I don't know your friends, maybe some of them are genuinely dangerous people. I can't say with the limited knowledge I have here.

I will say this, though: when you refer to yourself as a "witch," you're just asking for trouble.

There are many forms of witchcraft Chris, ours is just as we interpret it.
Well, the fact remains that words have actual definitions...and rather than take a word and stretch it's definition, why not use a different word? It feels very much like the word "witchcraft" is being used for shock value in some way. If the religion defines "witchcraft" as "appreciating the things around you" (or something of the sort, I can't quote it off the top of my head), then why call it "witchcraft" at all?

Let's be blunt: virtually no one is so naive as to use the word "witchcraft" and NOT expect to get a certain kind of response.

[Yoda]

Crap, fire hasn't been around. Who am I supposed to argue with now? Holden left before he even got here. Bah. I suppose I'll just have to wait.

[Monkeypunch]

I'd argue with you if I had an opinion on religion, which I really don't, so it makes you wonder why I'm posting on this thread, HMMM. Actually, a great man once said, "There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: Religion, Politics, and the Great Pumpkin." Okay, it was Linus from the Charlie Brown show, but he's pretty deep for a 6 year old...

[Yoda]

I understand...though I've never, ever, ever agreed with that kind of attitude. I run into a lot of people who are completely unwilling to talk about religion or politics...which I admit, I don't see much sense in. There's plenty of sense in refusing to discuss either subject with anyone lacking respect (or self-control, for that matter)...but I see no good reason to avoid the subjects altogether.

Hell, they're, arguably, the two most important subjects in our world. Seems to me they demand MORE thought, not less, than other things. Just because they're unpleasant to think about, and can turn otherwise good arguments ugly, it doesn't mean they are to be avoided altogether.

The worst side you can take, in my opinion, is the side that has taken no side.

[Monkeypunch]

I just find that in religious arguments, neither side is willing to see the other side's point. It's like I believe in what I believe, and others believe what they believe, and there's no right or wrong, only what works for you. I gets really ugly really fast, and I try to avoid that. About a year ago, I made the mistake of telling someone I didn't go to church, and they got all up in my face and I couldn't talk to them. They thought I was putting down their religion, which I wasn't, and it got really ugly. Also, when I was in the Army, my buddy "Lightbulb"(Not his real name, but he had a HUGE head) was flat out harassed for being an atheist, then for going to Wicca services, and that was not fair because he was a damn cool individual. He got kicked around for stating his beliefs, so I've adopted a live and let live attitude towards the whole thing. Politics, however, well, you know me, I can't shut my big fat yap about them... :yup:

[Yoda]

I just find that in religious arguments, neither side is willing to see the other side's point. It's like I believe in what I believe, and others believe what they believe, and there's no right or wrong, only what works for you.
I don't think that's true. Some of us ARE wrong...and some of us ARE right. Just because we don't know who's right for sure, though, it doesn't mean it makes sense not to discuss it.

I gets really ugly really fast, and I try to avoid that.
I avoid the ugliness...not the topic. And if trying to figure things out means I run into some unpleasantness, well, it's a price worth paying to try to find truth.

He got kicked around for stating his beliefs, so I've adopted a live and let live attitude towards the whole thing.
So have I, but "live and let live" is different from "I don't talk about those things...they get ugly," or something similar. It's not as if you either have to be completely partial and biased and annoying, or completley indifferent. I can accept other people's beliefs...but I'm not going to pretend I think they're right, or that everyone's views are equal (let's face it: some views are pretty whacked out), and if I see someone believing something for a reason that makes no sense (yes, even someone who believes in God for the wrong reasons), well, I'm gonna say something about it.

[Monkeypunch]

Okay, there ARE things that are inherently wrong, like murder, rape, pedophilia and things of that nature, but I don't think its right to tell people that their religious beliefs are "Whacked Out" or wrong. I beleive in some things that I'm sure you don't, I.E. Reincarnation, Karma, etc., but I don't think that makes me wrong. Of course, if you look at whacko cults, yes, they are definitely wrong, but your average guy isn't IN a wacky Heaven's Gate or Branch Davidian or Jim Jones cult. (The only GOOD cult is the Blue Oyster Cult..."Don't Fear the Reaper...." :D ) I don't know, I'm not particularly well informed about religion around the world, and I'm loathe to say that what's right for me is right for everyone else.

[Yoda]

Okay, there ARE things that are inherently wrong, like murder, rape, pedophilia and things of that nature, but I don't think its right to tell people that their religious beliefs are "Whacked Out" or wrong.
Perhaps. But I'm not going to hesitate to refer to radical Islamists or human sacrifices in Satanic rituals as "whacked out," and I don't think you will either.

And yes, some things are inherently wrong...I'm glad that you acknowlege that much. Quite frankly, that's one of the very few things that, if someone else doesn't believe it, I'm flabbergasted. I assume this means you believe in "something" -- IE: some sort of power or life beyond us?

I beleive in some things that I'm sure you don't, I.E. Reincarnation, Karma, etc., but I don't think that makes me wrong.
No, it doesn't make you wrong...it makes one of us wrong. All I'm saying is that this "there is no wrong path" stuff just doesn't hold water. There IS a correct answer to each of the questions we're posing here. Either I'm right, or I'm wrong...the same goes for you, and everyone else with any kind of belief.

The only GOOD cult is the Blue Oyster Cult
Hell yes. Don't Fear the Reaper is one of my favorite songs of all time.

I don't know, I'm not particularly well informed about religion around the world, and I'm loathe to say that what's right for me is right for everyone else.
Well, obviously I believe there's one thing that's "right" for everyone, technically...I think whatever is out there is universally good for all, even if they're resistant to it...but yes, I see your point, I think: we don't know what that one thing is, and we shouldn't be pushy.

[Naisy]

sorry its taken so long to reply, my modem has blown up and i can only reply at school. Man this is quite a long discussion! Just so you know Chris, no matter whats said here about our religions no hard feelings :D

Originally posted by Yoda
Well, doesn't the Wiccan religion follow more than one Godlike figure? All I'm trying to say is that it appears to me that this religion does indeed conflict with Christianity.


it does conflict with Christianity which is what every other religion will do anyway, thats what makes each religion seperate from the rest.


When asked why you believe in what you believe, you say things a bit like "because it promotes good will between people" -- but the fact of the matter is that many other religions do that. So what is it about Wicca that attracts you to it rather than other religions? There must be something it has that the others do not that attracted you to it.


Of course there is more, some of it is hard to explain, i just felt it in my heart that, this was my path and i KNEW it was my way, my path. Promoting good will, is just a bonus.


I don't know your friends, maybe some of them are genuinely dangerous people. I can't say with the limited knowledge I have here.


A very wise call Chris, fair enough judgement, i dont believe they are dangerous, but that is something you cannot decide on.


I will say this, though: when you refer to yourself as a "witch," you're just asking for trouble.


if that is what our religion calls us we are hardly going to call ourselves something other. I mean if Christians were getting bashed, would you refuse to call yourself christian, if you believe in what you believe in so much, chances are you wouldnt, someone once said, i might not like what you believe, but i will fight to the death for your right to believe it.


Well, the fact remains that words have actual definitions...and rather than take a word and stretch it's definition, why not use a different word? It feels very much like the word "witchcraft" is being used for shock value in some way. If the religion defines "witchcraft" as "appreciating the things around you" (or something of the sort, I can't quote it off the top of my head), then why call it "witchcraft" at all?


Do you actually believe that we would call ourselves witches to get ourselves bashed? If you go back in time and review history, witchcraft was originally about nature, after times had changed so did the definition, what word would you suggest we change to Chris?


Let's be blunt: virtually no one is so naive as to use the word "witchcraft" and NOT expect to get a certain kind of response.

thats true, but i believe in it strong enough to not care what i get called, just if actual harm is coming my way, i dont want to fight all the time, i just want people to understand, im still Mick Naismith, im still the caring person people think i am, just because i am a witch doesnt mean im evil, its ok to respond, i would just like people to take the time to understand our religion than respond, before branding us ALL evil.

[The Silver Bullet]

This is bizarre.

[Yoda]

sorry its taken so long to reply, my modem has blown up and i can only reply at school. Man this is quite a long discussion! Just so you know Chris, no matter whats said here about our religions no hard feelings :D
Likewise...even if it is less fun this way. :laugh:

it does conflict with Christianity which is what every other religion will do anyway, thats what makes each religion seperate from the rest.
Hmm, well, you were saying different earlier:

Wicca is a craft more than a religion, it is possible to be christian AND wiccan.

Of course there is more, some of it is hard to explain, i just felt it in my heart that, this was my path and i KNEW it was my way, my path. Promoting good will, is just a bonus.
Well, I hate to force the issue, but I think there must be a primary reason for your choosing it, and I'm rather curious as to what it is. I'm not going to nag, but I think it matters.

Don't take this the wrong way, but most of the Wiccans I've met and spoken with were very obviously interested in it for the attention it brings and little else. I don't know you well enough to say whether or not it is the same in your case, but I find it to usually be an extension of the "Goth" lifestyle, and therefore, an attention-getter for teens not quite satisfied with their social position, for one reason or another.

if that is what our religion calls us we are hardly going to call ourselves something other. I mean if Christians were getting bashed, would you refuse to call yourself christian, if you believe in what you believe in so much, chances are you wouldnt, someone once said, i might not like what you believe, but i will fight to the death for your right to believe it.
You're right...what I mean is, if there's no actual Witchcraft going on, why call yourself a Witch?

Do you actually believe that we would call ourselves witches to get ourselves bashed? If you go back in time and review history, witchcraft was originally about nature, after times had changed so did the definition, what word would you suggest we change to Chris?
It depends. I suppose if you're actually practicing Witchcraft, then yes, the name makes sense. What I'd like to know is who chose the name "Wicca" in the first place. It means, roughly, "magic worker."

thats true, but i believe in it strong enough to not care what i get called, just if actual harm is coming my way, i dont want to fight all the time, i just want people to understand, im still Mick Naismith, im still the caring person people think i am, just because i am a witch doesnt mean im evil, its ok to respond, i would just like people to take the time to understand our religion than respond, before branding us ALL evil.
Well, a person may not be evil...but they can still do evil things.

Anyway, I have to ask: what do you do that makes you a Witch?

This is bizarre.
Yup. I'd like to reiterate just how disappointed I am that Holden bowed out so quickly. I can't say I'm surprised...I figured that, if he posted here at ALL, he sure as hell wouldn't stick around to defend his statements. Expected or not, though, it's still a shame.

[The Silver Bullet]

Can't you two see....

[Yoda]

:rotfl:

That STILL makes me laugh.

[The Silver Bullet]

It's funny[!]

[sadesdrk]

Hey Chris!
Little, weird question for you!
I was wondering about animals...
Do you think THEY have free will??
I mean, can't a monkey sin?
This is a silly question, sorry. :bashful:

[Yoda]

I think they do have Free Will, yes...I think they make their own choices. However, I don't think they can sin...I don't think they have any Moral Law or sense of right and wrong. So no, I don't think I monkey can sin (that line cracked me up, by the way). :nope: But I do think they make their own choices. :yup:

[sadesdrk]

Oh. Yeah...
That's what I think too, except...how do we know that God doesn't communicate to them, some sot of moral code?
I mean, we have His written word, but maybe animals get something too...
Like: God, the Horse Whisperer. Ya know? See, why would God feel the need to even mention it in the Bible? That's between God & Nature...so...
I have NO idea where I'm going with this. :D

[The Silver Bullet]

I like it Sadie.
It's a very pure thought.

Keep fleshing it out. I really like it.

:)

[sadesdrk]

Well, I had two thoughts along these lines, this weekend.


One: I was watching Discovery Channel and it was about Dolphins. There was a Dolphin that was pregnant, and the other dolphins surrounded her and protected her. It was so sweet, I thought, are they capable of love?

Two: If there are animals that are tender towards each other, are there also animals that are messed up? Is there such thing as murder in the animal kingdom? Would an EVIL monkey kill, just for the sake of killing? If so, would God punish him?

[The Silver Bullet]

Okay, the animal code idea was pure.
The idea of evil murdering monkeys...

Sadie, please...

;)


Meanwhile, this is the cutest you've been in a long time for this S.B.

:love:

[Yoda]

Originally posted by sadesdrk
Oh. Yeah...
That's what I think too, except...how do we know that God doesn't communicate to them, some sot of moral code?
I mean, we have His written word, but maybe animals get something too...
Like: God, the Horse Whisperer. Ya know? See, why would God feel the need to even mention it in the Bible? That's between God & Nature...so...
I have NO idea where I'm going with this. :D
Well, we don't know. It's just a guess. :) For all I know Moby may indeed be sinning when he desecrates your carpet...however, I've got to believe that if that's the case, the rules are probably different...animals don't appear as able to control their impulses through reason and logic to the same degree we can...so whether they can sin or not, I've got to conclude that the "system" is, at the very least, different from ours, if it exists at all.

I do wonder about this sometimes...animals can show large signs of emotion and intelligence (some animals have been known to punish their young for straying from them, for example). If animals ever start showing moral instinct, or anything of the sort, we're going to have quite the moral dillema to deal with.

Would an EVIL monkey kill, just for the sake of killing?
:rotfl:

That's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

[The Silver Bullet]

And yet strangely erotic...


Kidding.
I of course mean strangely disturbing but the oppertunity was so there for me to say sucha thing...

[sadesdrk]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Okay, the animal code idea was pure.
The idea of evil murdering monkeys...

Sadie, please...

;) Well, couldn't there be? Remember Tarzan: The Legend of Greystoke? There was that mean monkey that brutilized Tarzan's monkey mom...but, Sadie, that was a movie."
Yes, I know it was a movie, but it made me think...



Meanwhile, this is the cutest you've been in a long time for this S.B.

:love: Aw. Shucks. :blush: Thanks, Bubs. :love:

[The Silver Bullet]

Defining moments in the life of Sadie #409584:
Yes, I know it was a movie, but it made me think...


Thanks, Bubs.

Heh heh heh.
King of the world, Chris. King of the world.

:yup:
:laugh:

[sadesdrk]

Yes, well...
:modest:

any other thoughts? Or are we done?

[The Silver Bullet]

"Are we finished?"
"Done."

[Yoda]

We're done on the subject of animals, yeah...but not with this thread. :nope: I've got more arguing to do. Just waitin' for Holden and/or Fire. :D

[Naisy]

Well Yoda, give us sometime and once again we can argue, man we write to much, so in turn i have to reply too much, i refuse to give up though :yup:

[The Silver Bullet]

I think you're fighting a losing battle with an argument that contains so many plot holes that the religion appears as though it's been pecked to ***** by aggressive birds, but okay.

[Naisy]

oh come on, religion is a matter of beliefs, faith and opinion. There is no way to win or lose, come to think of it i dont even know what we are arguing about, this is just a discussion. Besides nothing hear is taken personally, its just i guess in some ways a bit of fun

[The Silver Bullet]

Yes, but your discussion is full of holes.
You're believing in contradicting yourself.

[Yoda]

Care to elaborate, Matty? :D

[The Silver Bullet]

I'd rather slit my wrists.
You've brought a few up already, I believe.

[XetoxIc]

Relgion-dont realy have one, i mean I am cristian and all but dont really think I would say I have a relgion so to speak

[Yoda]

Umm...if you're a Christian, you have a religion. If you were raised Catholic and don't really pay any attention to the Faith and only take interest in it because it seems like a socially acceptable thing to do, then you're not a Christian. Being religious and being a Christian go hand-in-hand.

[Naisy]

i totally agree Chris. 100% :yup: I am curious how did you know you wanted to become Christian and follow god? (completly off our arguement)

[Yoda]

Um, well, originally I was raised that way, but I became rather rebellious to everything after my parents got divorced. I didn't really think about God or Church at all for years...the worst few of my life, as it turns out. As a teenager I decided to look into things myself...so I read some books AGAINST Christianity to see what I thought of the arguments...I remained unconvinced and started reading Lewis...and you can guess the rest.

[The Silver Bullet]

...and you can guess the rest.

But if you can't:

C.S Lewis raped Chris' mind, stole his soul and sent him on a one way track to lunacy...

:laugh:

[Mary Loquacious]

Weren't Lewis and Tolkien roommates in college or some such thing? "I heard a rumor..." :D

[firegod]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
Weren't Lewis and Tolkien roommates in college or some such thing? "I heard a rumor..." :D

I wouldn't be at all surprised if C.S. got a lot of his religious ideas from J.R.R.'s writing.:devil:

[Yoda]

They learned a lot from each other.

Yo, Jer: we gonna get this thread moving again or what? It's your move. :devil:

[firegod]

Nah. I doubt I'll respond to the old stuff. It seems kind of like continuing a verbal conversation from a few weeks ago. Feels a little silly to me.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Yesterday, I was reading all about pantheism -- about how pantheists don't believe in a supernatural being, an afterlife, etc. -- but they just say that we are all a part of the universe, we are all part of nature, and we all go back to nature.

Apparently, in Ancient Egypt, Greece, and other places back around 21st century B.C., they didn't believe in any gods or afterlife. Death was death. The end. It said that it was hard for us to imagine total extinction -- the way it's supposed to be after we die -- but there's a living concious helping us imagine. Anyway, during Ancient Egyptian time, war, famine, and early deaths were happening, and during that time, people invented the idea of a promising, eternal afterlife just to give people comfort that their loved ones will be reunited with them later on. It was meant to help people psychologically.

Now, I don't know for sure that there's an afterlife and a God. Apparently, pantheists believe that it's better if we all don't believe in Heaven and Hell because it will make all of us care more about our only existence here and of our Earth. I think that sounds true.... think about it. If nobody came up with Heaven and Hell, then we could probably live our lives the way we wanted to, by our natures. We wouldn't have to fear damnation or anything. The only thing we'd fear would be death.

The concept of people on Earth never inventing/believing in Heaven or Hell -- that death IS death -- is definitely a fascinating one. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Yoda]

Originally posted by firegod
Nah. I doubt I'll respond to the old stuff. It seems kind of like continuing a verbal conversation from a few weeks ago. Feels a little silly to me.
Hmmm, I don't find it silly in the least. We were right in the middle of several different trains of thought that I thought were very interesting. It's up to you, but here's hoping you respond so that we can continue.

[Mary Loquacious]

Originally posted by firegod
I wouldn't be at all surprised if C.S. got a lot of his religious ideas from J.R.R.'s writing.:devil:

What if there it was a three-person dorm room? It would be great to be able to listen to them talk, but, damn, wouldn't it be hard to sleep?

Three a.m. in the dorm room

The unnamed third Roomie: WOULD YOU GUYS SHUT THE HELL UP??? Write a damn book or something. Jesus.

And the rest... is history...

[Yoda]

:laugh:

Well, they DID meet and discuss each other's writings all the time...they were both members of a remarkable group called The Inklings -- it's really an amazing story of sorts.

Anyway, here's still hoping firegod picks up where we left off...I was just starting to really enjoy the discussion...it'd be a real shame if that last post went unanswered. It's bad enough that Pike bowed out with nary a word of real defense. :rolleyes:

[The Silver Bullet]

Bait him all you want man, he ain't coming back.

[Yoda]

Who, Holden? Oh, believe me, I know that I have no hope of getting him to back up his inane comments. I'm primarily hoping fire and I can continue this, however...it was cut off for no apparent reason and I guess I don't share the general "why bother now?" feeling.

Maybe I just like to argue.

[Mary Loquacious]

"There ain't no comin' back... This is the really real world--there ain't no comin' back!"

Bait. Pike. Fish. I'm making a word association. One that I will not share, as it's retarded.

Anywho... How 'bout that Jesus guy? Walking on water and healing the lepers and all that.

"Spare a coin for an old ex-leper?"

:D

[Yoda]

Originally posted by Mary Loquacious
Anywho... How 'bout that Jesus guy?
Yeah, and just WHAT is the deal with airline food? :D

[Mary Loquacious]

And WHAT is UP with all the lepers, anyway? One used my shower the other day, and the soap was BIGGER than it was before! WHAT is the deal with that?

:D

[Yoda]

The hideousness of that joke will haunt my dreams for all time.

[moviefan20]

I am proud to say that i am a christian, and a member of the United Methodist Church:)

[Dante]

Wow, this is really deep. I almost don't wanna throw my hat into the ring in fear of looking stupid! But..... I am a Buddhist, which is really weird for there to be an Irish Buddhist, I know, but still...I converted (I think that's the word) in 1996 because I was getting pretty serious about a girl who was a Buddhist. She really taught me a lot. We eventually separated but I remained a Buddhist because in the end, it just suited me.

[firegod]

At least you realize you are Buddhist. Most of the Protestants who have voted don't even realize they are Protestant. :nope:

[Gracie]

moviefan20, I agree.

I go to a Presbyterian church called All Saints. I'm a Christian, so I chose "Other", which many people seem to have chosen. Sades, are you Christian, Catholic, what? Dante, is that your real name? If not, what is your real name? Just wanted to say "Hey" to Mary Lo, Yoda, Raziel, Dante, and Sades

[firegod]

Gracie, both the Methodist and Presbyterian churches are Protestant denominations. In hindsight, I should have left out "Unitarian Universalist" and put down "other christians", but at the time I had no idea how many Protestants wouldn't know what Protestant is.

[Yoda]

It's not a matter of knowing...it's a matter of being comfortable with the label, for one. Protestant is rather broad. It covers everyone who seperated from Catholicism during the Reformation. Too vague...covers too many varying beliefs, IMO. That's what all the fuss was about.

[LordSlaytan]

I was raised in an Assemblys of God church. Now, if I were to lable me, it would be agnostic.

[firegod]

If that's what the fuss was about, that's what people would have said. What most of the complainers have done is act like Christians weren't listed at all.

[Yoda]

Well, what they "acted like" is highly subjective. Regardless of the specific reactions, the basic protest was the same: the options could've been laid out much better. That's the basic impression I've gotten from all of those who have complained in one form or another here.

[firegod]

I could have laid it out a LITTLE better in HINDSIGHT, because that type of vision is 20/20, but I couldn't have laid it out a lot better, since 10 choices was the maximum amount.

[Yoda]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think the fact that we have 7 votes under "Other," though, kinda defeats one of the primary values of such a poll: to see, at-a-glance, where most MoFos stand. Just my opinion.

[Naisy]

me and Chris silently agreed to disagree ages ago, thats why i didnt bother posting a BIG arguement, which i know would have blown him away :laugh: well almost anyway.

[Yoda]

Lay it on me man. :D Anytime.

[firegod]

As I have said, in hindsight, I should have added an "other Christian" option. That would taken care of the possible non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christians, as well as the majority of "other" voters, the latter being people who don't happen to know that they are Protestants...

[John McClane]

*big bump*

Just thought like feeling my two cents on what I don't believe in. Why don't I believe in god(s)? Well, I guess I've always been skeptical about it because of my sister's condition and it's toll on the family. It wasn't until this year that I actually expressed my absence of belief. I've been reading a slew of books from yea, an Atheist perspective. I don't really see how I could be convinced otherwise, these arguments are pretty strong. There is one thing that I will stand by no matter what side of the fence I'm on, we do NOT know. I'm not ashamed to admit the ignorance of men, I mean come on we are pretty stupid. :D I dislike people that express an absolute positive assertion in their god(s) and claim others to be wrong. It just erks me.

[Othelo]

Agnostic bordering on Atheist.

I used to call myself a rational humanist, but as time passes I find those two words incongruent at best, a glaring oxymoron at worst. But still I hold out for the little bits of human kindness sprinkled throughout my day, and usually I find them.

[John McClane]

I don't like how theistic arguments are the same from religion to religion. I also don't like the fact that most religious documents make individual claims that, if right, would prove others wrong. So I've decided to just worry about this life and have faith that if there is some big kid in the sky, he won't be offended by my actions. So in one sense I have faith, in another I don't. :)

[Othelo]

I don't like how theistic arguments are the same from religion to religion. I also don't like the fact that most religious documents make individual claims that, if right, would prove others wrong. So I've decided to just worry about this life and have faith that if there is some big kid in the sky, he won't be offended by my actions. So in one sense I have faith, in another I don't. :)

Excellent post.

I just came to the conclusion that there was no power higher than human will and spirit. It wasn't that I had some aversion to religion or religious people, or even the idea of a god, it was just that it never spoke to me. I sat in more than one church awed by the architecture and art, but forever unmoved by the spirit that was supposed to reside within.

When I found Buddhism I discovered a life without the dogma of Christianity yet more than fulfilling in its world view and egolessness. I live my life according to a loose set of Buddhist tendencies, I don't dig on the ritualistic aspect but the center of it, the very essence of it attractive and fulfilling.

I am a humanist-buddhist-atheist a fitting conundurm for my personality.

[John McClane]

Excellent post.
Thanks.
I just came to the conclusion that there was no power higher than human will and spirit. It wasn't that I had some aversion to religion or religious people, or even the idea of a god, it was just that it never spoke to me. I sat in more than one church awed by the architecture and art, but forever unmoved by the spirit that was supposed to reside within.I am not in the least bit offended by people that believe in a higher power. But when they start asserting themselves as the only "right" answer, I tend to get rather annoyed. I have also sat in more then one church and it did not appeal to me either. I also continue to take part in the Boy Scouts, even though I'm not allowed. Just like my government teacher said, as long as no one complains people can break the rules.

[Othelo]

Thanks.
I am not in the least bit offended by people that believe in a higher power. But when they start asserting themselves as the only "right" answer, I tend to get rather annoyed. I have also sat in more then one church and it did not appeal to me either. I also continue to take part in the Boy Scouts, even though I'm not allowed. Just like my government teacher said, as long as no one complains people can break the rules.

Nor do I, I admire many religious people especially those willing to work within a secular framework for positive change. The fact that organizations like the YMCA and the Boy Scouts prohibit agnostics and Atheists from joining by the bylaws, disturbs me. They have transcended their original religious base and should be willing to accept non-religious folks as easily as we have embraced them.

[John McClane]

Nor do I, I admire many religious people especially those willing to work within a secular framework for positive change. The fact that organizations like the YMCA and the Boy Scouts prohibit agnostics and Atheists from joining by the bylaws, disturbs me. They have transcended their original religious base and should be willing to accept non-religious folks as easily as we have embraced them.Yes, it's quite silly that their stance on becoming good citizens REQUIRES religion. Then again, they are a private organization so there's nothing I can do about it. Except giggle whenever they mention it. ;)

[Othelo]

Yes, it's quite silly that their stance on becoming good citizens REQUIRES religion. Then again, they are a private organization so there's nothing I can do about it. Except giggle whenever they mention it. ;)

The thing that kills me about them is that one regularly makes use of public facilities, and the other has become an ad-hoc public facility. If its OK to use the heathens lair and be the heathens lair the only thing missing are the heathens.

[John McClane]

The thing that kills me about them is that one regularly makes use of public facilities, and the other has become an ad-hoc public facility. If its OK to use the heathens lair and be the heathens lair the only thing missing are the heathens.What public facilities are you talking about?

[7thson]

What public facilities are you talking about?


Gas station rest rooms?

[Othelo]

Gas station rest rooms?

No, no :)

School gymnasiums, public meeting rooms, libraries...

Up here in the northeast especially both institutions have become such a part of the mainstream that the two routinely cross the border into "public use." They "Y" co-sponsors many events and the BSA regularly use schools and other publicly funded spaces free of charge for meetings and such.

[John McClane]

School gymnasiums, public meeting rooms, libraries...

Up here in the northeast especially both institutions have become such a part of the mainstream that the two routinely cross the border into "public use." They "Y" co-sponsors many events and the BSA regularly use schools and other publicly funded spaces free of charge for meetings and such.They're allowed to use public areas for meetings. They just can't recruit people on public property.

My troop meets at a local church, like most of them do.

[Othelo]

They're allowed to use public areas for meetings. They just can't recruit people on public property.

My troop meets at a local church, like most of them do.

Must be a regional thing then. Every Troop I have belonged to with the exception of the one at my catholic school met in a public school facility.

[John McClane]

Must be a regional thing then. Every Troop I have belonged to with the exception of the one at my catholic school met in a public school facility.Just recently, they have not been allowed to use government facilities. So military bases are no long an option for Jamborees.

[Othelo]

Just recently, they have not been allowed to use government facilities. So military bases are no long an option for Jamborees.

About three years ago when we lived in Fla, my son attended cub scout meetings at his public school. This must be a very recent development. I can't say I disagree with it though, although it does open the door to all kinds of legal challenges to freedom of speech and public assembly.

[John McClane]

About three years ago when we lived in Fla, my son attended cub scout meetings at his public school. This must be a very recent development. I can't say I disagree with it though, although it does open the door to all kinds of legal challenges to freedom of speech and public assembly.Well, who was the charter?

[Tragiccity619]

I was raised southern baptist, but I have since reounced it. I have no religion, its not for me.

[shirble]

Nice ol' generic agnostic.

[Mad Hatter]

I was raised baptist but am not currently attending church right now. I respect religion but am a bit confused.

[nebbit]

None........................I'm into love and Peace http://bestsmileys.com/peace/1.gif http://bestsmileys.com/peace/2.gif

[John McClane]

Most of my family says the exact same thing when they find out I'm atheist. "Oh no. That's not good." My mom says I shouldn't label myself, especially with such a harsh word. As she so put it. :)

[Mad Hatter]

Most of my family says the exact same thing when they find out I'm atheist. "Oh no. That's not good." My mom says I shouldn't label myself, especially with such a harsh word. As she so put it. :)
My family is the same way. My brother is an atheist & my mom is always saying that she is going to pray for him, as she continues to shove religion down his throat.