Religion

[Gamma Male]

Religion is poison, and should be exterminated at any costs. Also, Islam is the most violent religion to date and we should focus on exterminating it first.

Islam is violent and destruction. So is every other religion. Or rather, religion allows people to be manipulated into being violent and destructive. But islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism.

And while I agree we should attempt to educate people and society would be better off without religion, "eradicated at all costs" sounds a bit too violent for my tastes.

[Swipper]

Islam is violent and destruction. So is every other religion. Or rather, religion allows people to be manipulated into being violent and destructive. But islam is no worse than Christianity or Judaism.

And while I agree we should attempt to educate people and society would be better off without religion, "eradicated at all costs" sounds a bit too violent for my tastes.

As of 2014, Islam is the most violent Religion (it's more of a ideology rather than Religion), so we should focus on that first.

I didn't mean "at all costs" in a violent way, what i meant is that we should use the resources available (including the democratic system) to stop it from spreading.

If Islam in fact does "take over" the world, whom is their goal, our grand grand children will live in a world where relationship violence, rape, murder, and other inhumane things is legal.

"Religion" is terrible.

My mom's uncle who died over a year ago from cancer was a "hardcore" Christian, also the nicest person i've known, however this does not change the fact that religion has caused nothing but problems in society for a veryyy long time, therefore i do not believe in any religion.

Another reason why i don't believe in any religion is because a "God", etc, is simply non-existant.

[Vlerchan]

As of 2014, Islam is the most violent Religion (it's more of a ideology rather than Religion), so we should focus on that first.
You've touched on an important point here:

Islam has been politicised in the ME in a response the Western imperialism. It's the fact that Islam has been used as the foundation of a pan-nationalist movement with globalist ambitions that has resulted in Islam becoming an issue - and not Islam itself on its own merits.

I didn't mean "at all costs" in a violent way, what i meant is that we should use the resources available (including the democratic system) to stop it from spreading.
Please offer up specific examples. Thank you.

If Islam in fact does "take over" the world, whom is their goal, our grand grand children will live in a world where relationship violence, rape, murder, and other inhumane things is legal.
I can't find a single correct point in this quotation.

Islam itself doesn't want to take over. Islamists do.

And violence, rape, and murder would all be illegal under sharia law.

---

I'm ignoring the likelihood that this is never going to occur.

"Religion" is terrible.
Please expand here. Thank you.

I also disagree that religion has caused nothing but trouble. This is so self-evident I'm not even going to bother to source this claim.

Another reason why i don't believe in any religion is because a "God", etc, is simply non-existant.
Please present evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

[Bleid]

"Religion" is terrible.

The use of quotations around the word, "Religion" above is improper. The way it is, it's a use-mention error. After I write the rest of this post, I'll quickly Google a good link for you.

My mom's uncle who died over a year ago from cancer was a "hardcore" Christian,

Similar problem around the word, "hardcore."

however this does not change the fact that religion has caused nothing but problems in society for a veryyy long time, therefore i do not believe in any religion.

There are only two possibilities here. Either you're mistaking correlation with causation when you stated this, or you're not.

If you are, and you're trying to say something of the form:
(Religious people do X that I believe is bad, therefore religion caused X).

Then I can use your very own reasoning that correlation = causation and say:

Religious people have also been kind enough to be charitable to the sick and injured and financially handicapped.

Therefore, by your own reasoning (correlation = causation), religion has not caused nothing but problems in society. It has aided it.

If you are not, then you also have no ground to stand on, because someone being religious and doing something wrong does not mean that religion itself has caused nothing but problems in society.

So overall, given the only two possibilities, the above quote of yours is not well-reasoned.

Another reason why i don't believe in any religion is because a "God", etc, is simply non-existant.

Another use-mention error. Also an unfounded claim.

Here's the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction) I promised. I checked to make sure it's factually accurate, since it is after all, Wikipedia.

[CrazyPerson101]

*awkwardly creeps in here* I'm Christian ... who doesn't exactly agree and follow all the "rules" *dashes out*

[Professor Moopicorn]

Hmm... From what I've read here, lots of people do believe in a faith of sorts (I'm a Christian) but they claim that church is a waste of time, power hungry and, in a nut shell, a load of crap, but they still believe without the church. I can see why you would do this because lots of churches are different and sometimes don't seem to lead the way Jesus did.

But I am surprised at how many of the church-hating God-loving people there are out there. Every church I have been to has been lovely and entirely focused on love and spreading God's word the way he intended. But I guess I've only ever been to small, Aussie country town churches that are probably a lot more loving than big city churches because we all know each other personally. The big city churches seem to be focused on more contrivertial stuff that might not be what God intended.

[Karkat]

Hmm... From what I've read here, lots of people do believe in a faith of sorts (I'm a Christian) but they claim that church is a waste of time, power hungry and, in a nut shell, a load of crap, but they still believe without the church. I can see why you would do this because lots of churches are different and sometimes don't seem to lead the way Jesus did.

But I am surprised at how many of the church-hating God-loving people there are out there. Every church I have been to has been lovely and entirely focused on love and spreading God's word the way he intended. But I guess I've only ever been to small, Aussie country town churches that are probably a lot more loving than big city churches because we all know each other personally. The big city churches seem to be focused on more contrivertial stuff that might not be what God intended.

That makes sense. Smaller churches tend to be more about community whereas larger ones tend to be more for-profit.

[Professor Moopicorn]

That makes sense. Smaller churches tend to be more about community whereas larger ones tend to be more for-profit.

Hmm. It's a shame realy that all churches aren't like that. It's so good to be able to connect with everyone in the church

[Verminicious Knid]

I struggle with faith a lot. I used to be an innocent little Catholic boy who didn't question anything in the Bible to the extent I do now. Then in High School, as I found myself to be Bisexual, I came away from a belief in God for a while.

But two months ago (About), I was talking about religion with my friend. I thought about Death (Yeah, I'm a real ball) and if there was a God or not. A lot of the arguments for the existence of God made sense to me- Consciousness, Intelligent Design, etc. I read up on different religions to find out that seemed right for me. Everywhere I searched, I would be faced with a contradicting article- for example, one article would be about the truth of a certain religion, whilst another would bring up points to combat the former points. I was thoroughly confused.

After about two months of daily prayer, on the Sunday just past, I headed to Church for the first time in years. Despite the crying babies, I managed to enjoy myself, listening to the Priest speak. He's such a wise man and his words made sense to me. To me, right now, Jesus seems like the best guide for life, religiously. I respect all opinions obviously, whatever works for you is great, but I think this works for me.

The problem now is understanding the Bible. I have doubts about some aspects that seem far-fetched, but I'm comforted by the thought that Jesus only really lay down two commandments that needed to be followed- Love God and Love your Neighbour. Follow those, and the rest will come easily. Hence why I am still adamantly against Homophobia (Even if I were straight, I'd still be against it).

Religion is flawed, I admit that. But it's a way to understand life, to guide us through life. Obviously, people have taken it and used it for evil. But as long as I use my belief to do good, then I'll be happy.

And to conclude, I consider myself Christian as of this moment. I respect all religions, because all are ways to understand the world we live in, with beautiful teachings and cultures. We're all in this world together, so let's hope we can work together to make this place a bit more like Heaven.

[darthearth]

I struggle with faith a lot. I used to be an innocent little Catholic boy who didn't question anything in the Bible to the extent I do now. Then in High School, as I found myself to be Bisexual, I came away from a belief in God for a while.

But two months ago (About), I was talking about religion with my friend. I thought about Death (Yeah, I'm a real ball) and if there was a God or not. A lot of the arguments for the existence of God made sense to me- Consciousness, Intelligent Design, etc. I read up on different religions to find out that seemed right for me. Everywhere I searched, I would be faced with a contradicting article- for example, one article would be about the truth of a certain religion, whilst another would bring up points to combat the former points. I was thoroughly confused.

After about two months of daily prayer, on the Sunday just past, I headed to Church for the first time in years. Despite the crying babies, I managed to enjoy myself, listening to the Priest speak. He's such a wise man and his words made sense to me. To me, right now, Jesus seems like the best guide for life, religiously. I respect all opinions obviously, whatever works for you is great, but I think this works for me.

The problem now is understanding the Bible. I have doubts about some aspects that seem far-fetched, but I'm comforted by the thought that Jesus only really lay down two commandments that needed to be followed- Love God and Love your Neighbour. Follow those, and the rest will come easily. Hence why I am still adamantly against Homophobia (Even if I were straight, I'd still be against it).

Religion is flawed, I admit that. But it's a way to understand life, to guide us through life. Obviously, people have taken it and used it for evil. But as long as I use my belief to do good, then I'll be happy.

And to conclude, I consider myself Christian as of this moment. I respect all religions, because all are ways to understand the world we live in, with beautiful teachings and cultures. We're all in this world together, so let's hope we can work together to make this place a bit more like Heaven.

Good. Just an FYI, I am a Christian but believe the two commandments you mentioned are actually the ONLY ones. Everything else to me is supposed to be discerned from these two. We have no written law to follow. That's how I've come to see things. The bible to me is not an infallible word of God and wasn't meant to be, only a reference. The faith walk is about how to live righteously, not about how to avoid "sin". I think the prudish view of sexuality in the Bible is outdated and irrelevant. And btw, I primarily believe in Jesus due to Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

[Daniella98]

I dont believe there are any gods or santa, for that matter

[Verminicious Knid]

Good. Just an FYI, I am a Christian but believe the two commandments you mentioned are actually the ONLY ones. Everything else to me is supposed to be discerned from these two. We have no written law to follow. That's how I've come to see things. The bible to me is not an infallible word of God and wasn't meant to be, only a reference. The faith walk is about how to live righteously, not about how to avoid "sin". I think the prudish view of sexuality in the Bible is outdated and irrelevant. And btw, I primarily believe in Jesus due to Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus.

Agreed. Following those two rules will bring all others forth. If all Christians realized that instead of condemning others, it'd be a much better world.

[Babiole]

Surprisingly, on at least one website I went, people were surprised to find out that I was Catholic even though France has a Catholic majority. It's because France isn't a religious country and has a sizable non-religious population. I also met a Mexican girl online who told me that people were surprised when she told them that she was an atheist. She even told me that she hates how people expected her to be uber-Catholic.

[rtw1997]

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

[Indio]

I think the reason that God is "absent" in saving us from evil (someone brought this up) is because he gave us free will and He'd want us to make the right decision ourselves, so we can sort of be our own deliverers from evil.

And I think that God doesn't save us from death lots of the time is because maybe the person who's dying, he's made plans for them in their afterlife so he's just gonna let it happen cuz he knows their spirit will be o.k.

I agree. That's the message of the movie God is not dead!

I don't believe in god. I don't believe in any kind of religious philosophy or anything similer. It maks me angry to even think about the horrors of religion. I think we should all burn our bibles.

I did hear an interesting idology from a friend of mine though. He said, that this is what he got from the bible:

In the beginning god created a perfect world. And there was no sin or hate or any of that. But there was an uprising in heaven and Lucifer, God's most prized angel, was cast out of Heaven down into the pits of hell ((werever this "hell" is)) along with 2/3 of the angels of heaven. Satan then began to "fuck" with gods perfect world, tainting humankind. This created free will. A good against evil kind of dilema. And this tension between good and evil, between satan and god, will eventually snap, and the war of armageddon will be upon us. Humans simply cought in a power struggle between two heavenly beings. But we are the last army, whos side do we choose?

And the bible is so contradictory and BS becasue god is an absent god. He allows us to live independently and satan taints us. So literally, even the bible is no pure.


Its all bs of course. But interesting sounding. Would make a good book ((HAHAHAHAHAHA))

God is not absent. He gave us free will. We have a choice either to do bad or to do good.

If you don't believe in Jesus, that probably doesn't make you a Christian...

Agree! That's the message of the movie God is not dead.

Please do not post multiple times. Use the 'multiquote' button instead. ~Typhlosion

[Saint of Sinners]

Well I don't believe in anything cause it requires the least assumptions and makes the most sense, to me at least.

[brina]

I was just made to go to church. It's not that I hate it I just don't enjoy it or really believe in it.

[vittyvirus]

One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right?

I think that every major religion in the world holds a piece of the truth. If they all started acting in the manner they say they should, then maybe we could find the real truth.

Personally...I believe in a higher entity. Right now that idea is with belief in God. However, I don't label myself 'Christian' because I don't agree with some of the Christian beliefs. I agree with the beliefs of the Baptist denomination the most, though. I was raised Baptist. My mother was raised Catholic but at 17 broke away, my dad was raised Baptist.

I don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, though. I believe that if you die and your not worthy of God and the light, your soul stays here on Earth.

When it comes to the Islam world's anger at the Pope's statements, here's what I have to say:

1) The Pope quoted the writing that stated the Islam is violent and evil.
2) The Islam responds how? By violence!

so..yea...

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Islam didn't respond, its so called believers did. Islam is the most misunderstood, yet most peaceful religion in the world. Infact, Islam itself means 'peace'!!! Islam mentions violence only for peace. You tell me, doesn't Police need violence? From Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32:
"...whoever slays a soul (no matter the religion), unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men;"

Also, many people blame Islam becuase so-called Muslims are terrorists. You tell me, can you blame a religion for what it's followers do? E.g. Can you blame Christianity for what Hitler did (killed 6 mil. Jews!)???

There are black sheeps in all communities. And one more thing, read the Qur'an yourself (get a pdf copy or read online, or best, get a hardcopy), and verify before you hear. Find out as many as allegations you can, and then post them here.

[HockeyLovesMe]

im Mormon :)

[cbm89031]

im Mormon :)

I am a Mormon also (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter~Day Saints)

[Lovelife090994]

I converted from Christianity by choice amd because I never did hold Christian beliefs to a T. It never felt free or like me. So I'm a Wiccan now and things feel a lot better for me.

[Faolan]

I was raised as Jewish and Methodist, but now I'm an atheist. I enjoy the holidays and open communities of both my parents' church and synagogue, but I don't believe in a greater power.

[amgb]

I go to church only very occasionally but I'm not religious.

[mai-rin]

My mother was raised in a jewish household and my father catholic.I myself am nothing really.Neither of my parents have kept either religion since moving out of home and think it's all a load of rubbish.I don't know what I think, all I know is the majority of religions dont make sense to me and have too many flaws.

I prefer science tbh.

[Arkansasguy]

One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right?

I think that every major religion in the world holds a piece of the truth. If they all started acting in the manner they say they should, then maybe we could find the real truth.

Personally...I believe in a higher entity. Right now that idea is with belief in God. However, I don't label myself 'Christian' because I don't agree with some of the Christian beliefs. I agree with the beliefs of the Baptist denomination the most, though. I was raised Baptist. My mother was raised Catholic but at 17 broke away, my dad was raised Baptist.

I don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, though. I believe that if you die and your not worthy of God and the light, your soul stays here on Earth.

When it comes to the Islam world's anger at the Pope's statements, here's what I have to say:

1) The Pope quoted the writing that stated the Islam is violent and evil.
2) The Islam responds how? By violence!

so..yea...

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Well if something is true and important, it follows that people should try to convert others to it.

That God exists is provable through metaphysics (see Aquinas's five ways). That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is sufficiently established by the credible testimony of his Apostles to his resurrection. That the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ is established by the historical record.

[Vlerchan]

That God exists is provable through metaphysics (see Aquinas's five ways).
Argument from Motion

It presumes that the set must share the same characteristics as the items within it.

At most this suggests that a god could possibly exist.

Argument from Efficient Causes

It just presumes that the set must share the same characteristics as the items within it.

At most this suggests that a god could possibly exist.

Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

Modern biology is working to explain abiogenisis as the origin of life.

At most it suggests that a god could possibly exist.

Argument from Gradation of Being

I have no idea how this leads to the conclusion that a god might exist at all.

Argument from Design

See: modern evolution theory.

---

What do you think of Liberation Theology?

[Arkansasguy]

Argument from Motion

It presumes that the set must share the same characteristics as the items within it.

At most this suggests that a god could possibly exist.

What exactly do you mean?

Argument from Efficient Causes

It just presumes that the set must share the same characteristics as the items within it.

At most this suggests that a god could possibly exist.

What exactly do you mean?

Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

Modern biology is working to explain abiogenisis as the origin of life.

At most it suggests that a god could possibly exist.

1. Biology is not able to explain abiogenesis.

2. Abiogenesis isn't really relevant. This is dealing with bring vs. non-being.

Argument from Gradation of Being

I have no idea how this leads to the conclusion that a god might exist at all.

Then read the argument.

Argument from Design

See: modern evolution theory.

1. Evolution doesn't refute the need for a creator.

2. Again, this isn't about life, it's about being in general.

---

What do you think of Liberation Theology?

I don't approve.

[Dortmund]

I'm an agnostic personally. I'm not at all religious in any way nor do I know anybody that is.

If somehow I happen to be wrong then surely a God would judge someone on their good actions in life and morality rather than their faith and attendance of prayer.

[Vlerchan]

What exactly do you mean?
There's no need for a set (the universe) to possess all the qualities that its items (all events) possess.

Even if we presume it does this at best concludes that it's possible for a god to exist.

What exactly do you mean?
Please see above.

Biology is not able to explain abiogenesis
It's working on it. Point is the fact that other possible drivers exist make it fallacious to conclude god.

The non-beings became beings through abiogenisis is the point I was making.

Then read the argument.
I did. I see no reason to presume god is some ultimate maxim.

Evolution doesn't refute the need for a creator.
[summary:]

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
We call this being God.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#TheFiveWays
It refutes this.

[Arkansasguy]

There's no need for a set (the universe) to possess all the qualities that its items (all events) possess.

Even if we presume it does this at best concludes that it's possible for a god to exist.


Please see above.

And how does this relate to the argument in question?

It's working on it. Point is the fact that other possible drivers exist make it fallacious to conclude god.

The non-beings became beings through abiogenisis is the point I was making.

Abiogenesis did not create the universe, if you think it did, you don't know what the words mean.

I did. I see no reason to presume god is some ultimate maxim.

Why not?

[summary:]

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
We call this being God.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinque_viae#TheFiveWays
It refutes this.

Where is the refutation?

[Vlerchan]

And how does this relate to the argument in question?
People use the argument as proof that god exists.

I'm posing the counter that it's only proof that god might exist.

Abiogenesis did not create the universe, if you think it did, you don't know what the words mean.
The argument proposes that there must be at least one non-contingent being if contingent beings are to exist.

[Summary:]

It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.

But abiogenisis rejects this notion.

Why not?
You are the one making the argument.

It's up to you to demonstrate why an ultimate maxim existing is a good assumption.

Where is the refutation?
There doesn't need to be a guide. Natural selection is built into the Evolutionary process.

[Arkansasguy]

People use the argument as proof that god exists.

I'm posing the counter that it's only proof that god might exist.

Then would you please tie together your statements with this counter argument?

The argument proposes that there must be at least one non-contingent being if contingent beings are to exist.

[Summary:]

It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.

But abiogenisis rejects this notion.

Abiogenesis doesn't address creation of being. It addresses creation of life.

You are the one making the argument.

It's up to you to demonstrate why an ultimate maxim existing is a good assumption.

The argument demonstrates this. Try to refute it.

There doesn't need to be a guide. Natural selection is built into the Evolutionary process.

This is a basic philosophical error. Lesser order cannot spontaneously create higher order.

[Vlerchan]

Then would you please tie together your statements with this counter argument?
It's a presumption that god is the cause. There is no need for the cause to be omnisentient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant, etc., or for the cause to even hold intent. It's just Aquinas confirming his own bias'.

It's also the case that the universe needing a cause is a presumption. The universe is the set of all events. There is no reason to presume that the set holds all the characteristics that its events have even if these characteristics are common across all events.

Abiogenesis doesn't address creation of being. It addresses creation of life.
Please explain the difference to me. I don't understand. Thank you.

The argument demonstrates this. Try to refute it.
[Summary:] Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is what we call God.

I agree with the first statement.
I agree with the second statement.
I agree with the third statement so long as we accept the pinnacle needn't be constant.
I don't see why the pinnacle needs to be supernatural based.

This is a basic philosophical error. Lesser order cannot spontaneously create higher order.
Please re-word this. I don't understand it. Thank you.

[Arkansasguy]

It's a presumption that god is the cause. There is no need for the cause to be omnisentient, omnipotent, omnibenevolant, etc., or for the cause to even hold intent. It's just Aquinas confirming his own bias'.

It's also the case that the universe needing a cause is a presumption. The universe is the set of all events. There is no reason to presume that the set holds all the characteristics that its events have even if these characteristics are common across all events.[QUOTE]

The argument shows that there exists something which is the cause of everything else, and that this thing is itself uncaused. The ability to create the universe demonstrates omnipotence. The other characteristics are demonstrated by the other arguments.

[QUOTE]Please explain the difference to me. I don't understand. Thank you.

Abiogenesis is a speculation of how non living matter became alive. It doesn't address how matter began to exist.

[Summary:] Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is what we call God.

I agree with the first statement.
I agree with the second statement.
I agree with the third statement so long as we accept the pinnacle needn't be constant.
I don't see why the pinnacle needs to be supernatural based.

I think you're confused by the word God. The five ways are not intended to prove that God is the God of Abraham, it's intended to show the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. creator.

This argument shows that God contains within himself the perfection of all goods.

Please re-word this. I don't understand it. Thank you.

A thing cannot give what it does not have. Non-life cannot create life on its own.

[Vlerchan]

The argument shows that there exists something which is the cause of everything else, and that this thing is itself uncaused.
Presuming we're ignoring the second-line of my response. However the second line is sort of important as it's a rebuttal to the idea itself.

The ability to create the universe demonstrates omnipotence.
If we presume that this cause's power extends beyond being able to create the universe.

If not then it is not omnipotent or holding unlimited power.

The other characteristics are demonstrated by the other arguments.

Do these arguments connect back to this argument? Would you mind producing them?

Abiogenesis is a speculation of how non living matter became alive. It doesn't address how matter began to exist.

Oh. I understand now.

Then it would seem that this argument suffers from the criticism that we're just presuming the cause to be god just like the first two.

I think you're confused by the word God. The five ways are not intended to prove that God is the God of Abraham, it's intended to show the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. creator.

It doesn't do either.

This argument shows that God contains within himself the perfection of all goods.
I have no idea how this presumes the existence of god.

There being an utmost of each descriptor does not infer that the utmost must be god.

A thing cannot give what it does not have. Non-life cannot create life on its own.
I don't understand how you got this from the argument.

Regardless I don't see the need to presume that god created life from non-life. It seems to be another case where god is just defined as the only possible cause.

[Arkansasguy]

Presuming we're ignoring the second-line of my response. However the second line is sort of important as it's a rebuttal to the idea itself.

All effects require a cause. The universe could only be cause less if it existed forever, which is false.

If we presume that this cause's power extends beyond being able to create the universe.

If not then it is not omnipotent or holding unlimited power.

What other power is there?

Do these arguments connect back to this argument? Would you mind producing them?

I was referring to the other of the five ways.

Oh. I understand now.

Then it would seem that this argument suffers from the criticism that we're just presuming the cause to be god just like the first two.

It shows that there exists a necessary being.


I have no idea how this presumes the existence of god.

There being an utmost of each descriptor does not infer that the utmost must be god.

Define what you mean by God.

I don't understand how you got this from the argument.

Regardless I don't see the need to presume that god created life from non-life. It seems to be another case where god is just defined as the only possible cause.

God created everything.

[Vlerchan]

All effects require a cause. The universe could only be cause less if it existed forever, which is false.

Time cannot exist without an object.

There's no time before the universe because time would not have an object to act on.

What other power is there?
To intervene in his creation.

I was referring to the other of the five ways.
Would you mind please connecting the argument with the inference? Thank you.

Define what you mean by God.
Define what you mean since it's your claims we're working with.

I consider god omnipotent, omnisentient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.

God created everything.
This is you just re-confirming your bias'.

[Arkansasguy]

Time cannot exist without an object.

There's no time before the universe because time would not have an object to act on.

Correct. Correct. The creation of the universe was the beginning of time.

To intervene in his creation.

This power follows from having created it.

Would you mind please connecting the argument with the inference? Thank you.

For which property? Omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc?

Define what you mean since it's your claims we're working with.

I consider god omnipotent, omnisentient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.

I asked you because it seemed you were going down a rabbit hole (well ok there's a being that's X, Y, Z but how do we know that's God). Agreeing to a common meaning avoids this.

This is you just re-confirming your bias'.

You asked regarding life. Who created life really should be addressed after who created the universe.

[Vlerchan]

Correct. Correct. The creation of the universe was the beginning of time.
So the universe existed forever.

It's nice when we agree on things.

This power follows from having created it.
No. It doesn't.

For which property? Omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc?
I'd appreciate all of them.

I'd also appreciate if it could be demonstrated how they logically must connect.

You asked regarding life. Who created life really should be addressed after who created the universe.
But we are still not clear on who created the universe. God's just a possibility.

If god created the universe and life arose without divine intervention within (abiogenisis) then do you count that as god creating life?

[Arkansasguy]

So the universe existed forever.

It's nice when we agree on things.

No, the universe's creation was the beginning of time. If the universe existed forever, then there would have been a moment infinitely long ago. But if that were so, the universe would have never reached now, which is false.

No. It doesn't.

Yes. It does.

I'd appreciate all of them.

I'd also appreciate if it could be demonstrated how they logically must connect.

Omniscience follows from the fifth. Omnibenevolence and omnipresence follow from the fourth.

But we are still not clear on who created the universe. God's just a possibility.

If god created the universe and life arose without divine intervention within (abiogenisis) then do you count that as god creating life?

Let's stick to the main question for this thread.

[Vlerchan]

If the universe existed forever, then there would have been a moment infinitely long ago.
If the universe existed forever then we calculate the first moment as having been that directly after the Big Bang.

Because if time started with the universe then there could not have been a time before the universe.

Yes. It does.
Please explains how it follows that it does. Thank you.

Omniscience follows from the fifth. Omnibenevolence and omnipresence follow from the fourth.
Ok. I don't think you've convinced anyone of the 4th or 5th being necessarily true.

There's also no reason why there couldn't be multiple gods possessing each aforementioned quality as opposed to one possessing them all.

Let's stick to the main question for this thread.
I'm not sure what was off-topic about that. But Ok.

[Arkansasguy]

If the universe existed forever then we calculate the first moment as having been that directly after the Big Bang.

Because if time started with the universe then there could not have been a time before the universe.

What does the first sentence mean. I agree with the second. Before the universe, time did not exist.

Please explains how it follows that it does. Thank you.

Because if God could create the universe, then he could choose how to create it, then he could change it.

Ok. I don't think you've convinced anyone of the 4th or 5th being necessarily true.

There's also no reason why there couldn't be multiple gods possessing each aforementioned quality as opposed to one possessing them all.

Well, the creating is a form of changing (moving, in scholastic philosophical language). So 1 and 2 must be the same. A thing cannot give what it does not have, so 4 must be the same as the creator, since it possesses perfection belonging to nothing else.

[Vlerchan]

What does the first sentence mean.
I'm using forever as short-hand for "all the moments since time began" because using it beyond that is nonsensical.

Because if God could create the universe, then he could choose how to create it, then he could change it.
When I use the term "created the universe" I meant "caused the Big Bang" which acted as a cause for other things. I hope it becomes evident why I don't see changing the universe following logically from creating the universe in this regard. You just proved that god was a cause but there's no reason to presume from that he's an influential cause.

But then I don't see being able to change the universe logically following from creating the universe regardless. There's nothing about being able to create that infers being able to change. It might imply such - but then that just leaves us with more possibilities and not facts.

So 1 and 2 must be the same. A thing cannot give what it does not have, so 4 must be the same as the creator, since it possesses perfection belonging to nothing else.
I do read 1 and 2 as the same thing demonstrating the possibility of the same thing.

Ok. But how does god beingthe utmost of everything infer omnisentience? I can understand omnibenevolance.

[Lovelife090994]

Merry meet; my religious views are totally different now. Okay, so not really... I kinda already thought like an open person and Pagan before. I respect ALL faiths, religions, ideologies, the like, as long as no one is hurt from these beliefs. I do not support forcing religion on children. Teach your kids of your faith and others but let them choose. If God exists, he should be one of love, not this hateful figure Christians throw at you for disagreement. I feel the world is a magickal place, full of life and energy. I "worship" the Earth but not like a Christian worships God. I believe in many gods and invoke powers. So yes, I'm a Witch. I do not curse, that is actually forbidden... Anyway, I believe there is good and evil, maybe a Heaven, maybe not a Hell.

The Devil? Purely Christian concept and at times a Christian image of Baphomet and Pan or the Horned God to Pagans but depicted as evil to reinforce stereotypes. My only gripe to Christianity and faiths like it are their beliefs of being the only way to salvation and the use of cursing on people. I can say more but I won't. Merry Part--Blessed be )O(

[Arkansasguy]

I'm using forever as short-hand for "all the moments since time began" because using it beyond that is nonsensical.

This is a rather confusing usage, as there are those who assert that the universe has existed forever, in the sense that time has continued from infinity. I'm glad you agree that this is impossible.

When I use the term "created the universe" I meant "caused the Big Bang" which acted as a cause for other things. I hope it becomes evident why I don't see changing the universe following logically from creating the universe in this regard. You just proved that god was a cause but there's no reason to presume from that he's an influential cause.

But then I don't see being able to change the universe logically following from creating the universe regardless. There's nothing about being able to create that infers being able to change. It might imply such - but then that just leaves us with more possibilities and not facts.

The laws of the universe do not follow from first principles, they are not metaphysically necessary. The universe could have been made so that gravity would be repulsive, for instance. Thus the laws of the universe were themselves created by God. Because of this, it can be concluded that God is not bound by the laws of the universe, he could change or violate them if he so desired.

I do read 1 and 2 as the same thing demonstrating the possibility of the same thing.

Ok. But how does god beingthe utmost of everything infer omnisentience? I can understand omnibenevolance.

Because he must be the utmost of intelligence. If you're going to ask how do we know that he's not just very smart but not omniscient, then the answer is as follows.

We know he is intelligent, and since he created the universe and possesses omnipotence over it, this necessitates omniscience

[Vlerchan]

This is a rather confusing usage, as there are those who assert that the universe has existed forever, in the sense that time has continued from infinity. I'm glad you agree that this is impossible.

So if a) time started with the formation of the universe so b) the universe has existed 'forever' and c) no time existed before the universe was formed so d) nothing existed before the universe then e) it is intuitively not necessary that the universe have a cause.

The laws of the universe do not follow from first principles, they are not metaphysically necessary.
I don't see why something being unnecessary means it can't have happened.

Because of this, it can be concluded that God is not bound by the laws of the universe, he could change or violate them if he so desired.
I don't get how this must necessarily logically follow.

I would imagine if I was speaking to a Deist I would be getting different answers.

We know he is intelligent, and since he created the universe and possesses omnipotence over it, this necessitates omniscience
How does this 'necessitate' omniscentience?

How also do we know he is of the 'utmost intelligence'?

---

Just so we are clear I didn't see a response to god not needing be an influential cause but just a cause.

[Arkansasguy]

So if a) time started with the formation of the universe so b) the universe has existed 'forever' and c) no time existed before the universe was formed so d) nothing existed before the universe then e) it is intuitively not necessary that the universe have a cause.

If the universe is of finite age it did not exist forever. Keep in mind there are two ways to speak of forever, as simply a continuation of a finite amount of time without limitation, or as a state of eternity, not subject to time on account of not being intrinsically subject to change. We agree that it is absurd to say the universe existed forever in the former sense, and I assume you will agree that it would be absurd to claim that the universe existed forever in the second sense, since the universe is subject to time. What I'm saying is that God existed forever, in the second sense, "before" creating the universe.

I don't see why something being unnecessary means it can't have happened.

If course unnecessary things can happen, but they require a cause so that they happen rather than not happen.

I don't get how this must necessarily logically follow.

I would imagine if I was speaking to a Deist I would be getting different answers.

God created the laws of the universe. Keep in mind that God, not being subject to time, would be of one un hanging will, so when we speak of God changing or violating the laws of the universe, he would have always intended to do so. Since God created the laws of the universe, he could have made them such that they would change or be violated at some time.

How does this 'necessitate' omniscentience?

How also do we know he is of the 'utmost intelligence'?

We know he is of utmost intelligence due to him containing the perfection of all goods. Also, we know he is intelligent simply, since an unintelligent being could not create intelligent beings. Since he is intelligent, and since he is omnipotent, he necessarily must be omniscient.

---

Just so we are clear I didn't see a response to god not needing be an influential cause but just a cause.

See the second and third paragraphs.

[Vlerchan]

If the universe is of finite age it did not exist forever.
If all started with the creation of the universe then it by definition did. You're just presuming that a "time" before the universe must have existed. I'm yet to see a justification.

What I'm saying is that God existed forever, in the second sense, "before" creating the universe.
Is there a reason that god doesn't need a cause and can exist forever-forever?

Or is he just defined as being that way.

If course unnecessary things can happen, but they require a cause so that they happen rather than not happen.
Would you mind explaining how it's unnecessary then?

---

I'd also appreciate if you didn't use words like "first principals" without offering alongside definitions. If it isn't obvious I don't read philosophy so the jargon goes over my head. Thanks in advance.

God created the laws of the universe.
Could the laws of the universe not just have formed naturally? Does it require an intelligent designer?

Keep in mind that God, not being subject to time, would be of one un hanging will, so when we speak of God changing or violating the laws of the universe, he would have always intended to do so.
Ok. I understand this argument. It makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining.

We know he is of utmost intelligence due to him containing the perfection of all goods.
I'm still unsure why it's required that god be the ultimate standard.

Also, we know he is intelligent simply, since an unintelligent being could not create intelligent beings.
If you mean "intelligent" as in "purposeful" then I disagree since I don't believe free will exists.

If you mean "intelligent" as in "clever" then I disagree since I believe that evolution accounts for how mankind is today.

Since he is intelligent, and since he is omnipotent, he necessarily must be omniscient.
You just concluded the same as last time here. I said last time I didn't understand how this must necessarily logically follow.

See the second and third paragraphs.
Doesn't do it for me at all.

If god started the big bang there's no reason we need assume that he intervened beyond that. It's possible that he might have. I agree. But we can't say he did without reference to some holy text.

[Arkansasguy]

If all started with the creation of the universe then it by definition did. You're just presuming that a "time" before the universe must have existed. I'm yet to see a justification.

Since the universe is unnecessary, something had to have caused it to exist rather than not exist.

Is there a reason that god doesn't need a cause and can exist forever-forever?

Or is he just defined as being that way.

Because God is necessary, he could not have not existed.

Would you mind explaining how it's unnecessary then?

---

I'd also appreciate if you didn't use words like "first principals" without offering alongside definitions. If it isn't obvious I don't read philosophy so the jargon goes over my head. Thanks in advance.

The laws of the universe are unnecessary in the sense that they didn't have to be as they are.

First principles are those things that are true necessary, they could not have been otherwise.

Could the laws of the universe not just have formed naturally? Does it require an intelligent designer?

They could not have arisen from nature, since the laws of the universe are logically prior to nature.


I'm still unsure why it's required that god be the ultimate standard.

The fourth argument.

If you mean "intelligent" as in "purposeful" then I disagree since I don't believe free will exists.

If you mean "intelligent" as in "clever" then I disagree since I believe that evolution accounts for how mankind is today.

By intelligent I mean "capable of understanding universals".

You just concluded the same as last time here. I said last time I didn't understand how this must necessarily logically follow.

If he chose the laws of the universe, this requires that he cognitively understood them completely.

Doesn't do it for me at all.

If god started the big bang there's no reason we need assume that he intervened beyond that. It's possible that he might have. I agree. But we can't say he did without reference to some holy text.

For the moment this is sufficient on this matter.

[Vlerchan]

Since the universe is unnecessary, something had to have caused it to exist rather than not exist.
I think the universe being existence makes it intuitively true that its existence is necessary.

Here's another user using logic to support this. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2951975&postcount=17).

Because God is necessary, he could not have not existed.
God is only necessary if we presume a) the universe is unnecessary and b) god is the only thing that can exist as a cause.

The laws of the universe are unnecessary in the sense that they didn't have to be as they are.
I also think it's intuitively true that the laws of the universe need be as they are.

They could not have arisen from nature, since the laws of the universe are logically prior to nature.
Please explain this statement. Thank you.

The fourth argument.
I disputed this. I don't consider the argument providing a grounds where it is necessary that god must act as an ultimate standards.

It is yet to be explained to me why this must be. And I've read the argument.

By intelligent I mean "capable of understanding universals".
I will need you to further define "universals" as I don't understand what is meant.

If he chose the laws of the universe, this requires that he cognitively understood them completely.
Presuming he chose the laws.

---

At this point I feel I should add that whilst I see one or two things as now true I still don't consider the 5 arguments as being necessarily true and of them only providing possibilities at best.

[Arkansasguy]

I think the universe being existence makes it intuitively true that its existence is necessary.

If the universe were necessary, you would be able to show why it would exist, without using how things actually are as a premise.


God is only necessary if we presume a) the universe is unnecessary and b) god is the only thing that can exist as a cause.

See above.

I also think it's intuitively true that the laws of the universe need be as they are.

See above.

Please explain this statement. Thank you.

Nature is as it is because the laws of the universe are as they are. Thus nature cannot be responsible for forming the laws of the universe.

I disputed this. I don't consider the argument providing a grounds where it is necessary that god must act as an ultimate standards.

It is yet to be explained to me why this must be. And I've read the argument.

Which specific part of the argument do you object to?

I will need you to further define "universals" as I don't understand what is meant.

Universals are those things which are universally true, or which are universal concepts.

Presuming he chose the laws.

You accepted this earlier.

[Vlerchan]

If the universe were necessary, you would be able to show why it would exist, without using how things actually are as a premise.
Please read Bleid's argument that I linked to.

It demonstrates that whilst we don't know what the reason is we just know that one exists.

---

Thinking further the universe rising spontaneously from nothing is still possible. This is the subject matter of the book 'The Grand Design'.

I'll openly admit to not understand physics or string theory well enough to argue this point though. I'm just putting it out as a possibility.

Nature is as it is because the laws of the universe are as they are. Thus nature cannot be responsible for forming the laws of the universe.
Backwards-causality is technically possible (http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224) so the above statement is incorrect.

---

Reading back it seems you also misunderstood my statement which is why I was confused by the response. I meant could the laws of the universe not have just arose as a necessary part of the universe. Considering that the laws of nature a result of various interactions of the found fundamental forces of the universe that have existed since its conception this is certainly true.

God defining the laws of the universe need not happen - the laws of the universe are just expressions of the found fundamental forces of the universe. Of course it's still possible that god created the laws of the universe through understanding the impact of the four fundamental forces of the universe (note: this is a presumption: he does not have to) - but since all the laws are derived from these constants and not just gods arbitrary will this means that it is impossible to change them.

Though I was starting to question whether it was possible to change the laws regardless. That pre-supposes omni-sentience - so that a god would know when it was time to intervene with his creation - but omni-sentience as explained in your earlier posts presupposes omni-potence - which presupposes omni-sentience as purposed earlier - and so on. You can't have omni-potence without omni-sentience - You can't have omni-sentience without omni-potence - so you can't have either.

---

I am now starting to wish I paid an ounce of attention in those Leaving Cert physics classes.

Which specific part of the argument do you object to?
That it's necessary that god be a universal maxim with reference to a construction of language.

It also seems contradictory in ways. If we accept this that god is (good, better, and) best; can it also be said he is (bad, worse, and) worst? Same logic.

Universals are those things which are universally true, or which are universal concepts.
Please name a "universal concept" so I have a better idea of what we are talking about.

You accepted this earlier.
No. I accepted that god could change the laws of the universe. edit: Now I don't.

---

edit: New question just occurred to me. There's four fundamental forces in the universe:

What's to say we don't have four different gods acting as a cause for each of them as opposed to one god setting them all off?

[jssixna]

I'm a Christian. At the end of the day I'm able to say I believe in Jesus Christ despite what haters try to throw at me lol.

[mariozplaze]

I know I'm late for this topic, but I'm atheist because I don't have a valid reason to believe in any form of deity, (being raised a Catholic like I was doesn't count.) I have never felt the Holy Spirit "tug on my heart" when I'm in church to get "saved" like my sisters claim to have done. I also don't want to follow the rules written in some 3000 year old book whose authors are unclear.

[Snydergate]

I am a Christian Creationist, meaning that I take the book of Genesis as literal fact, the Earth is 6,000 years old to me, the great flood was real, etc. I respect all Religions though and am very eager to learn about them, I hate it when people push other religions on others.

[hannahxo13]

I am christian. I go to a congregational UCC church, and we are very open and liberal!

[Excalibur]

I'm a Christian, Non-Denominational. For those who are wondering what "Non-Denominational" means, basically Non-Denominational Christians aren't limited or restricted to a certain Christian standard or whatever, but we all believe in the same loving, almighty God, and we all enjoy telling others about the Bible. I won't go into exactly why, because that would take too long, but yes, I am a Christian.

[That's the Spirit]

Atheist, strong views, I tolerate but do not accept or agree.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm Wiccan, so far I'm Eclectic and learning more.

[CreativeUsername]

I guess you could say I'm atheist, but my family celebrates christmas. My grandma is very religious, and so are a lot of other people in my family, so we celebrate christmas. It's a way of getting free stuff so I'm fine with that.

[boytoynamedtroy]

Technically, I'm a Christian, as I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. But I don't believe in the concept of a higher power, so that makes me an atheist. I'm not an anti-theist though.

[Melkor]

oops, I misclicked on Islam :D. Well, I have been through a lot of religions from Islam ( Shia,Sunni and Sufism) to Christianity (Baptist,Pentecostal and Evangelical) and not losing my head I analysed the evidence and came to the conclusion that this being "God" probably does not exist according to the evidence that I set in front of myself so I became an Ahteist.

[tret123]

I am Buddhist-Baptist and I believe in Self gratitude... If you're gay who cares? If you're straight who cares? It should only matter if you are happy. And that is what Buddhism teaches! Do want makes you happy and reach your spiritual enlightenment. As long as you don't negativity affect others or yourself. Karma is a main principle that we teach

[fairmaiden]

Christian, Catholic. As long as someone has a good heart, I respect them immensely :)

[mariozplaze]

I'm a proud atheist, even though I do think Christianity has brought some good morals (some of which I choose to follow) I don't believe in God at all. It just seems illogical. But don't worry Christians, I won't try to degrade you, because I'm not an ass like that.

UPDATE:Holy crap I didn't realize that I already posted in here, sorry about that...

[jonosbro]

I'm a Christian, my family are evangelical and go to a charismatic church, but I got tired of the New-Age rock music and decided to try an Anglican Church, because it is the traditional denomination in New Zealand (us being a British country and all).

I love the liturgy and depth of the service and hymns etc, but I hate some of the liberal, "progressive" teachings of the church like gay marriage, acceptance of homosexuality etc. So I am somewhat torn between doctrine and worship/liturgy.

[Screw Attack]

I am an atheist ha. Religion has always seemed illogical to me. I don't really understand how people have faith in a god but I always stay open-minded and never try to be rude :)

[Olliolk]

Hypothetically speaking; what purpose would anything serve to an all powerful being?

[eightpointhunter]

I'm a non-denominational Christian, I hold my views on the Bible, and will listen to and tolerate others views, but there are some things that won't change. I'm also a progressive Christian, which means I believe that God is Okay with the LGBT community and that it is not a sin to be LGBT+.

[TheGuest]

I am a Christian and i must say it has really changed my life for the better.

[Miserabilia]

I am a Christian and i must say it has really changed my life for the better.

So you were converted?

[TheGuest]

So you were converted?

No, i was always a believer but i never actually made it a significant part of my life until recently.

[IconoclasticHeretic]

Recently been studying Buddhism. Was raised in a Baptist foster home though.

[Dreamer98]

I'm born in Roman Catholic familly .. I don't know , sometimes I consider myself atheist , sometimes Catholic .

[Dyri_14]

nordic religion :)

[Olly]

I'd say we're all part of a living force that binds us and the galaxy together; I believe they call it Jediism

[Ridonks_CB]

^^Haha :P

I'm a Muslim and proud :) I don't care what faith anybody else follows/doesn't follow, as long as you're a good person. Though it does get overwhelmimg to see many people bashing other religions...Just because some extremists made bad choices, you can't sum up an entire religion based off of those few :-/ Sadly I've been looked down on a lot because of my religion.

[Fritos43]

I'm agnostic. I'm not sure if I believe in God as in Christian religion, but I do believe in a driving force for the creation of our universe and all events that occur. I do identify with the Discordian religion, as it encompasses my belief of the world.

[itsalex]

Faith is my religion.

[Neverender]

I am Buddhist-Baptist and I believe in Self gratitude... If you're gay who cares? If you're straight who cares? It should only matter if you are happy. And that is what Buddhism teaches! Do want makes you happy and reach your spiritual enlightenment. As long as you don't negativity affect others or yourself. Karma is a main principle that we teach

And that can be taught in the complete absence of religion. In fact, in the complete absence of religion it also prevents the batshit insane Buddhist dictatorship and military junta in Myanmar (Burma) from taking shape.

So I don't see what your buddhist advantage is over me as an athiest. But I certainly see a disadvantage that doesn't exist in Athiesm

[tret123]

And that can be taught in the complete absence of religion. In fact, in the complete absence of religion it also prevents the batshit insane Buddhist dictatorship and military junta in Myanmar (Burma) from taking shape.



So I don't see what your buddhist advantage is over me as an athiest. But I certainly see a disadvantage that doesn't exist in Athiesm


What Buddhist dictatorship, where in history do you see violent Buddhist? No one was even talking about having an advantages? You can be atheist and be a Buddhist as well and you can believe in God and Be a Buddhist. If you're gonna talk, at least know what you're talking about and get your facts straight.

[Neverender]

What Buddhist dictatorship, where in history do you see violent Buddhist? No one was even talking about having an advantages? You can be atheist and be a Buddhist as well and you can believe in God and Be a Buddhist. If you're gonna talk, at least know what you're talking about and get your facts straight.

Notice how peaceful the Buddhists are when their beliefs are challenged. Telling me to get my facts straight or that I can't have an opinion (or if I do, it's wrong).

where in history do you see violent Buddhist?
In Myanmar (Burma), as I said - has had a horrible military dictatorship based on militant, extreme Zen Buddhism since the 1960s. Muslims are killed in scores by Buddhist forces and extremists, you can't get a government job or join the army unless you're buddhist, and the government essentially uses buddhism to repress dissent, encourage pacifism in the wake of their massacres, and use it as a genuine opium of the people.

That's decreased in recent years with a handfull of democratic reforms, but doesn't negate the fact the dictatorship models itself on Buddhism.

You can be atheist and be a Buddhist
That is very roughly true and I'll concede that point to my clumsy original post. It's certainly not as cut and dry as Monotheism v Athiest. However I consider spirituality just as erroneous Atheism is not just the disbelief in god, but also the negation of all of the supernatural. Which is where Buddhism falls. (Do you believe Buddha was immaculately born of a slit in his mother's side? for example). That would be supernatural.

It may also be a disconnect between me and you in that I find Atheism is not only the lack of believe, but it's better termed as "Anti-theism (and Anti-deism)" in that I think supernatural belief is not just objectively incorrect but also a poison and a danger to rational thought and secularism.

[Vlerchan]

But I certainly see a disadvantage that doesn't exist in Athiesm.
Some of the state-atheist states that have existed have been quite vicious.

[Quartz]

I believe that we couldn't possibly know for sure that a God exists unless he gives some concrete unmistakable proof of his existence. Of course, I cannot disprove the existence of a God, because for all we know, he could exist. There is really know way to accurately prove or disprove anything with regards to religion because we do not know enough. Did God make humans or did humans make God? I don't think we can ever be 100% sure. There is just too much that we humans are incapable of understanding.

So I'm Agnostic, and I will always be Agnostic. Well, at least until God proves himself.

[kev99]

I'm an atheist. I don't believe at all in supra-natural entities or phenomens.

[Lovelife090994]

Personally, I'm a Wiccan but I'm also a Witch. I'm a polytheist.

[coltonaustinvt]

Baptist but not a pews and suit & tie and hymn baptist. More contemporary, like Andy Stanley's church.

[ClaraWho]

Hah so I have too much of a life to read all 175 pages of this thread...

Just popped in to say neither Atheism (which means 'not religious' O.o) or Buddhism (which is a philosophy) are religions.

~ Clara

[Microcosm]

Hah so I have too much of a life to read all 175 pages of this thread...

Just popped in to say neither Atheism (which means 'not religious' O.o) or Buddhism (which is a philosophy) are religions.

~ Clara

Buddhism is actually a religion. While some forms of it are not supernatural, some sects of Buddhism regard the Buddha as a god. There are different categories of Buddhism which believe different things. Some are more philosophy-oriented and some are more supernaturally oriented.

As for atheism, I can agree that atheism is more non-religion than religion; however, I believe the OP used the term "religion" as to mean just spiritual philosophy in general or something to that degree.

[ClaraWho]

Buddhism is actually a religion. While some forms of it are not supernatural, some sects of Buddhism regard the Buddha as a god. There are different categories of Buddhism which believe different things. Some are more philosophy-oriented and some are more supernaturally oriented.

As for atheism, I can agree that atheism is more non-religion than religion; however, I believe the OP used the term "religion" as to mean just spiritual philosophy in general or something to that degree.

Entirely disagree on both points. Buddhism was the philosophical teachings of a man who refuted any claim to be a prophet or a god. Ergo followers cannot claim otherwise without it no longer being Buddhism. Religion requires a god(s) or Devine entity. Spirituality is different to religion, as is 'supernatural' by itself. Whilst there may exist people who claim to be 'religious' Buddhists, it doesn't fit the dictionary definition.

Atheism is the absence of religion, not the presence of a specific spiritual philosophy. It irritates me that people refer to aethism as a belief in not believing, which it simply isn't.

We don't have a special term for those who say the tooth-fairy or unicorns don't exist. You aren't afairiest if you disbelieve in fairies, and that doesn't denote you to a collective. It's a eclectic undefined out group. We are all atheists, just some of us take it one God further.

~ Clara

[Microcosm]

Entirely disagree on both points. Buddhism was the philosophical teachings of a man who refuted any claim to be a prophet or a god. Ergo followers cannot claim otherwise without it no longer being Buddhism. Religion requires a god(s) or Devine entity. Spirituality is different to religion, as is 'supernatural' by itself. Whilst there may exist people who claim to be 'religious' Buddhists, it doesn't fit the dictionary definition.

Atheism is the absence of religion, not the presence of a specific spiritual philosophy. It irritates me that people refer to aethism as a belief in not believing, which it simply isn't.

We don't have a special term for those who say the tooth-fairy or unicorns don't exist. You aren't afairiest if you disbelieve in fairies, and that doesn't denote you to a collective. It's a eclectic undefined out group. We are all atheists, just some of us take it one God further.

~ Clara

Okay. It's not really worth debating over to be honest. When I said atheism was a non-religion I meant just that. I never said it was a "religion," but it doesn't matter. There's no point in arguing over whether something fits a definition or not. So, I guess it's whatever.

[NzForever]

No religion, cause thats realistic

[Airrd]

I am Christian and was raised Catholic and I agree with most of their teachings except the ones that conflict with my personal beliefs such as homosexuality and abortion

[Mil1dreded]

Atheist always have been

[Judean Zealot]

Orthodox Jew, with very strong Neo-Platonic tendencies.

[Jaffe]

Other (Please Specify)
I am nothing. Not agnostic, not atheist, not a believer, just nothing.
I don't think any philosophy or religion, or sect within a religion, has all the truth.
Although I suspect the full truth is out there, but it's probably broken into pieces, and every religion and belief has a little part of it.

I probably subscribe more to the beliefs of original Buddhism more than any other religion or idea, but I don't really believe in it as a religion, either. But a lot of the original teachings -many now forgotten or pushed aside- are things I believe in. Like, that God, if we choose to believe in one, exists and lives within us. And that there is some point of eternal rest, real death, for us if we earn it. And I could go on, but you get the idea. Religion changes so much, even Christianity is not really the things Jesus taught, just as modern Buddhism is not what Buddha taught.

[Abhorrence]

I'm an Atheist.

[Judean Zealot]

I probably subscribe more to the beliefs of original Buddhism more than any other religion or idea
You do realize that Buddhism is not really compatible with your later ideas, right?

[Jaffe]

You do realize that Buddhism is not really compatible with your later ideas, right?

OMG I am such an idiot sometimes. And I admit it.
So looking back at the book I read (not at the actual book, but at my library record to see if I was totally messed up, which I am) it was a book about the adaptation of Buddhism in India. So probably a lot of Hinduism mixed in? Which would definitely explain the god-lives-inside-us thing. Plus, its true that I believe there might have been a creator, which negates the Buddha. Buddha was not non-theist, but did negate the existence of a creator. So heh....

What I really subscribe to, is a conglomeration of beliefs from all religions, and the negation of other beliefs of all religions, to make what I feel is right. For me.

How's that? And thanks for being brave enough to call me on that.

[Judean Zealot]

So looking back at the book I read (not at the actual book, but at my library record to see if I was totally messed up, which I am) it was a book about the adaptation of Buddhism in India. So probably a lot of Hinduism mixed in? Which would definitely explain the god-lives-inside-us thing. Plus, its true that I believe there might have been a creator, which negates the Buddha. Buddha was not non-theist, but did negate the existence of a creator. So heh....


So I would say something like Hari Krishna? (In respect to divinity, at least)

[Stronk Serb]

Atheist with neo-pagan tendencies.

[Jaffe]

So I would say something like Hari Krishna? (In respect to divinity, at least)

Perhaps. Or perhaps, just Nothing. I like parts of most religions, but I really dont spend any time thinking of any god or any diety that I could possibly worship or that might cause me to feel guilty. My parents do a fine job of that, without god.

The part of Buddhism that attracted me was the commitment to the alleviation of suffering. That combined with pacifism, would be the ideal "religion". But I really could scrap all the worship and other god-stuff. Most religions only pretend to care about either of those things.

[dxcxdzv]

Catholic.

[tonymontana99]

Some religions are in dire need of a new crusade :)

[Collinsworthington]

what up:] my faith kind of weird. im chistian but i dont belive in jesus or hell or the bible!! a little stange but i do belive in god and heaven. that me for ya :)!!!:yeah:

that would be closer to judaism

[Judean Zealot]

that would be closer to judaism

Err... what?

[Collinsworthington]

Err... what?

i said since he doesn't believe in jesus or hell that his beliefs would closer resemble judaism

[Judean Zealot]

i said since he doesn't believe in jesus or hell that his beliefs would closer resemble judaism

Well Jews wrote the Bible and most definitely believe in a hell. The only thing we don't believe is that non Jews automatically go to hell. If a non Jew is a upright and moral person he will go to heaven as well.

I've heard this notion over the interwebz before, that Jews don't believe in the afterlife. It's a complete fabrication.

[Collinsworthington]

Well Jews wrote the Bible and most definitely believe in a hell. The only thing we don't believe is that non Jews automatically go to hell. If a non Jew is a upright and moral person he will go to heaven as well.

I've heard this notion over the interwebz before, that Jews don't believe in the afterlife. It's a complete fabrication.

ah thank you, im nowhere near an expert, thanks :)

[Judean Zealot]

ah thank you, im nowhere near an expert, thanks :)

Although I would add that the Talmud is quite clear that the afterlife is a purely spiritual existence; Fido the dog won't be there.

[Drewboyy]

I believe in the Roman Catholic church. I don't know about other religions really, but from a complete religious viewpoint we guide other people to convert to Christianity- Not force them. Which is why the pope said that, because of the extremists, who behead Catholic's and other forms of Christianity.

[Gwen]

Some religions are in dire need of a new crusade :)

I can only hope this is just a joke post//

[Judean Zealot]

I believe in the Roman Catholic church. I don't know about other religions really, but from a complete religious viewpoint we guide other people to convert to Christianity- Not force them. Which is why the pope said that, because of the extremists, who behead Catholic's and other forms of Christianity.

Tell that to the Jesuits and Dominicans.

[tonymontana99]

I can only hope this is just a joke post//

It isn't. Some religions are just too backwards to have any place in this world. They're either too barbaric or too nonsensical that it ultimately makes those who adhere to them become antisocial and unproductive. Satanism, for example. How many kids you see taking pictures of themselves in the mirror wearing dark, edgy clothes and pentagrams, thinking that it's "cool" and "dark", when in reality it makes them look like a bunch of creepy losers? And don't get me started on Islam and the goddamn Sharia law.

Multiculturalism is abhorrent... It's more than clear that we can't get along with each other, why bother?

By the way, why isn't Catholicism here?

Double post merged. ~Microcosm

[mattsmith48]

Atheism isn't a religion

[Left Now]

Atheism isn't a religion

What is religion anyway?

[mattsmith48]

What is religion anyway?

A religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheism is exactly not that

[lliam]

I think religion is basically faith. It doesn't matter whether you believe in supernatural beings or in any political and social ideals or only in the technical progress, etc. Whatever someone may believe a true believer will put his faith or religion above everything else. That's the reason why religion causes pretty much trouble around the world.


I now believe that atheism is just a religion of believe in nonbelieving.

And brought up as an atheist this realization shocked me deeply.

[Left Now]

A religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheism is exactly not that

Wrong.Religion has several meanings among people and most of them believe in what you said about it.The word that we use in my mother language for this English word religion simply means method of living,not anything like the sentence above.Atheism is a method of living too isn't it?

[mattsmith48]

I think religion is basically faith. It doesn't matter whether you believe in supernatural beings or in any political and social ideals or only in the technical progress, etc. Whatever someone may believe a true believer will put his faith or religion above everything else. That's the reason why religion causes pretty much trouble around the world.


I now believe that atheism is just a religion of believe in nonbelieving.

And brought up as an atheist this realization shocked me deeply.

Wrong.Religion has several meanings among people and most of them believe in what you said about it.The word that we use in my mother language for this English word religion simply means method of living,not anything like the sentence above.Atheism is a method of living too isn't it?

Faith and religion isn't the same thing religion is believing in a supernatural being that created the universe and/or humans without any evidence. Faith is having confidence or trust in a person or thing. Like when Robert Kraft said he put is faith in Roger Goddell and the NFL the NFL isn't his religion he just believed that the league would do the right thing.

Religion is a method of living only if every single thing you do is base on your religion like some Muslim do. Atheism isn't a method of living vegetarianism is a method of living but not eating meat at all is a religion only if the supernatural being you believe in said is bad.

[lliam]

Faith and religion isn't the same thing religion is believing in a supernatural being that created the universe and/or humans without any evidence. Faith is having confidence or trust in a person or thing. .


sorry, can't agree with that.

Faith is the base of every religion. Religion is what it is so called an extended belief, e.g. if personal beliefing extends to a common faith and it is marked with all the attributes of a social life of an society.

And as I've written above, it's really irrelevant whether a the center of an extended belief/religion is a being like God or any non-personal ideals.


If the core of faith (whether it's personal or expanded to an religion) gets an elevation in the lifes and experiences of it's believers ... means if it's more worth than the fate of any individual believers

... than any kind of idealism occupies the position of a religion.

[mattsmith48]

sorry, can't agree with that.

Faith is the base of every religion. Religion is what it is so called an extended belief, e.g. if personal beliefing extends to a common faith and it is marked with all the attributes of a social life of an society.

And as I've written above, it's really irrelevant whether a the center of an extended belief/religion is a being like God or any non-personal ideals.


If the core of faith (whether it's personal or expanded to an religion) gets an elevation in the lifes and experiences of it's believers ... means if it's more worth than the fate of any individual believers

... than any kind of idealism occupies the position of a religion.

Your right when you say faith is the base of every religion cuz there is no evidence that it's true, like you the only way you can believe the bible is true is with faith. You can't have religion with out faith but you can have faith with out religion. Like I said faith is having confidence or trust in a person or thing. Thing can be religion or god but it can be anything else like democracy or communism those 2 last examples are things that someone can have faith in it but they aren't religions they are ideas. Atheism is neither a religion or base on faith. Atheist don't believe in any religion because of a lack of evidence. Like Atheist don't have faith in the bible because there is no evidence it's true and there is alot of evidence it's not true. They don't just believe there is no God they look at the evidence and conclude that there is no God.

[lliam]

Something you can only believe, is faith. If faith unites people into a community, it's called religion.

And ideas, regardless of their content they have, are the basis for any kind of faith.

I'm just an atheist, but I think, as atheism is sometimes lived, that's nothing more than religion. The fundamental somebody defends his ideas, the more intense is his faith. So here an idea elevates to faith. And in a community it is religion.

e.g. if you don't see the principle, you can't say that Buddhism is a religion. Although Buddhism is very transcendent and stuff, it is a religion that originally knows no deity.
Buddha isn't God or any kind of it.

But we shouldn't go around in circles. Perhaps we can agree, that what I call religion, e.g. atheism, works under certain conditions similar to a religion, according to your definition of religion.

[mattsmith48]

Something you can only believe, is faith. If faith unites people into a community, it's called religion.

And ideas, regardless of their content they have, are the basis for any kind of faith.

I'm just an atheist, but I think, as atheism is sometimes lived, that's nothing more than religion. The fundamental somebody defends his ideas, the more intense is his faith. So here an idea elevates to faith. And in a community it is religion.

e.g. if you don't see the principle, you can't say that Buddhism is a religion. Although Buddhism is very transcendent and stuff, it is a religion that originally knows no deity.
Buddha isn't God or any kind of it.

But we shouldn't go around in circles. Perhaps we can agree, that what I call religion, e.g. atheism, works under certain conditions similar to a religion, according to your definition of religion.

Buddhist believe that when you die you come back as an animal it's kinda a religion. Buddha more like a prophet like Jesus or Muhammad. Satanism is a religion but Satan isn't a god according to the bible hes an angel.

In my definition of religion i said it's the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheist don't believe in any god due to a lack of evidence. Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

[lliam]

[sigh] I see, we can't agree on any level. You are too fixated on these supernatural beings.

But please don't call gods superhuman. They are far from to be somehow (super)human in any kind. Only our limited mind gives'em human form or human like character traits or such.

[Gwen]

Buddhist believe that when you die you come back as an animal it's kinda a religion. Buddha more like a prophet like Jesus or Muhammad. Satanism is a religion but Satan isn't a god according to the bible hes an angel.

In my definition of religion i said it's the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheist don't believe in any god due to a lack of evidence. Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Atheism is not a religion, it is literally a lack of religion. Satanism is a religious philosophy. Buddha means 'One who is awake', anyone can be Buddha. Siddhartha was awaken and he gained the title Buddha, in a sense anyone can become Buddha and titles cannot be prophets. Please do not try and twist things. :)

[mattsmith48]

[sigh] I see, we can't agree on any level. You are too fixated on these supernatural beings.

But please don't call gods superhuman. They are far from to be somehow (super)human in any kind. Only our limited mind gives'em human form or human like character traits or such.

Atheism is not a religion, it is literally a lack of religion. Satanism is a religious philosophy. Buddha means 'One who is awake', anyone can be Buddha. Siddhartha was awaken and he gained the title Buddha, in a sense anyone can become Buddha and titles cannot be prophets. Please do not try and twist things. :)

lliam Every religion says God created man in his own image so superhuman is a correct term.

Complicated Thank you for clearing that up on Buddah saves me to read Wikipedia :lol: Satanist worship the devil so yes it is a religion. Im the one who is saying Atheism isn't a religion it's lliam who is saying it is.

[Judean Zealot]

lliam Every religion says God created man in his own image so superhuman is a correct term.


No intelligent rendering of religion goes along with this reading. The "form" of God in man is that which makes man distinct from animals, i.e. godliness or intellect.

No classical religion, not Judaism, not Christianity, and not Islam, consider God to be in any way comparable to any of his creations.

[mattsmith48]

No intelligent rendering of religion goes along with this reading. The "form" of God in man is that which makes man distinct from animals, i.e. godliness or intellect.

No classical religion, not Judaism, not Christianity, and not Islam, consider God to be in any way comparable to any of his creations.

What are you talking in the book of genesis wish both Christians and Jews believe in it says ''So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.''

[Judean Zealot]

What are you talking in the book of genesis wish both Christians and Jews believe in it says ''So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.''

And I'm telling you how Maimonides and Aquinas (among others) interpret the verse.

[mattsmith48]

And I'm telling you how Maimonides and Aquinas (among others) interpret the verse.

What is it to interpret other then God created men base on what he look like?

[Judean Zealot]

What is it to interpret other then God created men base on what he look like?

That's an absurd reading and inconsistent on just about every philosophical level.

The Form of God is what makes man into man, as opposed to an animal. The form of God does not mean "of the same nature/appearance of God". It refers to the Godliness in man, which is his soul.

[mattsmith48]

The Form of God is what makes man into man, as opposed to an animal. The form of God does not mean "of the same nature/appearance of God". It refers to the Godliness in man, which is his soul.

That I agree with cuz like God, the soul most likely doesn't exist

[Judean Zealot]

That I agree with cuz like God, the soul most likely doesn't exist

Fun fact. Psychology means study of the soul. Again, in the religious traditions that you know nothing of (yet still insist on commenting on) the soul is equated with the intellect.

Either way, here's Maimonides (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp011.htm) for you.

[mattsmith48]

Fun fact. Psychology means study of the soul. Again, in the religious traditions that you know nothing of (yet still insist on commenting on) the soul is equated with the intellect.

Wrong Psychology is the study of mind and behavior. Mind and soul aren't the same thing.

How can you know if I know or don't know about what religious traditions?

[Judean Zealot]

Wrong Psychology is the study of mind and behavior. Mind and soul aren't the same thing.
Psyche is Greek for what?
The soul is the self, period. Once again, you display an abysmal ignorance of classical theology.

How can you know if I know or don't know about what religious traditions?

Your ignorance is blatant through the ideas you express. Nobody who has any sort of background in theology would say the nonsense you are saying, in particular this shite:
What is it to interpret other then God created men base on what he look like?

[lliam]

lliam Every religion says God created man in his own image so superhuman is a correct term.


OK. I'm not a Christian, nor do I belong to one of the main religions. Only to this little religion of those believers in nonbelieving. :D

Superhuman might be the right term, if one is a Christian or a religious scholar or so. I also don't know to use those terms correctly in English. In German, such terms also have a different meaning. Nevertheless, I tend to develop my own definitions whether in German, English or French, etc.

One of which is that everything that exists can't be supernatural. Cause everything must be natural if it exists, even if it isn't necessarily something that corresponds to the human physical realm of experience.

So, if I assume that God and all that is connected with it really exists, I can't claim that God is something supernatural. Therefore God can't be superhuman. It/he is just a being of a higher order or so.

Also the physique of such a being can't be equal to the physique of humans. So, the sentence "God created man in his own image" must be interpreted completely differently.


The probably most appropriate interpretation to me would be this:


"God created man in his imagination."


.

[mattsmith48]

Wrong Psychology is the study of mind and behavior. Mind and soul aren't the same thing.

How can you know if I know or don't know about what religious traditions?

Psyche is Greek for what?
The soul is the self, period. Once again, you display an abysmal ignorance of classical theology.
What of this as to do with the soul?
Wrong Psychology is the study of mind and behavior.

Your ignorance is blatant through the ideas you express. Nobody who has any sort of background in theology would say the nonsense you are saying, in particular this shite:

How is this ignorance on the bible
What is it to interpret other then God created men base on what he look like?

[mattsmith48]

OK. I'm not a Christian, nor do I belong to one of the main religions. Only to this little religion of those believers in nonbelieving. :D
What religion are you talking about?

Superhuman might be the right term, if one is a Christian or a religious scholar or so. I also don't know to use those terms correctly in English. In German, such terms also have a different meaning. Nevertheless, I tend to develop my own definitions whether in German, English or French, etc.

One of which is that everything that exists can't be supernatural. Cause everything must be natural if it exists, even if it isn't necessarily something that corresponds to the human physical realm of experience.

So, if I assume that God and all that is connected with it really exists, I can't claim that God is something supernatural. Therefore God can't be superhuman. It/he is just a being of a higher order or so.

Also the physique of such a being can't be equal to the physique of humans. So, the sentence "God created man in his own image" must be interpreted completely differently.


The probably most appropriate interpretation to me would be this:


"God created man in his imagination."

That interpretation means we are inside God's head

[StoppingTime]

Atheism is not a religion, it is literally a lack of religion.

So I rarely post around here, but this is an interesting question (to me at least) so I may as well weigh in.

Atheism, at least how it's portrayed for the most part on the internet, seems to be more than a lack of belief in a Supreme or Higher being; it's more of a belief in the lack of belief in said being, if that makes sense. Granted this doesn't apply to all atheists, I'm sure there's plenty who simply don't care either way about religion or a god or what have you - it's just irrelevant to them. But then there are the ones who believe so strongly that there simply can't be such a Being, because of science, or lack of evidence, or an endless amount of other reasons that may or may not have any logical ground. This is when the boundaries of what is and isn't a religion get blurred, at least to me. Sure, they're not following any organized religion or community or belief system, but part of their life is determined because of this belief in, well, nothing. The belief is what makes it more than what "atheist" is usually interpreted to be, true atheism would have to be irreligious (literally without regard to a religion or belief system).
But I'll stop rambling, just wanted to share some thoughts

[Gwen]

So I rarely post around here, but this is an interesting question (to me at least) so I may as well weigh in.

Atheism, at least how it's portrayed for the most part on the internet, seems to be more than a lack of belief in a Supreme or Higher being; it's more of a belief in the lack of belief in said being, if that makes sense. Granted this doesn't apply to all atheists, I'm sure there's plenty who simply don't care either way about religion or a god or what have you - it's just irrelevant to them. But then there are the ones who believe so strongly that there simply can't be such a Being, because of science, or lack of evidence, or an endless amount of other reasons that may or may not have any logical ground. This is when the boundaries of what is and isn't a religion get blurred, at least to me. Sure, they're not following any organized religion or community or belief system, but part of their life is determined because of this belief in, well, nothing. The belief is what makes it more than what "atheist" is usually interpreted to be, true atheism would have to be irreligious (literally without regard to a religion or belief system).
But I'll stop rambling, just wanted to share some thoughts

You weren't particularly rambling Steven, thank you for sharing your thoughts. After reading through it twice I can agree with what you said, very interesting points.

[Judean Zealot]

What of this as to do with the soul?

That Psyche means soul. Point is, the soul is not an especially religious term, and most religious scholars call the intellect the soul. It would be rather interesting if the intellect didn't really exist, right?



How is this ignorance on the bible

You obviously don't know much about religion if you think it's teachings are reducible to the Bible.

[mattsmith48]

That Psyche means soul. Point is, the soul is not an especially religious term, and most religious scholars call the intellect the soul. It would be rather interesting if the intellect didn't really exist, right?

Yes psyche means soul. The word psychology use to mean what you said the study of the soul and spirit they later change it because people later realize there is no evidence that the soul exist. It's now the study of the mind and behavior.

That being said. A soul is a spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal. That sounds kinda religious to me. The intellect is the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. How is it the same then a soul.

You obviously don't know much about religion if you think it's teachings are reducible to the Bible.

How do you teach a Christianity with out using what's in the bible?

[Judean Zealot]

Yes psyche means soul. The word psychology use to mean what you said the study of the soul and spirit they later change it because people later realize there is no evidence that the soul exist. It's now the study of the mind and behavior.

That being said. A soul is a spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal. That sounds kinda religious to me. The intellect is the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. How is it the same then a soul.

The immortality of the soul is a philosophical rather than religious concept. Both Plato and Aristotle believed it, and the arguments set forth for it by all subsequent philosophers are of a philosophical rather than religious nature.


How do you teach a Christianity with out using what's in the bible?

Of course the Bible is an important part of Christianity. But that doesn't mean that no other source of religious insight exists.

[mattsmith48]

The immortality of the soul is a philosophical rather than religious concept. Both Plato and Aristotle believed it, and the arguments set forth for it by all subsequent philosophers are of a philosophical rather than religious nature.

How is this not a religious concept?
A soul is a spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal



Of course the Bible is an important part of Christianity. But that doesn't mean that no other source of religious insight exists.
What are they?

[Judean Zealot]

How is this not a religious concept?

How is this possibly a religious concept? The immortality of the soul is a concept based on the substance and relationship between the body and the intellect. The approach to that relationship is irrespective of the existence of God, and is purely philosophical.




What are they?

In Judaism that would be the Oral Law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah) as expressed in the Talmud, in Catholicism it is the Magisterium (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium), and in all the Abrahamic religions, a robust Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy.

[mattsmith48]

How is this possibly a religious concept? The immortality of the soul is a concept based on the substance and relationship between the body and the intellect. The approach to that relationship is irrespective of the existence of God, and is purely philosophical.

The soul is a religious concept it it was made up by religions. The immortality of the soul is another religious concept made up by people who just can't accept that when you die that's it, there is no better life after you die.

[Judean Zealot]

The soul is a religious concept it it was made up by religions. The immortality of the soul is another religious concept made up by people who just can't accept that when you die that's it, there is no better life after you die.

I'm dealing with you in good faith, but apparently I can't expect the same behavior in return. Would you care to actually address any of the many points I've made in response to you over the course of the past two pages, or will you continue to blurb out your sound bytes without actually engaging with the points I lay out?

[mattsmith48]

I'm dealing with you in good faith, but apparently I can't expect the same behavior in return. Would you care to actually address any of the many points I've made in response to you over the course of the past two pages, or will you continue to blurb out your sound bytes without actually engaging with the points I lay out?

what points you keep saying the same thing over and over again

[Judean Zealot]

what points you keep saying the same thing over and over again

Because you're bloody not responding!

I'll say it again, and respond for heaven's sake. The arguments presented for the immortality of the soul are not contingent on God's existence, nor on the existence of any form of objective morality. And atheist can make them. Anyone can. The fact that religions do make these arguments doesn't make the arguments 'religious' any more than the Pythagorean Theorem would be 'religious' if the church considered it dogmatic.

[mattsmith48]

Because you're bloody not responding!

I'll say it again, and respond for heaven's sake. The arguments presented for the immortality of the soul are not contingent on God's existence, nor on the existence of any form of objective morality. And atheist can make them. Anyone can. The fact that religions do make these arguments doesn't make the arguments 'religious' any more than the Pythagorean Theorem would be 'religious' if the church considered it dogmatic.

Let say all religions are bullshit there is no heaven, there is no hell. What happen to the soul when you die? where does it goes? My point is the concept of the immortality of the soul needs religion to work

[Judean Zealot]

Let say all religions are bullshit there is no heaven, there is no hell. What happen to the soul when you die? where does it goes? My point is the concept of the immortality of the soul needs religion to work

Who said anything has to happen? The souls existence isn't contingent on it doing anything.

For the record, most classical religions don't view paradise or hell as actual locations, but more like states of being. If one develops the soul it will be in a more robust state than if one neglects it.

[mattsmith48]

Who said anything has to happen? The souls existence isn't contingent on it doing anything.

For the record, most classical religions don't view paradise or hell as actual locations, but more like states of being. If one develops the soul it will be in a more robust state than if one neglects it.

If the soul exist whats the point for it if it doesn't do anything?

What religions I'm a former Christian and the way it was teach to me Heaven and Hell are actual places. And I don't think the Muslims who slam planes into buildings believe heaven is a real place and the 72 virgins are real too.

[Judean Zealot]

If the soul exist whats the point for it if it doesn't do anything?
Well, you're the atheist here. Why would it have to have a purpose.

What religions I'm a former Christian and the way it was teach to me Heaven and Hell are actual places. And I don't think the Muslims who slam planes into buildings believe heaven is a real place and the 72 virgins are real too.

Well, you've apparently been taught a very foolish form of Protestant Christian fundamentalism (especially considering that you thought God had human form and that the Bible is the only source of religious knowledge). The same goes for the above Muslims.

The majority of historical Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers say as I do.

[mattsmith48]

Well, you're the atheist here. Why would it have to have a purpose.

Every part of the human body that doesn't have a purpose are only there because we needed them at some point before we evolved at a point were we didn't need it any more. If the soul exist and there is no reason that it is something that our ancestors needed but we don't or that it is just there and do nothing every part of the human body have today as or had a purpose at some point.

[Judean Zealot]

Every part of the human body that doesn't have a purpose are only there because we needed them at some point before we evolved at a point were we didn't need it any more. If the soul exist and there is no reason that it is something that our ancestors needed but we don't or that it is just there and do nothing every part of the human body have today as or had a purpose at some point.

True, but that's only in regards to the limbs themselves and their functions. In that sense we can say that our souls serve the blatantly obvious function of setting us above other animals.

The souls eternity, however, does not need a purpose, as it is a secondary nature rising from the nature of the soul, and not an organism in itself.

[mattsmith48]

True, but that's only in regards to the limbs themselves and their functions. In that sense we can say that our souls serve the blatantly obvious function of setting us above other animals.

Thats our Intelligence, Technology and the fact we can kill every single one if we want that put us above the other animals

The souls eternity, however, does not need a purpose, as it is a secondary nature rising from the nature of the soul, and not an organism in itself.

If something that is suppose to be eternal but doesn't do shit sound kinda useless.

[ATeenageLife123]

So I am Christian. I am the only Christian in my house. My parents don't follow any religion and are against some of my beliefs. Now, I don't criticize other people and their religion, but I have heard Christians that I know say, This religion(Fill in the Blank) is wrong and they don't believe right. Honestly in my opinion, a person is a person, you believe what you believe and your gonna be alright!

[Judean Zealot]

Thats our Intelligence, Technology and the fact we can kill every single one if we want that put us above the other animals

And as I've said before, most religions equate the intellect and the soul.


If something that is suppose to be eternal but doesn't do shit sound kinda useless.

But it's eternity doesn't need a "use". It just arises naturally from the nature of what the soul is. Just as the existence of the decomposition/regeneration cycles of biology are technically unnecessary, yet they still exist due to the nature of organic things.

[mattsmith48]

And as I've said before, most religions equate the intellect and the soul.

And science you know the stuff that is not made up says the human intelligence is due to evolution not a invisible force that doesn't exist.

But it's eternity doesn't need a "use". It just arises naturally from the nature of what the soul is. Just as the existence of the decomposition/regeneration cycles of biology are technically unnecessary, yet they still exist due to the nature of organic things.

Why is the decomposition of organism is unnecessary?

[THJKIGB]

I grew up Catholic, but we rarely ever attend Mass.

[Sweeper]

My family is Church of Christ, which basically means we believe whatever we want to, because it's about the loosest Christian religion around. That doesn't mean we aren't devout, it just means that we don't really have very many rules or guidelines. My mother was raised an Atheist and converted later in life, so she picked the one that made the most sense to her.

[mattsmith48]

My family is Church of Christ, which basically means we believe whatever we want to, because it's about the loosest Christian religion around. That doesn't mean we aren't devout, it just means that we don't really have very many rules or guidelines. My mother was raised an Atheist and converted later in life, so she picked the one that made the most sense to her.

A religion that make sense? it actually exist? you have to tell me wish one

[Vlerchan]

Atheist don't believe in any god due to a lack of evidence [...] They don't just believe there is no God they look at the evidence and conclude that there is no God.
Lack of evidence =/= Evidence of lack.

You're commiting a pretty basic logical fallacy for someone so esteemed and logical, Mr. Atheist.

[mattsmith48]

Lack of evidence =/= Evidence of lack.

You're commiting a pretty basic logical fallacy for someone so esteemed and logical, Mr. Atheist.

what are you talkin about

[Vlerchan]

what are you talkin about
Your argument is illogical.

[Jean Poutine]

Religion is a weird thing for me.

Since I was about 14 I've felt something calling me to a life of religious contemplation, either as a priest or as a monk, but at the same time I lack faith. I'm a staunch agnostic and I've always felt like faith was impossible for me, that I just don't have the capacity.

So I'm stuck in the uncomfortable position of feeling attracted to a life in the service of something I don't particularly believe in. When I was younger I wanted to be a priest but these days I would rather be a monk. I read about monks and God, that life sounds absolutely perfect. A true utopia. If I could fix my faith problem I think I would be off to the monastery as soon as my studies are done.

But I really can't. People say they look all around and see God, so I look all around and I just see grass, flowers, trees, people, birds. There's no signature, no real feeling that this world needed a creator. Some say they look inwards, so I look inwards and feel only void. Always felt that way, empty inside. I think it's due to my being very bad with emotions. Some say to ask Him to show Himself to you, so I do, and he never does.

So I guess I can't answer the call.

[Sweeper]

A religion that make sense? it actually exist? you have to tell me wish one

As opposed to believing that nothing suddenly erupted into something and somehow managed to form free-thinking life forms? :P

[Vlerchan]

As opposed to believing that nothing suddenly erupted into something and somehow managed to form free-thinking life forms? :P
In regards to the former points, there's no set belief for atheists.

In regards to the latter, abiogenisis.

[mattsmith48]

Your argument is illogical.

Atheist don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence
They don't just believe there is no God they look at the evidence and conclude that there is no God.

what is illogical in that?
As opposed to believing that nothing suddenly erupted into something and somehow managed to form free-thinking life forms? :P

Where did you learn science? that doesn't even make sense!

[Vlerchan]

Atheist don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence
They don't just believe there is no God they look at the evidence and conclude that there is no God.

what is illogical in that?
It's not what the evidence necessarily infers as I explained previous.

If no evidence exists there's two conclusions that can be drawn:
God doesn't exist.
God exists and we don't have the tools to determine this.
You're unnecessarily eliminating the latter one.

[Desuetude]

So I edited out my post in 2012 and never posted again, brill. Now I can actually think for myself and don't just tag along with the religion I was born into, I can safely say I'm atheist.

[everlong]

I guess I'm agnostic. I don't really care for religion and I don't think there's a way to tell, so why bother arguing.

[Unicorn007]

Im a Christian but i don't go to Church

[Tris]

I am baptized as a Roman Catholic, but I am heavily in the Occult and my Religion has become more universal. I don't like sticking to one Religion, I like to study them all and find the single thread that is connecting all the knowledge and symbols in every Religion.

[Judean Zealot]

I am baptized as a Roman Catholic, but I am heavily in the Occult and my Religion has become more universal. I don't like sticking to one Religion, I like to study them all and find the single thread that is connecting all the knowledge and symbols in every Religion.

Dan Brownism?

[Jinglebottom]

I was born Druze but secretly identify as atheist (to avoid the wrath of everyone around me).

[Tris]

Dan Brownism?

Just Occultism/Hermeticism. Seems most Religions of today stem from or have a lot of Hermetic influences/ideas

[Hunhura]

Had been catholic for 7 years, now 16 yo and atheist [emoji14]
The change of the old world view and realizing that no one in this galaxy cares about us was a hard, sad thing. Yeah, I've been taught this since early childhood..religion is a tradition in my country (western europe)
Anyways now I have not any of these questions about god, people, which were just blowing my mind, everything took its place:)
I just felt no religion fits me, alignes with my views on life;)
Anyways now I can finally say I am really free :D

[Judean Zealot]

Just Occultism/Hermeticism. Seems most Religions of today stem from or have a lot of Hermetic influences/ideas

That was meant to be a dig at The Da Vinci Code.

I would tend to say that paganism derived it's mysteries from mathematics and reason, and as such they are close to the truth of the Supreme Force.

[Arkansasguy]

Religion is a weird thing for me.

Since I was about 14 I've felt something calling me to a life of religious contemplation, either as a priest or as a monk, but at the same time I lack faith. I'm a staunch agnostic and I've always felt like faith was impossible for me, that I just don't have the capacity.

So I'm stuck in the uncomfortable position of feeling attracted to a life in the service of something I don't particularly believe in. When I was younger I wanted to be a priest but these days I would rather be a monk. I read about monks and God, that life sounds absolutely perfect. A true utopia. If I could fix my faith problem I think I would be off to the monastery as soon as my studies are done.

But I really can't. People say they look all around and see God, so I look all around and I just see grass, flowers, trees, people, birds. There's no signature, no real feeling that this world needed a creator. Some say they look inwards, so I look inwards and feel only void. Always felt that way, empty inside. I think it's due to my being very bad with emotions. Some say to ask Him to show Himself to you, so I do, and he never does.

So I guess I can't answer the call.

I'd encourage you to look into Aquinas's arguments for God's existence, particularly the argument from motion. Or at the many miracles of Christianity. If it's just a matter of being convinced intellectually, there's a lot out there to go on.

[Judean Zealot]

I'd encourage you to look into Aquinas's arguments for God's existence, particularly the argument from motion. Or at the many miracles of Christianity. If it's just a matter of being convinced intellectually, there's a lot out there to go on.

I definitely agree with the suggestion to look at the scholastics- particularly Aquinas and Scotus (even though I am more of a Platonic Stoic myself). I would also recommend this blog for somebody interested in general scholasticism: Edward Feser (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.il/?m=1). Feser's books, in particular Aquinas and Neo-Scholastic Essays are both wonderfully written and full of content. And while I'm rambling, there is a pretty much Catholic forum which I frequent with (practically) no idiots, just content. http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index.php

Ultimately, the basic theistic model for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is all the same, setting aside trinitarian doctrine (which even Aquinas fumbles with).

[Awakened Sin]

Proud to be a Roman Catholic!

[Jamesclarke]

I don't believe in any religion because rather than spending my life thinking about and following some sometimes harmful and always unverifiable words in a book, I just like to go with the things that actually have some evidence to support them. I have a lot of problems with religion but I also understand why people follow these religions. I'd actually really like to be able to believe in religion so I wouldn't have to worry about fading from existence upon death. However like I said I can't genuinely believe in it because it just seems way too far fetched to believe in. To me I view someone being brought up to believe in a religion as being pretty much the same as if somone was to bring a child up to believe Harry Potter was a factual account of history and that they should defend said belief with their life. Still though religions like Christianity have their ups like enforcing good morals and promoting ideas like simply being a good person even if they can dip into the insane discrimination area sometimes.

[Goldenshark123]

I don't believe in any creator, but hey that's just my opinion

[Sublime Demonz]

My mom and the majority of that side of the family are Christians of a Baptist church. I was raised to be the same, and for a while I followed their religion. But as I got older and started to think more for myself, I don't really believe in anything specific. I think there may be some higher power, but I don't feel too confident in saying there is a Heaven or Hell as opposed to an afterlife in general. I have my own beliefs according to what I personally feel is right, but I respect the beliefs of others regardless.

[etfboy]

I'm one of those people who were raised in a catholic environment and as I grew older realizing that believing on something that is just said on a book is just absurd for me and that book just makes the world as it is now. Plenty of hypocrites and bigots is the result of it all. but no offense to those who actually believe. I respect on what others believe but its like really bad if they kept rubbing on your face like"oh hey it says here that ____ and you are wrong". As long as they respect me then I'll respect them as simple as that.

[BenF-22]

I voted Wicca, but I'd say my beliefs are more of a mix between Wicca and Druidism. I believe in Cernunnos and Brigid as the God and Goddess, and I also believe that when you die, you are brought to "Summerland" where your soul reflects on the lessons you learned in life, celebrates with your ancestors, and is then reincarnated.

[adamchiller]

Any other Jews here?

[TheFlyer]

I am a Roman Catholic.

[mahony0509]

Roman Catholic. Ireland is predominantly catholic, so I've been brought up believing in this.

[Zbmrnb16]

While I don't believe in a god, I still feel a strong connection with Judaism, so I'm what they call an agnostic jew.

[Judean Zealot]

While I don't believe in a god, I still feel a strong connection with Judaism, so I'm what they call an agnostic jew.

What's your parents' background? Reform Judaism?

[yeehaw]

I don't really believe that there is any God or Jesus, or any other ethereal beings that do not live with us on Earth. I went to a CofE (Church of England - Christian) school until I was 11 and they forced religion into you, and we were made to go to church, and it all seemed a bit sketchy really but I never really rebelled away from the norm. When I turned 12 and moved to a multicultural school, I began to think a lot more for myself, and became more educated with the news and the bad things that happen, and I thought to myself that if there is some supreme being, why is their rape? Torture? Molestation? There is, of course, bad in the good and vice versa, but God would have to be the creator of these things, right?

Although I do find it funny that homophobic and transphobic people say that "Leviticus said that being gay is a sin", but those people also tend to forget he also said that getting haircuts is also a sin.

[Moriya]

Agnostic theist. I believe in God, but I'm sometimes wary about their existence.

[Tim987]

The fact that there is a please specify on christianity is kinda sad. Christianity is the belife that jesus came down from heaven died for us rose again took away our sins so that we can be in friendship with god. Christian branches likr 7 day creationists the people who belove the world was actuallu created in 7 days is noy christianity and they have lots of other things wrong. And the other major bible belts in america have bits wrong to...

[Tim987]

I am christian the origional and right verson

[Judean Zealot]

I am christian the origional and right verson

The Jerusalem Church?

[phuckphace]

I figured this would go best in here

http://i.imgur.com/HAKyqoR.png

SCIENCE: THE POETRY OF REALITY http://i.imgur.com/Ci6vdDb.png

is it possible to be more pretentious? I doubt it.

reality, as opposed to the "fantasy" of religious faith amirite? this is why I hate GNU-Atheists so much. religion is strongly intertwined with the realities of man's existence, dumbass, that's the whole reason it exists.

[Judean Zealot]

I love how New Atheists love to point out the scope and variety of mankind's religious experience as an indicator that religion holds no truth. Like, surely the fact that every society to ever exist has seen the need to deify something indicates that religion is an inherent element of the psyche?