What Religions Are Y'all Here At Thaivisa?

[OxfordWill]

When you flip a coin, it is proper to be agnostic as to the result. Is the question of God exactly like a coin flip? If not, how does it differ?

[garro]

When you flip a coin, it is proper to be agnostic as to the result. Is the question of God exactly like a coin flip? If not, how does it differ?

If a coin is flipped then I can guess that it is either heads or tails. I pick one knowing that I could be wrong. I also acknowledge the third possibility that it could be a trick coin. I take a chance and say 'heads', but I don't refer to myself as a 'headist' afterwards because that would be just silly.

[calibanjr.]

loosecannon, you misunderstood the definition of agnosticism, you misunderstood that it is not my definition, you misunderstood that it is not up for interpretation, you misunderstand that my opinion has anything to do with it, you misunderstand that it is not the ontology of a thing which agnosticism concernes itself with, only the probability of two options (not three, not one, not six). Logic does not even concern itself with the world, only bits, bytes, and other variables such as sentential, deviant, modals... and so on. You're confusing logic with english reading comprehension, the latter of which allows you to piss all over something to confuse the subject. You're making a fool of yourself trying to argue that agnosticism is not a declaration of equiprobable probability between two potential options. My post is not an argument against god, or faith (got 30 000 words on those subjects though if you're interested ho ho), it is an argument against agnosticism. Have you ever actually examined the position in any detail, or just assumed because many other people say they are agnostic, and they seem like reasonable people, its safe to do so also?

Also very telling is your comment on how its "maybe" impossible to prove a negative. Hmm.

I think we all (including loosecannon) understood your essay to be an argument against agnosticiscm, pretty obvious, just a weak one. I think the crux (but not the only point) of your disagreement with loosecannon is the importance of "equiprobability", or even the ability to quantify "equiprobability". I would be more along the lines of loosecannon (I believe ) in thinking equiprobability a non-starter. The use of "lazy" in your original text begs for what would be a more "rigorous" view on the existence of God.

You guys could lay off the ad hominem a bit, but we've all seen worse.

FWIW, I do the minimalist, Des Cartes' "Je pense donc je suis" which leaves me with myself as the only somewhat provable (to me) god, which makes me understand why one needs to do mental gymnastics to sign on with a team with an omnipotent, omnipresent team captain. Me as my own team leader isn't working out optimally, I'm afraid. But in the end, all the teams in the tournament end up with the same record (which is another part of the question).

Edited September 7, 2008 by calibanjr.

[Jingthing]

I want to comment again on the agnostics are lazy line of reasoning.

Before I have acknowledged that agnostics are frequently accused of being lazy, silly, wusses, etc.

That may indeed be true for many of us. It may also be true for many religious people, for example. I was born Christian, my parents are Christian, the minister says this is real and tells me I will burn in hel_l for not believing, so might as well go with the easy flow. Is that response not lazy, not silly, not wussy (sic)?

Another point. Religions believe in deities or at least deity-like forces. Yet you don't have to do much research to learn that no religion has PROVEN these deities exist in reality in a way that we can verify here on earth, in the same way we can verify that apples exist. Atheists say there is no deity and yet again you don't have to do much research to learn that you can't prove a negative. So agnostics just may be both lazy and rational. They can't be 100 percent correct as they aren't saying that deities are real or not.

Someone else mentioned that agnostics still do believe in a deity but they are too lazy to commit to it or specify it. I myself have called out to God when in a crisis. I don't know where that comes from exactly. Natural human wiring? Conditioning? Culture? Fear of death? But surviving a crisis you might not have survived because you called out to a God is no more proof of the existence of that deity than if you had not survived.

Edited September 7, 2008 by Jingthing

[garro]

I think the real division in the world is between those who are convinced that the see and understand the ultimate reality of the universe and those who just admit that they don't have all the answers. In this division the atheist and the fundamental Muslim/Christian would have a lot in common.

[desi]

Choosing agnostic can be seen as the characteristic of the diplomatic mindset.

Call it whimpy, call it fence sitting, call it whatever you want. But, as with the other choices here, it's all down to background, personality, and (at times) present state of mind.

I could have easily said atheist.

Bottom line, it really doesn't matter, as my answer to the question 'do you believe in god', will always be 'no'.

My early days were filled with Christianity of many flavours. Born to a Methodist mother and atheist father, I became a Baptist. Then a Catholic. Then married a Seventh Day Adventist (another mistake but thankfully a short one).

I then started working in the field of Geology, and that was that for me.

Sliding into later years, there was a time I thought Buddhism was a possible choice.

But, number one, I like stuff. A lot. And number two, I have an aversion to prostrating nose down on concrete.

So I guess I'll stay what I am. Not Methodist. Not Baptist. Not Catholic. Never Seventh Day Adventist. Or even Buddhist.

But my love for rocks will always stay.

[Dustoff]

Choosing agnostic can be seen as the characteristic of the diplomatic mindset.

Call it whimpy, call it fence sitting, call it whatever you want. But, as with the other choices here, it's all down to background, personality, and (at times) present state of mind.

I could have easily said atheist.

Bottom line, it really doesn't matter, as my answer to the question 'do you believe in god', will always be 'no'.

My early days were filled with Christianity of many flavours. Born to a Methodist mother and atheist father, I became a Baptist. Then a Catholic. Then married a Seventh Day Adventist (another mistake but thankfully a short one).

I then started working in the field of Geology, and that was that for me.

Sliding into later years, there was a time I thought Buddhism was a possible choice.

But, number one, I like stuff. A lot. And number two, I have an aversion to prostrating nose down on concrete.

So I guess I'll stay what I am. Not Methodist. Not Baptist. Not Catholic. Never Seventh Day Adventist. Or even Buddhist.

But my love for rocks will always stay.

Rocks-N-Roll is here to stay!

[Ulysses G.]

I think the real division in the world is between those who are convinced that the see and understand the ultimate reality of the universe and those who just admit that they don't have all the answers. In this division the atheist and the fundamental Muslim/Christian would have a lot in common.

Good thinking!

[Jingthing]

I think it would be better if agnostics don't get too evangelical about it. That is part of what we are rejecting. There is no need to convince anyone of our non-belief.

[JimGant]

I myself have called out to God when in a crisis. I don't know where that comes from exactly. Natural human wiring? Conditioning? Culture? Fear of death?

1. If religious, that's called 'true to form.'

2. If an atheist, that's called 'hypocrisy.'

3. If agnostic, that's called 'hedging your bet.'

[desi]

I myself have called out to God when in a crisis. I don't know where that comes from exactly. Natural human wiring? Conditioning? Culture? Fear of death?

1. If religious, that's called 'true to form.'

2. If an atheist, that's called 'hypocrisy.'

3. If agnostic, that's called 'hedging your bet.'

Hah!

I know there ain't no heaven... but I pray there ain't no hel_l.

[LooseCannon]

loosecannon, you misunderstood the definition of agnosticism, you misunderstood that it is not my definition, you misunderstood that it is not up for interpretation, you misunderstand that my opinion has anything to do with it, you misunderstand that it is not the ontology of a thing which agnosticism concernes itself with, only the probability of two options (not three, not one, not six). Logic does not even concern itself with the world, only bits, bytes, and other variables such as sentential, deviant, modals... and so on. You're confusing logic with english reading comprehension, the latter of which allows you to piss all over something to confuse the subject. You're making a fool of yourself trying to argue that agnosticism is not a declaration of equiprobable probability between two potential options. My post is not an argument against god, or faith (got 30 000 words on those subjects though if you're interested ho ho), it is an argument against agnosticism. Have you ever actually examined the position in any detail, or just assumed because many other people say they are agnostic, and they seem like reasonable people, its safe to do so also?

Also very telling is your comment on how its "maybe" impossible to prove a negative. Hmm.

In your first post (#43) you quote Thomas Huxley but conveniently omit (in red) the part that does not coincide with your viewpoint.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. (Agnosticism 1889)

"...do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." - evidence, substantial evidence not probability.

Here is another quote from Huxley.

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." (Agnosticism and Christianity 1889)

Once again Huxley reiterates the need for evidence, not probability.

There is no place in agnosticism for conclusions which are not supported by both demonstrable facts and a logical reasoning process to reach the asserted conclusion.

If you are going to quote Huxley, I have to assume that you are happy with his definition of agnosticism, but I find it most disingenuous to leave out the part that debunks your 'postulation'.

(your choice of words - 'postulation' - something taken to be true without proof, for the purpose of future reasoning)

Probability & agnosticism - "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

In this book Dawkins classifies people's beliefs in God with a ranking system of 'probabilities'.

Here are the relevant categories...

Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.

Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.

Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.

This is of course at odds with Huxley, but I mention it here because Dawkins make specific mention of probability & agnosticism.

Probability, agnosticism & Oxfordwill - I thought for a moment that you may be sympathetic to Dawkin's classification. You seem to favour the "technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism" category by stating "it is far more probable that God does not exist", but according to you this is irrational agnosticism, so you could not be expected to support this as a valid category.

You proceed to dismiss out of hand the 'impartial agnostic' category with "...it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way".

Maybe you are happy with these categories but prefer to call them "technically irrational agnostics" or some such other name?

You seem to have a little in common with Dawkins, but who are these "...many leading Theologians, Philosophers and Scientists..." that champion the equiprobable probability argument?

I have copy & pasted this paragragh from your first post to make it easy for to reference.

"Agnosticism, as a method, can be invoked rationally when a situation with two possibilities - such as something existing or not existing - has an equiprobable probability involved. What does this mean? It means that if it is just as likely that something exists as that it does not exist, then agnosticism over that thing existing is entirely sensible. We can safely say that there is

an equal amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. This is not the case with the existence of a supernatural and personal God. Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever for his or her existence. It could be argued that it is far more probable that God does not exist, but it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way."

You seem to be clinging to the notion of 'equiprobability' as being the sole governing factor as to rationality or irrationality of agnosticism. There are many 'things' in our universe that may or may not exists, all with varying amounts of evidence to support their existence or lack thereof. I doubt if many have equal bodies of evidence both supporting & discounting their existence. According to your 'postulation' Theoretical Physics must be littered with irrational agnostics, including Albert Einstein who stated "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.

In the case of God you state that there is no possibility of equiprobability, of course you have to dismiss this out of hand so that everything fits into your supposition that agnosticism is irrational. You state that there is no evidence for God's existence, whilst staying quiet about the similar lack of evidence indicating God's non-existence, but of course this would result in an 'equiprobability' & debunk your theory.

You sound confused when you say "...it is far more probable that God does not exist, but it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way". In your post #45 you indicate that you are an atheist, maybe you can explain this apparent contradiction.

If it is 'probable' that God does not exist, then it has got to be 'probable' that God does exist, however small that 'probability'.

There is plenty of opportunity for you to expand on your argument if you so wish.

[Jingthing]

You know, when Thai people do things that indicate they think white skinned foreigners are all Christians, that would be a Farangfalloon, wouldn't it?

FARANGFALLOON:

Those times when people of European descent in Thailand are treated by Thai people in silly ways, because these Thais for whatever reason assume all people with "white" skin have shared identities and characteristics, but whose mutual association is actually nonexistent.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jingthing

[OxfordWill]

again some people are adamant in their desire to see agnostic as the only position which allows one to say "I am not arrogant". This is lazy and ignorant thinking. Atheists for the most part are not "sure". The more intelligent theologians for the most part are not "sure". Both people take a look at evidence and reason and draw a conclusion based on their reasoning, and lets face it how unlikely would it be to have many people find their conclusion lies exactly at 50/50 chance of either god existing or not.

The only people who are "sure" are people who believe things on "faith" which is a word most commonly defined as belief in something without reason to do so.

Garro- nobody said anything about a trick coin. you completely ignored my question, which is fine so long as I point it out.

And again you cant argue against agnosticism being as I defined it without offering a better definition, with sources to show why your definition should be better than Huxleys, the man who actually coined the term. That would be a futile exercise anyway, even the most trenchant of theologians accept agnostic to mean "I think its the same as a coin flip". When the common man on the street will understand this, who knows, possibly never. It will remain fashionable to be agnostic so long as our friends and their wives understand this to be a marker of good character, openmindedness and empathy with others beliefs.

Edited September 8, 2008 by OxfordWill

[elkangorito]

You know, when Thai people do things that indicate they think white skinned foreigners are all Christians, that would be a Farangfalloon, wouldn't it?

FARANGFALLOON:

Those times when people of European descent in Thailand are treated by Thai people in silly ways, because these Thais for whatever reason assume all people with "white" skin have shared identities and characteristics, but whose mutual association is actually nonexistent.

MacThing...or is it JingCain? You really ought to "get over" your "Thai/Asian" fixation. I bet you dream about this/these/them.

[OxfordWill]

In your first post (#43) you quote Thomas Huxley but conveniently omit (in red) the part that does not coincide with your viewpoint.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. (Agnosticism 1889)

"...do not pretend that matters are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." - evidence, substantial evidence not probability.

It exactly coincides with my viewpoint.....

Here is another quote from Huxley.

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." (Agnosticism and Christianity 1889)

Once again Huxley reiterates the need for evidence, not probability.

There is no place in agnosticism for conclusions which are not supported by both demonstrable facts and a logical reasoning process to reach the asserted conclusion.

If you are going to quote Huxley, I have to assume that you are happy with his definition of agnosticism, but I find it most disingenuous to leave out the part that debunks your 'postulation'.

(your choice of words - 'postulation' - something taken to be true without proof, for the purpose of future reasoning)

No, no no.. that's not what postulation means at all. It is a philosophical term, since we are discussing philosophy, I didn't expect to have to state that. Again, you're an English literature type, aren't you. Analytics, interpretation..

Probability & agnosticism - "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

In this book Dawkins classifies people's beliefs in God with a ranking system of 'probabilities'.

Here are the relevant categories...

I've spoken with Dawkins several times and never fail to tease him for his lack of philosophy. I have used the god delusion in introduction to logic sessions to show how to argue fallaciously, and he knows this. But he does his job as officer for public understanding of science (science, not philosophy).

This is of course at odds with Huxley, but I mention it here because Dawkins make specific mention of probability & agnosticism.

No, it isn't at odds. If anything Huxley and Dawkins are a much tighter fit than Oxfordwill and Dawkins. Im not even sure where you misunderstand this, maybe you could elaborate and I can help by pointing it out.

Probability, agnosticism & Oxfordwill - I thought for a moment that you may be sympathetic to Dawkin's classification. You seem to favour the "technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism" category by stating "it is far more probable that God does not exist", but according to you this is irrational agnosticism, so you could not be expected to support this as a valid category.

You proceed to dismiss out of hand the 'impartial agnostic' category with "...it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way".

Maybe you are happy with these categories but prefer to call them "technically irrational agnostics" or some such other name?

You seem to have a little in common with Dawkins, but who are these "...many leading Theologians, Philosophers and Scientists..." that champion the equiprobable probability argument?

Name me one who was published in any leading paper journal in the last 12 months, who does not. You really are that wrong.

I have copy & pasted this paragragh from your first post to make it easy for to reference.

"Agnosticism, as a method, can be invoked rationally when a situation with two possibilities - such as something existing or not existing - has an equiprobable probability involved. What does this mean? It means that if it is just as likely that something exists as that it does not exist, then agnosticism over that thing existing is entirely sensible. We can safely say that there is

an equal amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. This is not the case with the existence of a supernatural and personal God. Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever for his or her existence. It could be argued that it is far more probable that God does not exist, but it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way."

You seem to be clinging to the notion of 'equiprobability' as being the sole governing factor as to rationality or irrationality of agnosticism.

That's just the definition- agnosticism is a method is the application of the principle as outlined above in full by you. Again, agnosticism is a method in this case. Again, agnosticism is a method in this case. The definition of the word says nothing about the rationality of the position of agnosticism as to the ontology of a thing. The rationality of such a position is judged based on the available evidence collected together and organised via any deductively acceptable argument form. As for the truth, we simply take it a step further and ask ourselves if the propositions involved are sound. You're really very muddled as to what you are talking about.

There are many 'things' in our universe that may or may not exists, all with varying amounts of evidence to support their existence or lack thereof. I doubt if many have equal bodies of evidence both supporting & discounting their existence. According to your 'postulation' Theoretical Physics must be littered with irrational agnostics, including Albert Einstein who stated "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.

I don't understand this at all, sorry. Einstein was an atheist, but that's a whole other discussion and reinvention of the wheel.

In the case of God you state that there is no possibility of equiprobability, of course you have to dismiss this out of hand so that everything fits into your supposition that agnosticism is irrational. You state that there is no evidence for God's existence, whilst staying quiet about the similar lack of evidence indicating God's non-existence, but of course this would result in an 'equiprobability' & debunk your theory.

Evidence is a scientific 'thing'. Reason is for the philosopher. They go hand in hand, but do not confuse evidence with logic. We can give immense weight to one probability (namely god not existing) without having any "evidence" whatsoever. We can achieve this purely via logic if we wanted to.

You sound confused when you say "...it is far more probable that God does not exist, but it is certainly true that there is no equal probability either way". In your post #45 you indicate that you are an atheist, maybe you can explain this apparent contradiction.

If it is 'probable' that God does not exist, then it has got to be 'probable' that God does exist, however small that 'probability'.

A very weak understanding of probability, sorry.

There is plenty of opportunity for you to expand on your argument if you so wish.

hope that helped.

[garro]

Garro- nobody said anything about a trick coin. you completely ignored my question, which is fine so long as I point it out.

How am I ignoring your question?

You asked.

When you flip a coin, it is proper to be agnostic as to the result. Is the question of God exactly like a coin flip? If not, how does it differ?

I replied that it if I can is flipped I can guess that it is either heads or tails. I do this with the full realisation that it could be one or the other ( unless it's a trick coin). It is proper for me to remain agnostic even though I can make a guess. I don't have enough reliable information to make anything more than a guess though.

The same holds true for the existence of a God. He exists or he doesn't exist. I am not aware that anyone has conclusive proof either way and in my opinion there is not enough evidence to make anything more than a guess -to be agnostic.

If you can prove the nonexistence of God then I would be delighted to hear about it or even if you could prove that 51% of the evidence pointed towards his non-existence Otherwise you are just guessing and calling it something that is not. Which is fair enough as this is a common with people with rigid views about the universe.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

again some people are adamant in their desire to see agnostic as the only position which allows one to say "I am not arrogant". This is lazy and ignorant thinking. Atheists for the most part are not "sure". The more intelligent theologians for the most part are not "sure". Both people take a look at evidence and reason and draw a conclusion based on their reasoning, and lets face it how unlikely would it be to have many people find their conclusion lies exactly at 50/50 chance of either god existing or not.

The only people who are "sure" are people who believe things on "faith" which is a word most commonly defined as belief in something without reason to do so.

Garro- nobody said anything about a trick coin. you completely ignored my question, which is fine so long as I point it out.

And again you cant argue against agnosticism being as I defined it without offering a better definition, with sources to show why your definition should be better than Huxleys, the man who actually coined the term. That would be a futile exercise anyway, even the most trenchant of theologians accept agnostic to mean "I think its the same as a coin flip". When the common man on the street will understand this, who knows, possibly never. It will remain fashionable to be agnostic so long as our friends and their wives understand this to be a marker of good character, openmindedness and empathy with others beliefs.

Agnostic in my case is just someone who dosen't give a dam-n. You can come up with a lot of fancy definitions but I think a lot of us just don't care one way or the other.

[elkangorito]

The "god" argument hinges around the "chicken & egg" argument. I shall hypothesise henceforth.

If the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is asked, the answer is all too obvious. Of course, that answer is "One can never know the answer" or "One will not live to know the answer".

As I see it, what is being talked about is likened to "perpetual energy". Whilst all energy is "perpetual" (it cannot seem to be created or destroyed), we humans seem to think that we are subject to possible different rules ie death & thence "afterdeath". From "existence" to "non existence". Both of these ideas seem in conflict with each other.

Let's answer the question of "Perpetual Motion".

Assume for one second that all Laws of Physics are no longer valid the instant after you "push" me. If you "push" me, I will move in the direction that you "push" me & I will not slow down nor speed up. If I collide with an obstacle, I will neither gain nor lose energy. I will move & bounce around forever.

In such a case, I would have no need to ingest food, breath or otherwise exist as a human (no energy required since it is not being created or destroyed). Thus, I hypothesise that I would vanish into "somethingness"...or "nothingness". Whichever you like. There would be no need for me to exist as a human.

So, if a God is the source of us, who or what is the source of God? Obviously, the answer is......"You don't need to ask or answer this question because you exist. If you don't wish to exist, ask & answer the question."

What is God? Answer - us.

What are we? Answer - god.

Of course, the other possible question is, "What happens to my soul?"

I speculate that a soul cannot exist without a "shell" (physical mass) as we humans actually know. Upon the extinction of the physical mass, the soul (like the physical mass) converts to another form of energy. But is the soul "conscious"? Is this not the ultimate question?

If all is related to energy (hypothesis only), then "good" & "evil" play no part in our transition from one energy state to another. This could be true for those who believe in "conscious" souls after physical death. And what God (creator?) would choose to punish & torture his/her/its creation...particularly if the said creation (us) is reproduced from the image of the creator?

To me, this thing called "religion" was an early attempt to bring living people together (after a death). I reckon it was perverted along the way by "control freaks" who saw an opportunity too good to refuse. Religion was created by "man" to exploit "man".

Obviously, I am in no way religious.

[glaitong]

Khrysos (Chrysus), the Greek god of gold. Child of Zeus. A seat is also reserved for the Feng Shui god of wealth - Tua Peh Kong - also.

I also higly respect the Lord Buddha, King Rama 5th and all the other Chinese gods of wealth.

[Gaccha]

Uh, you all seem to be labouring under the illusion that:

atheist-- means to believe there is no God

agnostic-- means can't prove either way

You are going to have to do the poll again...

I am afraid it is much more complex. There is:

Agnostic atheism-- "An agnostic atheist is both atheistic, in that he does not believe any deities exist, and agnostic, in that he does not claim to know that they don't."

Agnostic theism-- "an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."

You can see the agnostic view ain't quite what it is cracked up to be.

Of course, Buddhism has a pseudo- theistic slant-- it is arguable whether it is a religion or not. It could be seen as a form of extreme atheism. Buddha said: "the "suffering" ends when the craving ends, one is freed from all desires by eliminating the delusions, reaches "Enlightenment"".

I could use Buddha's words to explain my (atheist) view that if only religious folk would let go of their preposterous notions of afterlife and heaven they could feel a calmness from knowing that none of this will matter in 100 years time. I take great solace in knowing that none of this matters.

Relgiion is also interesting as they have an evolutionary function . Buddhism by encouraging acceptance of the status quo would have been useful to rulers, and contrasts with the nasty, brutish tribal religions that came out of the backward Middle East that attacked authority.

[elkangorito]

Most of you seem happy to quote the prose of others whilst offering little about your "personal" ideas. How about a bit of "originality" please. Buddhist this, atheist that, agnostic this...blah blah blah. Boring.

[JetsetBkk]

No religion for me, just the "Golden Rule": treat others as you would hope they treat you.

No need for anything else.

What if they slapped you?

I'd slap 'em back.

Why? Because if I hit them first, I'd hope they would hit me back.

[Moonrakers]

Does/should scientology qualify as a religion? Has it not been banned in some countries?

The same question could be asked about the legitimacy of the Mormon religion (Anybody seen the South Park episode), although asides from waking you up early in the morning so that they can read the bible with you, they promote good ethical values and are quite harmless, and so leave them be I say.

Those scientologists need sorting out though, in my opinion.

[elkangorito]

Can any of you people "think"? Is it in the "too hard basket" to do so?

[Jingthing]

You know, when Thai people do things that indicate they think white skinned foreigners are all Christians, that would be a Farangfalloon, wouldn't it?

FARANGFALLOON:

Those times when people of European descent in Thailand are treated by Thai people in silly ways, because these Thais for whatever reason assume all people with "white" skin have shared identities and characteristics, but whose mutual association is actually nonexistent.

MacThing...or is it JingCain? You really ought to "get over" your "Thai/Asian" fixation. I bet you dream about this/these/them.

You don't find that Thai people usually assume all white people are Christians? I am sorry, but that has been my experience.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jingthing

[elkangorito]

Come on MacThing (or is it McThing?), start "thinking".

[Jingthing]

Come on MacThing (or is it McThing?), start "thinking".

Read the OP. That is a big part of the raison d'etre of this thread, how our religions relate to life in Thailand. I think I think enough, often told I tink too mut! I would request you call me instead Jingbama!

I suspect your original odd reaction was because you didn't get the reference to farangfalloons, perfectly understandable as farangfalloon is a totally new word:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Farangfalloo...89#entry2199489

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jingthing

[elkangorito]

You have a strange way of talking about "religion", particularly when you rave on about specific races or nationalities. One could quite easily assume you have an "axe to grind" with a specific race or nationality. If this thread is about religion, please stick to it. If it is about a specific race & their religion, then let's change the topic.

You quite often confuse me with your posts. Religion, race, nationality...make up your bloody mind.

I'll quote you:

"What Religions Are Y'all Here At Thaivisa?, Expats vs. Others, atheists welcome to play".

I not only offered my idea about religion, I also inferred my belief...in a "non race related" & "non nationality related" way.

[Jingthing]

You have a strange way of talking about "religion", particularly when you rave on about specific races or nationalities. One could quite easily assume you have an "axe to grind" with a specific race or nationality. If this thread is about religion, please stick to it. If it is about a specific race & their religion, then let's change the topic.

You quite often confuse me with your posts. Religion, race, nationality...make up your bloody mind.

I'll quote you:

"What Religions Are Y'all Here At Thaivisa?, Expats vs. Others, atheists welcome to play".

I not only offered my idea about religion, I also inferred my belief...in a "non race related" & "non nationality related" way.

You are easily confused, maybe its just you? Rave on? What are you talking about? We are in Thailand or at least at a Thaicentric site, so naturally the THAI aspect of things is important here, or don't you agree? If this topic was limited to pure religious topics without discussion of the social aspect as it relates to Thailand, it might as well be at religion.com or atheist.com.

I guess you are going to make me REPEAT the OP:

As a European descent person living in Thailand, I find people, both Thai and foreign, assume I am a Christian. Now of course not all Thais are Buddhist and not all foreigners in Thailand are Christians. So what religion/non-religion do you follow? Apologies if your flavor is not on the list.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Jingthing