God? What do you think:

[Brigandier]

Other: Humanist

 

[JulesMaximus]

Well, since you asked, I think you need to focus more on improving yourselves and treat each other with respect and dignity without getting involved in who is fucking whom or what others religious views are.

Make love, not war...please, stop killing each other.

Oh, and one more thing, there is no blessed country or race/people I love more than any other. Get over yourselves.

-God

 

[Malak]

In my mind, someone who discards religion only to subscribe to the ideas pushed by a specific book, isn't exactly following his own logic.
Personal religion, or more specifically, personal spirituality, I greatly support that. I would think someone who discards religion because of the errors of the religious, would move to a personal spirituality. Belief in something greater, but not of ideas that are based around any one text.

I don't think that accepting a truth that was written is any different than accepting a truth that was spoken, nor accepting a truth that you discover any other way. Organized religion is spoken against in the bible, a book used in many organized religions including the Jews that wrote most of it. Having beliefs and being part of a religion, in my mind, are two different things. Do your beliefs make you part of a religion? Does believing what a book say make you part of a history religion? Science religion? Science-fiction religion?

Tolstoy said that churches exist only to separate themselves from other bodies of believers, and there had always been at least 2 churches. He did not acknowledge the original Christians as part of a church at all, they just believed in what Jesus said and lived their lives accordingly. No traditions, no rituals, no rules. Nothing that makes organized religion what it is. They loved each other, shared their wealth, shared their lives, made all men equal. Tolstoy also believed that a minority of believers have always existed throughout the centuries since then, even though the churches started popping up in the first century.

I would not presume to say who will be granted God's grace, that isn't my job. My calling is simply to learn to live peacefully with my neighbor.

 

[jonks]

technically that would be an Agnostic Atheist.

Only if you also refered to pretty much all believers as agnostic theists, which let's face it, is just unwieldy either way.

Most religious people I know do not state that there is absolutely a god, and that it's impossible that there is no god, merely that they believe in one. Of course there are those who state with certainty god's existence, but they are in the minority. There are reams of theological discourse on the issue of doubt, and its necessity to the existence of faith. There can be no faith without doubt. If you're certain about something you have knowledge, not faith.

 

[Malak]

Only if you also refered to pretty much all believers as agnostic theists, which let's face it, is just unwieldy either way.

Most religious people I know do not state that there is absolutely a god, and that it's impossible that there is no god, merely that they believe in one. Of course there are those who state with certainty god's existence, but they are in the minority. There are reams of theological discourse on the issue of doubt, and its necessity to the existence of faith. There can be no faith without doubt. If you're certain about something you have knowledge, not faith.

Faith in the bible is never ascribed to the belief of God, only of his actions.

 

[Minjin]

I think proofs, or partial proofs, of God's existence can be found.

If you've found them, you've done what no philosopher or theologist has ever done. You will have also destroyed the use of faith and the many religions that depend upon it.

 

[Malak]

If you've found them, you've done what no philosopher or theologist has ever done. You will have also destroyed the use of faith and the many religions that depend upon it.

The same proof that you exist can prove God exists.

 

[Minjin]

The same proof that you exist can prove God exists.

Let's hear it. Let's see if you can do what some of the greatest minds in history couldn't do.

 

[HAL9000]

The same proof that you exist can prove God exists.

I'd like to hear it too! Because after studying philosophy for three years the greatest minds in history could not convince me that god exist and yet you can! I'm missing out and eager to learn

 

[NikolaeVarius]

The same proof that you exist can prove God exists.

Flawed logic at its finest

 

[zinfamous]

according to the recent New Yorker article/manifesto on Scientology (everyone should read this, btw):
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright

Scientology claims 8 million followers world-wide. It's hard to track this, b/c there is no "initiation" into the religion (baptism, right, etc.) You simply decide that you are a Scientologist and you are one. Now, the church's numbers are based on tracking all people who have ever donated a single dollar to the church, for any reason. I assume that the church probably considers someone like Oprah a Scientologist--she is good friends with Travolta, and has often sought his aid, with his plain, to fly in resources to major disaster zones like Katrina and Haiti. the church of Scientology does provide shit-tons of resources for aid, though probably not nearly much as they claim (I bet Mormons kick their ass in this dept.)

Anyway, a comprehensive poll gauging religiosity in the US tracked percentages of people and their self-described beliefs. The results show that ~25,000 Americans consider themselves Scientologists--25,000

:hmm: How could that be? only 25k out of world-wide total of 8 million? How is it possible that such a low percentage--.3%? of the religion claims to exist where it originated?

anyway, that 25k Scientologists in the US is half the number--50,000--of people who describe themselves as Rastafarian.

 

[Ryland]

Agnostic.

Like he said

 

[reallyscrued]

Theist - non-religious.

Is this a serious reply?

You can't follow up 'non-religious' with a sig like yours.

 

[zinfamous]

Is this a serious reply?

You can't follow up 'non-religious' with a sig like yours.

he believes in the Hebrew God (aka Jesus's dad/self/spirit) but believes that Religion is evil.

not a unique belief, actually.

 

[Malak]

I'd like to hear it too! Because after studying philosophy for three years the greatest minds in history could not convince me that god exist and yet you can! I'm missing out and eager to learn

You don't want to be convinced, or you would be already.

 

[HAL9000]

You don't want to be convinced, or you would be already.

No your right I'm not being biased in one way or the other, I'm interested in the TRUTH, unlike you, I don't care if the truth comes from a god or science, just as long as it is a logical truth.

Now you were going to give us your proof?

 

[guyver01]

 

[Nik]

I'm Catholic, but what's annoying is that my I've convinced my brain of God's existence, but my heart is resisting, which seems to be in reverse.

I think proofs, or partial proofs, of God's existence can be found. But for some reason they aren't sufficient to get my heart into it.

Proof of god's existence? Where! You're going to be the first one in the history of mankind to have any proof, this is pretty important!!

 

[Nik]

You don't want to be convinced, or you would be already.

Where's all this mountainous evidence that proves any god exists?

I won't hold my breath for you to answer, as always, because everybody knows you won't answer.

 

[HAL9000]

Proof of god's existence? Where! You're going to be the first one in the history of mankind to have any proof, this is pretty important!!

The ontological argument for the existence of god is excellent, very logical, a great proof, with a minor flaw.

 

[Nik]

Faith in the bible is never ascribed to the belief of God, only of his actions.

God can't have actions if he doesn't exist. If he DOES have actions, then he must first have to exist.

Holy freaking logic, batman. :hmm:

 

[Nik]

The ontological argument for the existence of god is excellent, very logical, a great proof, with a minor flaw.

That minor flaw is that there is no proof whatsoever, that any proof at all can only be linked to some sort of god through vivid imagination.

 

[HAL9000]

That minor flaw is that there is no proof whatsoever, that any proof at all can only be linked to some sort of god through vivid imagination.

Well, I disagree, the ontological argument is perfectly logical, a fantastic proof, the flaw is that it is predicated on the notion that god is "that of which nothing great can be perceived" but as god is a fictional character that is flawed, however if you were to take that as the definition that it undeniably, through logic proves god's existence.

It's a fun argument, and I really like the thinking behind it, even though the premise is flawed.

 

[Nik]

You can play semantic games until you're blue in the face.

The fact of the matter is that nobody has ever seen proof that god exists. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian god or any other god actually exists.

 

[meltdown75]

i am a semi-non-practicing Catholic. i haven't been to church in ages but i still say grace before most of the meals i eat when i am alone at home. i use those opportunities to sometimes go into a deeper prayer and level of thought where i try to be thankful for everything else in my life - my family, friends, job, house, etc. sometimes i will also add, "bless so and so" or "keep so and so safe" or "give so and so strength to get through that"...

so i would say, i am still at least a somewhat spiritual person, although i do not think that i am worthy of a "religious" tag per se. i do not judge anyone's beliefs, or lack thereof. how you connect with your spiritual side, or if you don't have one, is a very personal thing and i think how everyone handles it is unique. i am not a proponent of any particular religion, i believe that eventually some level of convergence of all the major religions, at least in a symbolic sense, is key to understanding how they benefit the lives of humans and always will.

these views are why when i first joined the forums back in 2004 that i regularly became offended by trolls that constantly bash religion. it might be, in my opinion, the single biggest waste of anyone's time on the internet. to think that people actually sit there and assail the beliefs of others is absolutely absurd to me in every way possible. twiddling your thumbs would be a better use of one's time than attacking someone's beliefs on the internet. it is weak, it is selfish, and it serves no purpose other than to further entrench those that engage in it in meaningless intolerance and spiteful rhetoric. just the thought of standing on a digital soapbox to declare to a certain cross-section of the population that you don't agree with their beliefs... it really seems like the best embodiment of a modern-day clown that i can think of. seriously, shut the fuck up and live your life, don't be concerned with the beliefs of others.