Topic Index
Poll: What's your religion?


How would you describe your religion?
Monotheist
20.8% (76)
20.8% (76)
Polytheist
1.6% (6)
1.6% (6)
Pantheist
2.2% (8)
2.2% (8)
Non-Religious
56% (205)
56% (205)
Left Hand Path
0.5% (2)
0.5% (2)
Fringe (Scientology, FSM, Jedi, etc.)
5.2% (19)
5.2% (19)
Other (please describe)
13.7% (50)
13.7% (50)
Username:Password:
Log In
 (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
The_root_of_all_evil
News Room Contributor
Posts: 4865
Joined: 13 Feb 2008

To put it another way, if someone has your 'nads (or ovaries) in their hands, to all intents and purposes, they have FULL control over you. Then they are as Gods. :)

Snik
Paperboy
Posts: 15
Joined: 3 Sep 2008

LadyZephyr:
[quote=The_root_of_all_evil post=18.70309.693073][quote=LadyZephyr post=9.70309.692958]
And Nanotechnology is still science. As is DNA manipulation. We still understand it. A "miracle" causes by science is not a miracle. It's just an application of knowledge.

Science is explainable but that doesn't neccessarily mean everyone understands it. People who see something for the first time without knowledge of how it works, will generally think it's magic or a miricle. Much is the same with religeon. Science is trying to figure out how the world was created. Religeons views are that God created the world end of story. Lots of religeous people explain their feelings and beliefs and relate them to their God but that doesn't mean everyone understands it, whether it be right or wrong.

Whats really important is that you are comfortable with your own beliefs. If your beliefs change, it's not a big deal. People change their minds every day about stuff. You deserve to believe whatever you want to believe. and i reserve the right to believe you are wrong. :)

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

I'm sorry, but I think your whole argument is based on a false idea.

Fair enough, I'm just puzzled by the way that you classify SCIENCE and RELIGION as different words when your own quote puts them as indistinguishable at a certain point.

If Person A can act as if he was a Deity, surely, to all intents and purposes, he is. And Religion doesn't have to be the following of a God, sometimes it can be of a Man, or an avatar.

Buddha was once a man. Now he's a God, in whichever way you want to put that.

Having a following does not make someone a god, though. I can worship Joss Whedon as much as I like, but it doesn't him make him more godly, or, indeed, worthy of worship.

Also, Person A doesn't exist. You can't currently act as a god, including omnipotence, seeing into the minds of everyone, controlling the afterlife... et cetera.

Person A can be a more evolved person and he may fool everyone into thinking he is a god and generates a following. Fine. But he's still not a god. He's just more evolved.

The technology/magic quote doesn't mean technology equals magic. It's a warning that what you now think is miraculous or impossible, it's just beyond your current understanding.

ETA:

The_root_of_all_evil:
To put it another way, if someone has your 'nads (or ovaries) in their hands, to all intents and purposes, they have FULL control over you. :)

... But they aren't a god. :boggles: You can have loads of control over people. It doesn't mean someone else can't come up with more power/control and overthrow yours. You're not infallible.

DamienHell
Beat Writer
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Oct 2007

goodman528:

I leave you atheists out there with Pascal's Wager:

___________________________Live by God's ways__________________Live as Atheist
God Exists_________________Infinite postive outcome______________?????????????????
God does not exist___________Finite negative outcome______________Finite positive outcome

LOL congrats on using an arguement that was shot down years ago. That only works if theres only one religion I could just say

___________________________Live by Allah's ways__________________Live as Atheist
Allah Exists_________________Infinite postive outcome______________?????????????????
Allah does not exist___________Finite negative outcome______________Finite positive outcome
BAM now its an arguement for Islam

Snik
Paperboy
Posts: 15
Joined: 3 Sep 2008

Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Matthew Alexander
Paperboy
Posts: 28
Joined: 4 Oct 2007

I'm just a theosophist with a bit of existentialism thrown in.

The_root_of_all_evil
News Room Contributor
Posts: 4865
Joined: 13 Feb 2008

LadyZephyr:

... But they aren't a god. :boggles: You can have loads of control over people. It doesn't mean someone else can't come up with more power/control and overthrow yours. You're not infallible.

But it doesn't matter at that point. To you, they are still a God. Sort of like the first pangs of love.

Now, if there's a dude up there called Jahweh that was once one of us, and we pray to him because so far he hasn't smited us...what's the actual difference?

Maybe God uses Nanotech for his miracles?

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Many things are. That doesn't make them divine. It just means we need more time to discover the science behind them. Theist belief is the worship of gaps in our current knowledge. A scientist says "I don't understand how the universe was made. I will investigate and find out how." a theist says "I don't understand how the universe was made. God must have made it."

The_root_of_all_evil
News Room Contributor
Posts: 4865
Joined: 13 Feb 2008

LadyZephyr:

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Many things are. That doesn't make them divine. It just means we need more time to discover the science behind them.

So...maybe there's a Science behind Divinity, or a Divinity behind Science?

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

If God uses Nanotech, then it's not a miracle.

They aren't a god. :boggles: You can have loads of control over people. It doesn't mean someone else can't come up with more power/control and overthrow yours. You're not infallible.

But it doesn't matter at that point. To you, they are still a God. Sort of like the first pangs of love.

Now, if there's a dude up there called Jahweh that was once one of us, and we pray to him because so far he hasn't smited us...what's the actual difference?

Maybe God uses Nanotech for his miracles?

But just because they are more technologically advanced doesn't make them a god and creator of all and aware of my every thought and able to sentence me to paradise or damnation.

I think you and I are at an impasse because I think our definitions of what a god is are inherently different. It was nice debating you though.

ETA:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Many things are. That doesn't make them divine. It just means we need more time to discover the science behind them.

So...maybe there's a Science behind Divinity, or a Divinity behind Science?

... No. There is just science. You are attempting to mystify it.

Imitation Saccharin
Gone Gonzo
Posts: 1011
Joined: 1 Dec 2007

The_root_of_all_evil:

I'd quite like to think I do. Capitalism may not be intrinsically based around Oil, but the Economy is, and Capitalism is dependent on the Economy.

But, you're welcome to your opinion.

There will always be capitalism. So long as 2 men are alive, there will be capitalism.

What will end when we run out of oil is the myths a lot of very smart men have spent a lot of time crafty about a system that is very, very cruel.

Matthew Alexander
Paperboy
Posts: 28
Joined: 4 Oct 2007

LadyZephyr:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

If God uses Nanotech, then it's not a miracle.

They aren't a god. :boggles: You can have loads of control over people. It doesn't mean someone else can't come up with more power/control and overthrow yours. You're not infallible.

But it doesn't matter at that point. To you, they are still a God. Sort of like the first pangs of love.

Now, if there's a dude up there called Jahweh that was once one of us, and we pray to him because so far he hasn't smited us...what's the actual difference?

Maybe God uses Nanotech for his miracles?

But just because they are more technologically advanced doesn't make them a god and creator of all and aware of my every thought and able to sentence me to paradise or damnation.

I think you and I are at an impasse because I think our definitions of what a god is are inherently different. It was nice debating you though.

ETA:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Many things are. That doesn't make them divine. It just means we need more time to discover the science behind them.

So...maybe there's a Science behind Divinity, or a Divinity behind Science?

... No. There is just science. You are attempting to mystify it.

If we didn't mystify things, life would be kind of boring.

The_root_of_all_evil
News Room Contributor
Posts: 4865
Joined: 13 Feb 2008

LadyZephyr:

But just because they are more technologically advanced doesn't make them a god and creator of all and aware of my every thought and able to sentence me to paradise or damnation.

I wouldn't claim that. Something like that is only in the Bible, which we already know has been rewritten at least twice.

I think you and I are at an impasse because I think our definitions of what a god is are inherently different. It was nice debating you though.

That's fair enough. *shakes your hand*. Nice to chew the cud.

... No. There is just science. You are attempting to mystify it.

But from the other side I hear "There is just God"; you can see why I have trouble taking either side.

Imitation Saccharin:
There will always be capitalism. So long as 2 men are alive, there will be capitalism.

Now that's my version of hell.

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

Matthew Alexander:

LadyZephyr:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

If God uses Nanotech, then it's not a miracle.

They aren't a god. :boggles: You can have loads of control over people. It doesn't mean someone else can't come up with more power/control and overthrow yours. You're not infallible.

But it doesn't matter at that point. To you, they are still a God. Sort of like the first pangs of love.

Now, if there's a dude up there called Jahweh that was once one of us, and we pray to him because so far he hasn't smited us...what's the actual difference?

Maybe God uses Nanotech for his miracles?

But just because they are more technologically advanced doesn't make them a god and creator of all and aware of my every thought and able to sentence me to paradise or damnation.

I think you and I are at an impasse because I think our definitions of what a god is are inherently different. It was nice debating you though.

ETA:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

Many things are. That doesn't make them divine. It just means we need more time to discover the science behind them.

So...maybe there's a Science behind Divinity, or a Divinity behind Science?

... No. There is just science. You are attempting to mystify it.

If we didn't mystify things, life would be kind of boring.

I sincerely disagree. There is always more to learn in the universe and science will continue to expand our understand. That, to me, is exciting. :D

ETA:

The_root_of_all_evil:

LadyZephyr:

... No. There is just science. You are attempting to mystify it.

But from the other side I hear "There is just God"; you can see why I have trouble taking either side.

I... kind of don't? But I am a militant atheist and a closet antitheist, so... :shrugs:

mshcherbatskaya
Gone Gonzo
Posts: 1971
Joined: 1 Feb 2008

I left Christianity not because I didn't believe in God, but because I couldn't believe in the Devil. I could never buy into the idea of eternal punishment for temporal action, and I could never buy into the idea of an external cause to temptation or suffering. It seems a way of shirking responsibility.

On the other hand, I could never buy into the idea of heaven or reincarnation as a means of escape. Just as eternal punishment for an individual seems unjust, any sort of eternal reward for an individual rubs me the wrong way.

This isn't necessarily what I believe exists, it's more like how I think things ought to work.

People are reborn but there's no getting out, you never progress, you never leave this world, you just keep coming back, not on your own anyway. Your reward for making the world a better place is to return to a world that is better than it was your last time through. If you made it worse, or even just let things decay for lack of involvement, then your punishment is to come back to a world that's fallen a little further down the hole. So maybe you were an utter shit in your last life and you are reborn as one of the blessed and priviledge - were you punished? No, you don't get punished in this system. What you get is increased odds of coming back miserable. Or happy, if you manage to take your priviledge and blessings and try to repair the collective damage.

Russian roulette - you pull the trigger every time, so are you adding bullets to the Cosmic Gun or taking them away? This life, you put it to your head and hear a click. Empty. But what about the next pull of the trigger? You keep putting ammo in that thing, one of these lives you are going to be born into bullets. If one day the gun comes up totally empty, then maybe that's the day we all go to heaven together. If one day the gun is fully loaded, maybe that's the end of the apocalypse. Until then, I just try to take the bullets out.

Matthew Alexander
Paperboy
Posts: 28
Joined: 4 Oct 2007

True, it is exciting, terrifying at times, at other glorious. But still, you can't (at least at the moment) wax philosophically with only science. YOu can explain a thing but not express its art.

The Iron Ninja
Gone Gonzo
Posts: 3137
Joined: 13 Aug 2008

mshcherbatskaya:
I left Christianity not because I didn't believe in God, but because I couldn't believe in the Devil. I could never buy into the idea of eternal punishment for temporal action, and I could never buy into the idea of an external cause to temptation or suffering. It seems a way of shirking responsibility.

On the other hand, I could never buy into the idea of heaven or reincarnation as a means of escape. Just as eternal punishment for an individual seems unjust, any sort of eternal reward for an individual rubs me the wrong way.

This isn't necessarily what I believe exists, it's more like how I think things ought to work.

People are reborn but there's no getting out, you never progress, you never leave this world, you just keep coming back, not on your own anyway. Your reward for making the world a better place is to return to a world that is better than it was your last time through. If you made it worse, or even just let things decay for lack of involvement, then your punishment is to come back to a world that's fallen a little further down the hole. So maybe you were an utter shit in your last life and you are reborn as one of the blessed and priviledge - were you punished? No, you don't get punished in this system. What you get is increased odds of coming back miserable. Or happy, if you manage to take your priviledge and blessings and try to repair the collective damage.

Russian roulette - you pull the trigger every time, so are you adding bullets to the Cosmic Gun or taking them away? This life, you put it to your head and hear a click. Empty. But what about the next pull of the trigger? You keep putting ammo in that thing, one of these lives you are going to be born into bullets. If one day the gun comes up totally empty, then maybe that's the day we all go to heaven together. If one day the gun is fully loaded, maybe that's the end of the apocalypse. Until then, I just try to take the bullets out.

No offence, but you scare the crap out of me.

magnus gallant
Paperboy
Posts: 47
Joined: 20 Mar 2008

if i were to be religious, id be buddhist,it seems to be the only real religion without the mindles politics and mindgames

but i dont really believe in god so im a nihilist, i dont believe in god, or a sense of morality, in the way that i dont believe one choice is better than another in the long run

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

Matthew Alexander:
True, it is exciting, terrifying at times, at other glorious. But still, you can't (at least at the moment) wax philosophically with only science. YOu can explain a thing but not express its art.

If you don't find art in the scope of the universe and what we don't know... I feel sorry for you. :(

The Iron Ninja:

mshcherbatskaya:
insert reincarnation model here

No offence, but you scare the crap out of me.

I'll be contrary. I think that's a pretty awesome belief system.

Matthew Alexander
Paperboy
Posts: 28
Joined: 4 Oct 2007

LadyZephyr:

Matthew Alexander:
True, it is exciting, terrifying at times, at other glorious. But still, you can't (at least at the moment) wax philosophically with only science. YOu can explain a thing but not express its art.

If you don't find art in the scope of the universe and what we don't know... I feel sorry for you. :(

I'll be contrary. I think that's a pretty awesome belief system.[/quote]

Oh, I find art it. It just can't be expressed in the language of science. I could use a scientific explanation of our planet or I could refer to it as the glorious jewel adrift in the heavens, full of life and thought. A pure gift of random chance, our blessed mother earth. You see what I'm getting at here, its more semantics then anything, however it is more fulfilling to have something expressed in such a manner.

birdbrain18
Copy Clerk
Posts: 83
Joined: 31 Jul 2008

athiest all the way

LadyZephyr
Beat Writer
Posts: 183
Joined: 1 Nov 2007

Matthew Alexander:

LadyZephyr:

Matthew Alexander:
True, it is exciting, terrifying at times, at other glorious. But still, you can't (at least at the moment) wax philosophically with only science. YOu can explain a thing but not express its art.

If you don't find art in the scope of the universe and what we don't know... I feel sorry for you. :(

Oh, I find art it. It just can't be expressed in the language of science. I could use a scientific explanation of our planet or I could refer to it as the glorious jewel adrift in the heavens, full of life and thought. A pure gift of random chance, our blessed mother earth. You see what I'm getting at here, its more semantics then anything, however it is more fulfilling to have something expressed in such a manner.

OH! Okay. But I don't call that mystifying. It's being descriptive and prosey. :D

gamebrain89
Press Junketeer
Posts: 485
Joined: 29 May 2008

Ok here goes.
Im a Jehovah's Witness. and before people go off about how we try to "force" our religion on someone, I need to say, your reasoning is flawed. We cant force anything on you, just like i cant stuff a dachsund down your throat. When we come to your door, we are not trying to convert you, we are just there to share an interesting scriptural thought, and maybe some free, bible based literature. Also, if you dont want to talk to any JW that comes to your door, be polite about it. we are humans too. say, thanks for your time, but we are not interested, and gently shut your door. we dont like having the door slammed in our faces anymore than you like getting your face slapped. be civil about it, and for the most part, we will accept that. true, there are some real hardcore people out there, but that is any religion. So yeah, theres my answer, may the HATE begin!!!

Divine-Darkness
Paperboy
Posts: 18
Joined: 4 Jun 2008

Non-religious, and agnostic...

Call me indecisive, or the "pussy version of atheist" see if I give 2 sh*ts

Religion is other pplz deal, and I'm not getting into that. I'm not hating it, but I'm not joining anything (There IS such a thing as TRUE NEUTRAL!)

BlackWaltz3
Anonymous Source
Posts: 7
Joined: 29 May 2008

Snik:
Maybe God is beyond your current understanding.

What god?

The_root_of_all_evil
News Room Contributor
Posts: 4865
Joined: 13 Feb 2008

gamebrain89:
Ok here goes.
Im a Jehovah's Witness.

*applauds* Good to see we have so many different belief systems. Though I'm a little perturbed about the 'no new blood' bit.

The Iron Ninja
Gone Gonzo
Posts: 3137
Joined: 13 Aug 2008

Can you imagine what would happen if I went up to people's houses and said "Hi, I'd like to interest you in atheism! any takers?" I'd get shot.

So despite how annoying I find them, I will admit that Jehovah's witnesses have got balls.

Divine-Darkness
Paperboy
Posts: 18
Joined: 4 Jun 2008

gamebrain89:
Ok here goes.
Im a Jehovah's Witness. and before people go off about how we try to "force" our religion on someone, I need to say, your reasoning is flawed. We cant force anything on you, just like i cant stuff a dachsund down your throat. When we come to your door, we are not trying to convert you, we are just there to share an interesting scriptural thought, and maybe some free, bible based literature. Also, if you dont want to talk to any JW that comes to your door, be polite about it. we are humans too. say, thanks for your time, but we are not interested, and gently shut your door. we dont like having the door slammed in our faces anymore than you like getting your face slapped. be civil about it, and for the most part, we will accept that. true, there are some real hardcore people out there, but that is any religion. So yeah, theres my answer, may the HATE begin!!!

Hopefully every other douchebag who likes to shoot their mouths off read this guy. I may not be the biggest fan of JW, but for Christ's Sake (no pun intended) I'm glad one of them decided to stand up and say this (because I'm in no place to, but I can damn well enforce it).

Good Job, man, Good Job

ignosco
Paperboy
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Mar 2008

I was raised and always have been Christian. I'm thankful for that since it's not as common as it used to be. I wouldn't say it's religion though but belief since it is believing that god exists and Jesus died for us.

Razzle Bathbone
Press Junketeer
Posts: 385
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

Imitation Saccharin :

Razzle Bathbone:

Authoritarians of all stripes, both religious and non-religious, always claim that rulers are needed to prevent humanity from indulging in its basest instincts. But that leaves us with another question: aren't the rulers subject to the same instincts as the ruled?

To reference Plato the guardians and rulers must be told a noble lie. That they are special and superior, and that they rule and protect for the weak, empty-headed lower classes. They must be made to think they rule because it is right, not because they can.

Ugh. That lie is not my idea of noble. I'll take chaos and anarchy, thanks.
Plato took a dim view of human nature because of what happened to his mentor Socrates. Too bad he didn't seem to notice that it was the noble elite who did it. Perhaps he'd have less hate for the masses if he'd been able to see that more clearly.

Razzle Bathbone
Press Junketeer
Posts: 385
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

LadyZephyr:

Razzle Bathbone:
(something about paradox and contradition

I would argue that that it is not all good. Why do theists live with that, with not knowing the truth and with accepting their belief system's flawed answers. Some evanglicals handwave away all the contradictions and ignore evidence pushed against their beliefs, but if you're right and others just accept these contradictions... what kind of way is that to live? If there is something in your beliefs that you know is paradoxical and inconsistent, why continue to believe that way?

:honestly boggled:

I can only speak for myself: because I believe the universe itself is paradoxical and contradictory.

By approaching the matter from that perspective, I am able to devise models for how the universe can, say, have determinism and free will both at once. I can find my own peace with the universe and function effectively within it.

The thing is, I can't very well expect other people to take me seriously with beliefs like that. This is fine with me, but if I were of a more authoritarian bent, I would need more authoritative answers. This approach of mine is only useful from a personal point of view. It is of no use in science, education, legislation or social control. And I'm fine with that. I couldn't push my beliefs on others if I tried; they'd just laugh at me, and so they should.