Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[greytown]

The post modern approach to religion is the "take what you like and dismiss what you don't" as if religion is an open buffet where you can pick and choose what beliefs suit you best personally in a DIY approach to spiritually. It's no surprise that in this buffet the "punishment by eternal damnation" is not a popular dish.

Cannot disagree with that.

I can.

Communion with a Higher Power is a deeply personal experience not a 'one-size-fits-all' solution to our spiritual needs.

I would therefore welcome and actually encourage a DIY approach to spirituality.

When it comes to scriptures, people often can accept some parts but cannot accept others. As if saying, this verse is true but that one is a lie. Taking the teachings of Christ, are we to think that he sometimes spoke the truth and sometimes lied? That would be inadmissible, if Christ was who he said he was.

[sustento]

It would be inadmissible if Christ himself wrote the scriptures but he didn't. Men did.

[anon8]

...

It is quite clear what side of the fence you're on. No need to belabor the point. Thanks.

I think I would describe myself as an agnostic; or perhaps verging on an atheist.

From my observations, whether God exists or not, you'll benefit in believing in him.

And for sure, if God is omniscient, omnipresent and merciful, then not believing in him will not be a hindrance to entrance to the kingdom of heaven. Unless God is a petty, vindictive, unchristian sort of bloke, which few religions seem to believe that he is...

But for all that, I don't believe in God - I suppose for the absence of a coherent and convincing theory. And also a faith in the absence of the supernatural.

But I'm 99.9999% confident that will not stand me in bad stead at the final day of reckoning

SC

According to Chrisitan belief God will accept anyone and everyone into Heaven as long as you confess your sins (no matter how bad, he will forgive you) and accept him as God and live according to his teachings.

If you chose not to do that then he will not know you and you will not go to Heaven on the day of reckoning.

What about Zeus? What if Zeus says Im ok to enter heaven, but Jesus says no way this bent man will enter. Whos gonna have a final word?

I bet Zeus will kick Jesus's ass, Zeus looks muscular, and in excellent shape in all ancient Greek sculptures.

And wait until Thor shows up, he'll bend both of them over, and while he is having fun with those two, I sneak to heaven.

Ra, Egytpian god of sun will just take pleasure watching, this guy is a know voyer.

[notmyself]

It would be inadmissible if Christ himself wrote the scriptures but he didn't. Men did.

Is the Bible not the word of God? Father, Son and Holy ghost etc.

[sustento]

It would be inadmissible if Christ himself wrote the scriptures but he didn't. Men did.

Is the Bible not the word of God? Father, Son and Holy ghost etc.

The Bible, like all other religious writings, is a book written by men.

[greytown]

It would be inadmissible if Christ himself wrote the scriptures but he didn't. Men did.

Is the Bible not the word of God? Father, Son and Holy ghost etc.

The Bible, like all other religious writings, is a book written by men.

Yes, the authorship of the Gospels is itself a point of contention as there appears to be no proof that they were actually written by the apostles, or are even first hand testimony of the life of Christ, which naturally opens one of many questions regarding the authenticity of the whole thing.

However I reckon that even if it all was written in the first person by Jesus, there likely would be no proof either of that being the case.

We can more or less only evaluate the scriptures on their own merit and either accept or reject their authenticity.

Edited January 4, 2014 by greytown

[sustento]

It would be inadmissible if Christ himself wrote the scriptures but he didn't. Men did.

Is the Bible not the word of God? Father, Son and Holy ghost etc.

The Bible, like all other religious writings, is a book written by men.

Yes, the authorship of the Gospels is itself a point of contention as there appears to be no proof that they were actually written by the apostles, or are even first hand testimony of the life of Christ, which naturally opens one of many questions regarding the authenticity of the whole thing.

However I reckon that even if it all was written in the first person by Jesus, there likely would be no proof either of that being the case.

We can more or less only evaluate the scriptures on their own merit and either accept or reject their authenticity.

If you ignore the first five then the remaining commandments are found in many other religions and amount to nothing more than self-preservation.

Edited January 4, 2014 by sustento

[greytown]

If you ignore the first five then the remaining commandments are found in many other religions and amount to nothing more than self-preservation.

Yes there appears to be a lot of overlapping dogma between the different religions. I also find interesting that, with the exception of Sikh Hinduism, all the main religions share a nearly identical belief in Heaven and Hell as described in the Bible.

[tartempion]

I also realize that in Thailand, it is very important not to express a religious view that goes in direct conflict with what is accepted here. I am in no way bothered by any religious views I have seen in Thailand, and if I were to practice a religion, then I would want it to be the Buddhist religion as I have seen it here.

Seeing how Buddhism is practiced here no thanks.

Burning candles, praying hands, throwing water over peoples heads, white wires not just around your house, but the whole village! (right now here) great number of monks chanting prayers at any type of manifestation (just recently to reduce accident deaths for NY 2014)

Last night was having diner at a restaurant, monks chanting for a deceased person next door, my not-yet-3 year young said in Thai to her mother "I will go over there and tell the monks to shut-up"

Seems she wont be brainwashed as 60 million Thais are

[LiveInHope]

As I get older (and hopefully wiser) most of what was learnt in my informative student days has been assigned to a cloudy pot of memories. However one thing said to me by an alcohol-fuelled theology professor at a Christmas party has stuck in my mind and remains clear in detail to this day. In fact it changed my whole view of religion. Coming from a committed Christian family upbringing and being a very naïve first year student it affected me enough to seek him out on my return after the holiday break.

He had said during an open conversation to several students “I believe that all religions are a form of controlling people en-masse and the size of financial and material assets dictates how widespread that religion is.”

When I later confronted him on this and asked him if he was aware of what he had said and did he say it because it was some kind of weird Christmas rant, he replied “Listen I have a comfortable job here which provides for me and my family. I am expected to say nothing that rocks the boat and I am here to help students attain degrees by which I am judged. I hate my job as I no longer believe in what I am teaching but have no alternative than to continue. Sometimes I get so pissed off; I talk when I should not. A couple of years ago I was in an informal discussion with some senior government officials and they said to me that the bigger a religion was the more easily it is to control huge swathes of populations. By coercing the heads of religions to conform to the particular wishes of a government by usually massive financial contributions it was possible to implement policies that were not necessarily those of that country’s’ government and it worked to good effect when dealing with impoverished nations or financially challenged sectors of a country’s population. That degree of control supplemented by food and arms shipments usually achieved the desired result.”

I never forgot that conversation and through later experience I began to see this in a much clearer light. I tried to believe that there was a God who was all-seeing and looked after me, but events in my life brought total disbelief. It is now something that is impossible for me to take seriously as I can find absolutely no proven facts to any of it, excepting that many religions started at the same time that written languages became a common form of communication; that they were based upon the insecurities of how the human race came into being and provided an acceptable answer to a better life after death. Rule books (bibles) were created by man after so-called events and with words that most wished to hear coupled to threats of a living hell in death for non-conformists in order to attain control and inevitable rule by the majority.

Imagine with today’s’ technological advances how impossible it would be to create a new ‘God’ religion that could control if prior to it there had been no religion whatsoever and our history books stated that we had been created by test-tube.

The above is my experience only and I am not on a pedestal trying to convert. I believe in freedom of choice and respect the choice of others as long as it does not affect me. It takes all kinds to make a world and I am lucky to have found my inner peace without a religion. But if it needs one for you to attain yours, that is fine by me and none of my business. We can still be good friends.

My answer to the OP is that I am a 7.

[Theo007]

In the words of the song : I'm a believer!

[andersonmatty]

7

[itsrebel]

As I get older (and hopefully wiser) most of what was learnt in my informative student days has been assigned to a cloudy pot of memories. However one thing said to me by an alcohol-fuelled theology professor at a Christmas party has stuck in my mind and remains clear in detail to this day. In fact it changed my whole view of religion. Coming from a committed Christian family upbringing and being a very naïve first year student it affected me enough to seek him out on my return after the holiday break.

He had said during an open conversation to several students “I believe that all religions are a form of controlling people en-masse and the size of financial and material assets dictates how widespread that religion is.”

When I later confronted him on this and asked him if he was aware of what he had said and did he say it because it was some kind of weird Christmas rant, he replied “Listen I have a comfortable job here which provides for me and my family. I am expected to say nothing that rocks the boat and I am here to help students attain degrees by which I am judged. I hate my job as I no longer believe in what I am teaching but have no alternative than to continue. Sometimes I get so pissed off; I talk when I should not. A couple of years ago I was in an informal discussion with some senior government officials and they said to me that the bigger a religion was the more easily it is to control huge swathes of populations. By coercing the heads of religions to conform to the particular wishes of a government by usually massive financial contributions it was possible to implement policies that were not necessarily those of that country’s’ government and it worked to good effect when dealing with impoverished nations or financially challenged sectors of a country’s population. That degree of control supplemented by food and arms shipments usually achieved the desired result.”

I never forgot that conversation and through later experience I began to see this in a much clearer light. I tried to believe that there was a God who was all-seeing and looked after me, but events in my life brought total disbelief. It is now something that is impossible for me to take seriously as I can find absolutely no proven facts to any of it, excepting that many religions started at the same time that written languages became a common form of communication; that they were based upon the insecurities of how the human race came into being and provided an acceptable answer to a better life after death. Rule books (bibles) were created by man after so-called events and with words that most wished to hear coupled to threats of a living hell in death for non-conformists in order to attain control and inevitable rule by the majority.

Imagine with today’s’ technological advances how impossible it would be to create a new ‘God’ religion that could control if prior to it there had been no religion whatsoever and our history books stated that we had been created by test-tube.

The above is my experience only and I am not on a pedestal trying to convert. I believe in freedom of choice and respect the choice of others as long as it does not affect me. It takes all kinds to make a world and I am lucky to have found my inner peace without a religion. But if it needs one for you to attain yours, that is fine by me and none of my business. We can still be good friends.

My answer to the OP is that I am a 7.

That is so true - the part about religion being used to control people. The amazing part is that by influencing policies the various religions are able to wield control even over people who don't subscribe to any of those religions. For instance, abortion is illegal in most Buddhist, Catholic or Islamic countries. Drinking is prohibited in many Islamic countries.

I am all for freedom of choice, but it should be based on reciprocity. The sad part is that, being an atheist, I don't get that freedom. In many countries, we are not even given an opportunity to acknowledge the fact that we don't follow any religion - the official forms don't give us an option of saying no religion (Malaysia for instance; I am not sure about Thailand yet).

I am not a preacher - all I ask is for the same courtesy be accorded to me.

[andersonmatty]

7

[OmegaRacer]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

[StreetCowboy]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

[OmegaRacer]

What is the 'new-fangled stuff' you're talking about?

And what war is there to win? Or is that just an expression?

[StreetCowboy]

What is the 'new-fangled stuff' you're talking about?

And what war is there to win? Or is that just an expression?

All this nuclear science stuff. It seems a bit far-fetched to me, but if they can make bombs out of it then I'll place my faith in that, even though I don't really understand it, and I've never actually seen any evidence of it other than people explaining that that is what makes the sun hot.

Anyway, cleverer men than me say it's true, so that's good enough for me, and it seems to keep the power station turning

SC

[greytown]

It seems many here view religion as a political or social phenomenon rather than as spiritual belief systems. Organized religion and spirituality are two different things. Religion certainly has been (mis)used to manipulate populations in the same way that politics and military action has.

Edited January 5, 2014 by greytown

[MrGaoMungGawn]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

I really think you are on to something here.

Religious groups are always talking about a higher power.

And now you are talking about nuclear power,

And then we had the Aztecs who worshiped the Sun God.

Isn't this all basically the same thing?

[sirineou]

I like potato salad with hard boiled eggs in it

[StreetCowboy]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

I really think you are on to something here.

Religious groups are always talking about a higher power.

And now you are talking about nuclear power,

And then we had the Aztecs who worshiped the Sun God.

Isn't this all basically the same thing?

Well, everyone can see the sun, so it's fairly easy to believe in. And we can empirically show that it makes crops grow, so that seems a worthy object of adulation. I'm not so certain about tiny invisible particles, but I was brought up to believe in them, and I don't want to rock the boat. I don't have a better explanation, so I'll go along with the consensus.

SC

[orosee]

A few thoughts about Richard Dawkins. If you pick up his more recent books, you're like put off by his harsh and uncompromising style. But that's really like reading a book on string theory before knowing Physics 101.

I've read all his works in order for the genetics roots through his initial atheist writing up to his last, more aggressive anti-theist works. There a clear evolution visible (duh) that coincides with increasing attacks by largely US native faith industries. Plus an air of desperation coming from being perpetually confronted with the same old fallacies (theory versus theory, blind watchmaker, monkey descent etc.) and statistics on populace believing in creationism, intelligent design etc.

Where his earlier works matched his opponents with the skill if a top chess player, the style of debate has forced him to switch the game to heavy weight Boxing. Unfortunately for the newcomers, his blunt style might hide his substantial arguments for his case.

Personally I prefer his scientific works and I'm still excited to be a living descendant of a long chain of genes that have managed to survive, reproduce and evolve several billions of years. So much better than just being a copy of someone's image.

[orosee]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

I really think you are on to something here.

Religious groups are always talking about a higher power.

And now you are talking about nuclear power,

And then we had the Aztecs who worshiped the Sun God.

Isn't this all basically the same thing?

Well, everyone can see the sun, so it's fairly easy to believe in. And we can empirically show that it makes crops grow, so that seems a worthy object of adulation. I'm not so certain about tiny invisible particles, but I was brought up to believe in them, and I don't want to rock the boat. I don't have a better explanation, so I'll go along with the consensus.

SC

The great thing about these particles and science is that you can read up on the physics behind them, do some math, set up an experiment and see if the hypotheses behind the claim are working. If you can show one reproducible case where that doesn't hold, you'll earn a place in the science books and thousands of other scientists will start working on a better hypothesis.

No need to believe in it. Test it!

By the way, I don't look down on the generations that believed the Earth is flat or in the centre of the universe. Casual observation over short periods does not contradict this idea. Such theories worked well for most of our existence. Newton's physics worked well for his age, Einstein had much less (relatively) time until quantum theory made things harder to explain but better to predict.

Many more discoveries and revisions to come!

By the way, being scientifically semi-ignorant is still fashionable today. Just look at people referring to the big Bang, Schrödinger's Cat or the mechanism of evolution by natural selection (calling for a Darwin Award is usually the most idiotic example).

[edwinchester]

I like potato salad with hard boiled eggs in it

Jewish?

[OmegaRacer]

What is the 'new-fangled stuff' you're talking about?

And what war is there to win? Or is that just an expression?

All this nuclear science stuff. It seems a bit far-fetched to me, but if they can make bombs out of it then I'll place my faith in that, even though I don't really understand it, and I've never actually seen any evidence of it other than people explaining that that is what makes the sun hot.

Anyway, cleverer men than me say it's true, so that's good enough for me, and it seems to keep the power station turning

SC

Well, if we are talking about the cutting edge of science, quantum physics, we'll see that many phenomena coincide with what spiritual teachings have talked about for a long time. For example that we can influence the outcome of an experiment just by observing it and by shifting our intention ("The mind is everything. What you think, you become' Buddha), and that all particles in the universe are connected (“All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.”Buddha).

I'm not a scientist, so this is my dumbed down understanding of what I read.

I strongly believe that eventually, science and spirituality will converge and complement each other completely.

As for prayer and intention, have a look at Masaru Emoto's experiments, where he claims that human consciousness can change the molecular structure of water. For example, a water crystal taken from a very polluted river shows an amorphous shape, while the same water, after being 'prayed' upon, shows a beautiful and symmetrical structure.

Since we are made of about 75% of water, this could be an interesting approach in understanding how human intention (or prayer) affects not only the person who prays, but also the receiver of the prayer.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

As the saying goes: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just because it's easy to reject religious dogma that is based upon parables and allegories, that doesn't mean that there's no higher power. That's the problem I have with Atheists like R. Dawkins.

Again, please distinguish between religion (institution, dogma, man-made, dualistic) and spirituality (experience, personal, all-including).

Religions are like fingers. Don't argue which finger is the best. They are just different expressions of the hand they're attached to. Look for the hand.

A lot of people seem to have a go at religions based on religious texts written thousands of years ago. I don't have a go at nuclear scientists based on thousand-year-old works. I suppose actually I am a bit credulous, accepting a lot of that new-fangled stuff, but if it works and it wins the war then, like prayer, that's good enough for me

SC

I really think you are on to something here.

Religious groups are always talking about a higher power.

And now you are talking about nuclear power,

And then we had the Aztecs who worshiped the Sun God.

Isn't this all basically the same thing?

Well, everyone can see the sun, so it's fairly easy to believe in. And we can empirically show that it makes crops grow, so that seems a worthy object of adulation. I'm not so certain about tiny invisible particles, but I was brought up to believe in them, and I don't want to rock the boat. I don't have a better explanation, so I'll go along with the consensus.

SC

Then....

Blessed are they that cannot see,

For they shall inherit the wind,

Since they are able to believe in the Sun God,

Though not can they ever see him.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

"By the way, being scientifically semi-ignorant is still fashionable today. Just look at people referring to the big Bang, Schrödinger's Cat or the mechanism of evolution by natural selection (calling for a Darwin Award is usually the most idiotic example). "

Schrödinger's Cat?

Another god, who was resurrected from the Egyptians, no doubt.

I think they used to call him the sphinx.

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Report
  

[krisb]

http://youtu.be/oZgT1SRcrKE

[pennine]

If God did not exist, man would have to invent him.