Non-Believers Represent

How many other atheists and agnostics are out there?

*raises hand*
I believe in the power of the human mind.

Present.

I've never understood atheism. Seems to me that it is a hugely arrogant and unfounded statement to say "there is no god". How can anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god?

I understand agnosticism, but not atheism.

How can anyone know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god?

The same way lots of people can know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there IS a god? Seems to me you can't really prove either one.

I'm agnostic myself, veering toward atheism. I don't have a problem with people believing whatever, though, as long as they're not mean or hypocritical about it, and don't try to force others to think like they do (and that applies to atheists as well as theists).

I thought it was hugely arrogant to say something like that.


If I said do you believe there is a purple cow in orbit around Sirius would you say, I have no proof so I must only doubt it?

I would argue yes.

Do you believe that I'm god?

Highly doubtful.

No, the difference is that no decision can be made one way or another because you lack the ability to directly test the statement. Now, if you had a powerful telescope or a deep space probe or something that was able to view Sirius and confirm the existence or non-existence of a purple cow in orbit, then you can make a decision.

When you lack the ability to rationally test the hypothesis, no firm decision can be made. The only choice is to say "Given current knowledge and what is observable currently, the hypothesis is extremely unlikely to be true."

Same thing with God. You cannot prove a God does exist and you cannot prove a God does not exist. All that is left is for people to examine the evidence, check it against current knowledge and understanding, and then make a "best guess" one way or another. When someone chooses to believe God does exist, this is called faith. When someone chooses that God probably does not exist it is called agnosticism (which is usually one of two flavors: "I dunno" or "I can't know").

Atheism involves the absolute statement that God does not exist, which is not rationally possible to prove. Just like people who say God does absolutely exist cannot rationally prove it.

OK so it is the equivilent of saying that the universe is filled with an infinite number of invisible unobservable purple cows. I don't believe that either. (The important question is, did anyone else say to themselves "How can something invisible be purple?)

I figured you meant purple flavored... ;O)

and made of ice cream. yum. i like this universe. i think i'm going to incorporate it into my worldview.

Well everybody knows that the Galaxy is a candy bar, a Milky Way to be precise. (So do in Europe is the Galaxy called a Mars Bar?)

um... hi.

ok, let me clarify... I am a devout Jew. I don't believe that it is possible to be a devout Jew and to not be agnostic.

By agnostic, do you mean that you question the existence of God, or the nature of God? I think that there are many devout Jews that do the latter, but not the former.

Both. I also question the nature of existence.

Devout atheist. If it was God that created man she must have been joking.

For years I searched for something that didn't sound like total bs, I gave up.� I am atheist.

oh dear... you know, this is all starting to sound rather petty.

Does anyone here have a *good* reason for being an atheist?

What is it that sounds like bs? scripture? Of course scripture sounds like bs when you just take it straight. Maybe people were supposed to take that stuff literally 4000 years ago when the relationship between mythos and logos was different, but if you do that now, well, you're insane.

And if you're talking about the book of Mormon, well... that's just silly to begin with.

Also, I notice that everyone who doesn't believe in God seems to have the same idea of what "God" means... that is, a person in the sky who creates things and tells people what to do. That's just silly. That's not the only idea of "God" that is out there.

I apologize if this seems harsh, but i just find it insulting that people tend to take such a self-righteous stance of atheism, seem to hold it up as a sign of their intelligence, rationality, open-mindedness... and yet have such a malinformed, narrow view of what religion really is. I'm not telling you that I think you should be religious, just be a little more informed before you start bashing the idea.

I do not think "the person in the sky..." is the only view of god" IT is the most popular one though, in North America at least. I am aware of other views. I also know that some people have ideas of what god is that I am sure most people would not recognize as god. Einstein viewed god as simply the orderliness of the universe. I always took that as more of a metaphore. I once read the definition that anyone immortal is a god. Under this definition Judaism is not monotheistic since it includes the idea of angels.

I don't think that atheism is a sign of of intelligence or open-mindedness but it is of rationality. It is a sign of rationality, not proof.

I do not think "the person in the sky..." is the only view of god" IT is the most popular one though, in North America at least.

I'm not sure I'm clear on what your point is.

Einstein viewed god as simply the orderliness of the universe. I always took that as more of a metaphore.

Any description or conception of God *has* to be a metaphor. At least in Judaism, God is indescribable and inconcievable. Which is why i think that one cannot be a devout thinking jew and not be agnostic.

I once read the definition that anyone immortal is a god. Under this definition Judaism is not monotheistic since it includes the idea of angels.

But this definition is not a jewish definition, so it is irrelevant to Judaism.

It is a sign of rationality

Not that you said this explicitly, but are you implying that not being an atheist is a sign of irrationality?

You get upset about atheists making generalizations about views of god but you are making generalizations about atheists.

I said "seems" for a reason. I was referring to what I'd read here, not to all atheists. Based on what I'd read here, up to the point at which I posted my response, the attitude of atheists toward the idea of God which I described seemed prevalent in those who had responded. If you can show me how I am wrong, please do so.

I certainly do not have a good reason for being an atheist. I just can't find a good reason not to be one. Please do not include me among those that think of a god as a person in the sky who creates things and tells people what to do. Also, do not assume that I consider my atheism as a sign of my intelligence, rationality, openmindedness. Although you were replying to Annika, I feel addressed. Feel free to expand on your insulting reference to the selfrighteous stance of atheism via frum or start a new thread where we can discuss this. The current thread is no more than a poll exploring who would consider him / herself an atheist, no questions asked.
Thank you.

Isn't the best part of polls (especially those in the forums) that discussions such as these arise?� I actually enjoy participating (or at least following) the discussion more than the poll itself.� It seems odd to continue discussion of a forum poll in a separate forum, or to take a group discussion into private frums.

Right you are. The ensuing discussions are interesting. I was in a bad mood. Sowwy.

I wasn't clear on all the reasons why I'm atheist, it was like almost 3am when i posted that. I do think churches are bullshit, I do think that the bible is bullshit, and the book of mormon, of course.� A lot of my reasoning may be�from my lack of knowledge, but I have been to a lot of churches, talked to a lot of people about god, and so far I haven't left a conversation feeling any kind of good about the existence of god.� I don't want to not believe in god. God is a wonderful idea. So I did enter these conversations, churches, open minded.� I need a lot more proof than "you can just feel it" or "look at all the miracles in your life".�
There are more reasons, but I'm feeling like I'm probably going to be bashed for this much.
Gella if you have something that you think will change my mind, go for it. I'm really not closed to the idea, but I'm not going to spend my life searching it out.
*hugs*� =)

why would you be bashed?

And why do you think I'm trying to change your mind?

And why do you assume that if you're going to find an idea of "God" or what have you that you're comfortable with that you would find it in a Church? Or any house of prayer? Or even an organized religion?

I don't know Gella, the point is, I've given up on the idea.

And who are you to say that the book of Mormon is silly?

I find it odd that some people are willing to defend their own religions till death but put down others in the process. For some reason, that seems counterintuitive to me.

I thought religions were supposed to be loving and caring for all people... even those of differing religions?

Oh, by the way, I'm a Christian, I go to church every Sunday, and believe in God and the Bible and that I'm (we're) not the only one with a chance to get into heaven.

Yeah, rilddle me that.

*shrug*
I was raised at a fairly liberal Methodist church my whole life.
I was fifteen before I ever heard the "all non-christians go to hell" bit.

What I find interesting, is that very few clergy people believe in the devil/hell. It's just that the loud folks get noticed.

Yeah, see, this is all part of why I can't think of anything good to call myself. I like religion. I envy/admire just about anyone who is actually faithful. I think there is something out there. I just haven't found anything specific that feels right to me.

Just because I don't tend to lean towards the "big guy in the sky"(or girl, or more likely "it") idea, doesn't make me athiest in my mind.

The thing is, if there is some objective truth, then science and religion are looking for, and (in theory) will find, the same thing. If we didn't know about it through science yet, I could argue Gravity as a spiritual force. Maybe God's will tying us to the Earth. My rational might be off, but I could describe the same force either way.

Maybe the soul works the same way. I tend to lean towards reincarnation (for reasons I'm not certian of, honestly). Maybe that evoloved as a way to keep instincts in the species. I don't know (or even really think) that it happened that way, but if the soul is real, why couldn't it be that closely related to the body?

Hell, (scientifically) we're all made of stars. The case of this computer, was skimmed off a poll of dead dinosaur and plant matter. We make steps out of prehistoric sea-beds.

The world is weird. That leads me to believe that maybe everything is made up of purple cows (at least if they're invisible, I won't have to see them ;-)

Really, the main thing that neither science or religion have been able to explain to me, is where reality came from.

Erm, did any of this make sense outside of my brain?

I found some sense in it.� I also admire the faithful (although I don't respect them all).� I think that placing your faith in a belief of greater rewards in the future can change how a person views the present.� Adverse situations are tempered by the knowledge that "God" is holding a place for you.

I was raised in a Christian household (AoG, for the curious... the craziest of the bunch).� The biggest change in my faith came when my dad was transferred overseas.� Our options for worship were: Catholicism, non-denominational Christian, and independent bible study.� Suddenly, there were so many different belief systems, all claiming that theirs was right.� It really soured me toward religion, knowing that it wasn't the nature of "God" that was causing the problem, but the nature of the belief in "God."

I've tried several times to get back into the faith, but each time just leaves me with an empty feeling.� It's like watching a movie that you've memorized.� This is where we sing, this is where we cry, this is where the biddy down front says 'Amen.'� It's become an act, designed to pull on my heart strings and make me become the person that someone else wants me to be.� Just so that, when I die, I can experience this wonderful place.� But only if my beliefs are right, and the Baptists are wrong.

I saw a comic panel once, where Armageddon had come and all the believers were standing before the pearly gates.� Everyone was craning to see who would greet them and asking the person ahead who it was.� A guy in the front turned and said, "We're all screwed... it's Buddha."

Believe what you believe.� Keep your eyes and mind open.� If your beliefs change, follow the new course.� Live your life.

I also admire the faithful (although I don't respect them all). I think that placing your faith in a belief of greater rewards in the future can change how a person views the present.� Adverse situations are tempered by the knowledge that "God" is holding a place for you.

Okay, I read this statement a few times and I don't understand the statement in bold. You don't have respect for them because they they try to please a higher power? Or have I misread this?

Can one really lose respect for 86% of the world because they have faith in something? (Just saw this fact on TV recently, so forgive me if it's off.)

I, being a person of faith, am (no surprise) quite surprised and slightly offended by this statement. I don't really know how to react.

It's not that he disrespects all of them.

It's that the fact that they're faithful doesn't make him respect them. (In other words, his respect is separate from their faith.)[added after the fact --mm]

I think. Please correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, Bruce.

By the by, I agree with this stance. It has been my experience that someone's profession of religion has very little to do with how "good" a person is. There are saintly athiests and demonesque Fundamentalist Christians. I haven't yet noticed any correlation.

There are saintly athiests and demonesque Fundamentalist Christians. I haven't yet noticed any correlation.

Heh. Try persuading a Fundamentalist Christian that there are saintly atheists, or even worthy citizens who are atheists. (No, really, don't bother. It won't happen. And I say that with the certainty of someone who's been working on it, with various Fundamentalists, for nigh on 20 years.)

But I digress ...

Correct.� I doubt I could have said it better.

Sure you could. I have faith in you.... D'oh!

Oh, by the way, I'm a Christian... etc.

Uh huh. I'm very happy for you.

and here i was beginning to think that i was the only one for a minute.. (:

church goers represent!

�-= george =-

damn Christian supremacist...

hmmph.

i'll call you when i need a new accountant. :D :D

�-= george =-

Oh! OH! Ouch!

Accountant Shmacountant.

I can get you a good deal on software. Wholesale.

The 11th Commandment, Thou shalt not buy retail.

Looks like I chose the wrong career path. :-)

You *bleeping* Jew! You killed Jesus! Ohmigod! ;-)

(JUST KIDDING!!!)

I know you were trying to be funny, but a lot of Jews died because of the church's refusal to refute this lie. Most Christians in the US don't have relatives who died because of their religous beliefs - most Jews do.

no, but some of us do have old country relatives that died at the hands of jews for their christian beliefs.

there is no such thing as a holy war. i'm amazed at the stupid things people will do for their religious beliefs...� on all sides of the ongoing conflict.� too many people hide behind their religion and use it as an excuse to act like big fcuking babies.� i wonder when it will ever stop...

�-= george =-

A very good question... when WILL all this bullshite stop?

:(

Which old country is that? Fantasyland? Christians haven't been persecuted in Europe since about the 4th century, then by the Roman Empire, not by Jews.

You unbelievable prick!

Are you discriminating against the descendants of Fantasyland (tm) now ?!!?!!

actually, poland.

please do your homework before you come off sounding�entirely ignorant.

�-= george =-

My great Uncle, Adolf Reigelhaupt, was rounded up, along with his family and the other 50 or so Jews in his Polish village and executed by the Nazis, so I think I know a little about Jews in Poland. His Polish neighbors told the Nazis who to collect.

The Polish church was long known for anti-semitism and repeating fabricated stories about Jews killing Christians, eating their babies actually, which is part of the reason it was easy to get locals to collaborate.

Okay, this might be as good a place as any to say ...

You ARE all aware that once you hit "post", that's the post that goes to anyone who's put the forum thread on "watch"? You can go back and edit your words later, or maybe Josh goes back and edits later if he thinks something's completely out of line, but the original post stands for those who already read it.

That said, I think that instead of dismissing the experiences of George's ancestors and his pained feelings about them wholesale, because I *don't* know the experiences of that particular family, I'd be more inclined to say "oh? Please tell us more, because I know about Poles being persecuted and oppressed by practically everybody else in central Europe, but I was never aware of Jewish Poles turning on their Christian countrymen, and if documentable it would seem quite important." And then take it from there, rather than deciding beforehand that his family's old-world history, which obviously is painful to him, can be lumped in with the rest of church fabrication.

So. George. I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, and I'm not trying to stir up painful thoughts. But I'm really *not* familiar with accounts of Polish Christians being persecuted by Polish Jews, other than the ones Jonathan points out have been debunked as anti-Semitic propaganda. Could you tell us in greater detail what happened to your family in Poland, when and where?

it's really actually quite difficult to get a pinpoint on.� when my father was telling me about it (which is a rarity in itself, since he almost never talks about these kinds of things), he had names and events and i'm extremely forgetful.�

the strength of the polish catholic church has always been moderately absolute in poland, even during periods of soviet stuffs.� jews had a difficult time as it was with that kind of power, as the catholics there at the time had a nasty habit of denouncing anything in sight that wasn't directly sanctioned by the pope, and this generally included anything that wasn't roman catholic.� as such, the jewish folk got hit hard, but so did other religions, including those of the orthodox faith.� it's moderately well known and established that the catholics were having a field day burning down orthodox churches, imprisoning or killing their believers, took over their lands, and what not, but jewish persecution of the orthodox also existed.� not to nearly the same scale or degree, but it still did exist enough to the point where the polish orthodox church has "sainted" several individuals who died at the hands of jewish folk throughout the years, also predating soviet involvement if i don't miss my mark from what i've been told.

i'm going to try to get more information from my father on the subject, but something tells me he won't be willing to talk about it.� it took him 62 years to see the father that ran out on him and his mother for the first time just a couple of weeks ago, and he almost never talks about life life in poland before moving to the states, much less relatives (living or dead).� i may have to dig through some translated church books and see what i can find as far as who died and why, but those are also rare.

�-= george =-

i've read many accounts about the catholics that helped the nazis (pardon my need to specify the branch of christianity ... let's put blame where blame is due (: ) get to jewish comunities to help round them up.� to this day, i will never, ever, ever understand anti-semitism on even a small scale, neither can i fathom how an entire country could decide to start condoning genocidal practices simply based on a religious belief (or any reason, for that matter).� the catholics really had no business putting their noses into anyone elses business at the time, and most of what they said was pure crap.� don't forget, tho, that there is plenty of history that predates nazist nonsense and while the catholics were completely out of line, others may not have been.

the whole baby eating thing is pure shite tho.� at least, i am going to stand firm in my belief that it is pure shite. (:� there may be some way back historical basis behind that, but it's probably long since lost and forgotten and perhaps should remain that way.

i don't have any intention of belittling the fact that jewish folk were brutally slaughtered as the direct result of the actions of the germans during world war 2; i think it was a sick, sensenseless tragedy that makes me physically shudder thinking about it and i'm not trying to pass any kind of judgement on anyone's beliefs.� i was trying to be more factual and i probably came across as harsh and for that i apologize.

�-= george =-

Actually, any former Soviet-bloc country west of the Caucasus would count in the list of countries where Christians experienced persecution in the 20th century in Europe. So would any country occupied by the Nazis (and certainly Poland fits in there).

Trying? No, succeeding. Just because you're oversensitive about your religion does not make my use of a South Park quote not funny.

If you laughed at Josh's post with the picture, then you can't get all defensive when someone pokes fun at your religion. Lighten up.

It's funny on South Park.� And it could very well be funny on an FHDC�forum.� But not this particular one.� It's easy when you're already feeling attacked, to not see the humor in that sort of comment.

Taken out of context, it's an uncomfortable thing to hear.��I certainly didn't recognize it as a South Park quote.� It's sentiment has been said by a lot more influential people than foul-mouthed cartoon kids.

Josh's post, George's accountant comment (and my own reply), and other humor in this conversation has been easier to swallow.� I can't claim that the difference is in subtlety.� "Fo Sheezy My Jeezy" is not subtle.� Yet it's easier for me to see the posts as�silly break-the-tension tangents.

The person who posts is just as important as what they post when I'm reading a forum.� We've all gotten to know one another as the things we write.� It's hard to form a well-rounded opinion of someone when you are only exposed to a certain angle.� And the angle of you�that�I personally am�used to, Starfox, is an antagonistic one.� You have convictions, and they often don't jive with the general ideas around here.��I know that.� I expect it of you.� Which may be unfair, but I don't have a whole lot of other information to go on.� What you say matters.� The subtext of what you say matters.� You know, the "what is he really saying that he can't say out loud" part.

Very eloquently stated, Melissa. Thank you for articulately stating what I would have liked to have said.

This actually sort of touches on something forums like this have gotten me thinking about. Levels of humor and comfort and such. Many of us have a very strong rapport that includes irreverant jokes that would seem on the surface offensive. A casual observer might look and get the impression that anything goes, when paying attention to the joking between specific parties, not knowing that the level of humor is based on a long and strong prior relationship.

Like, I call Melinda a ho. There's a deep friendship and history of the joke and blah blah blah. But someone just reading it might think, "oh, people around here don't seem to mind if you joke and call someone else a ho" and not know it depends on a level of comfort that Melinda and I have with each other.

Am I making any sense? There are just sometimes so many shades of gray around here that I imagine sometimes it's hard to know what's "too far".� Not to say some people don't intentionally take things too far and quite definitely mean it. But...ya know? It's just been on my mind a lot when reading here lately.

Exactly, I rarely mention it in public forums but I often to privately. If you search through the archives you can find my friends, especially Carey, Leah, and Shelly, insulting me hundreds of times. There is no problem with that because I know they love me. I am sensitive when people I'm not close to say things that are much milder.

yup. thank you, andrea, for putting that so well. i think gordon and i have been trying to think of coherent ways to say that for a while now. :)

Oh give me a break! Perhaps you've read into alot of what I've wrote, but I certainly am not anti-semetic. If you've read most of my posts, you should know that I have no problems with what someone chooses for themselves which does not infringe on my rights or others. I certainly do not have any qualms or reservations about speaking my mind.

It's a joke, nothing more. Perhaps if you actually knew me, you'd understand that better. You are the one who is taking a small representative sample of posts on here (and most of which I do post on are forums and topics of subjects which are fairly polarizing, so I grant you that), and drawing conclusions about me as general rule.

I've had several people on here frumsg me privately about posts, and have gotten clarification and a better understanding that I'm pretty easy to get along with.

Fine, you're not anti-semetic. Would you accept judgemental with a penchant for mentioning the Dredd Scott decision?

Judgemental sure. Everyone is judgemental; it is impossible to be otherwise. The very assertion that I am judgemental is being judgemental.

And I've only brought that up once. :)

"You are the one who is taking a small representative sample of posts on here (and most of which I do post on are forums and topics of subjects which are fairly polarizing, so I grant you that), and drawing conclusions about me as general rule."

EXACTLY. This is the nature of an online discussion. It's all I know of you. I'm sure you're easy to get along with. But your online persona�isn't.

I said nothing accusing you of being anti-semetic, and in no case do I think you are.

I'm what I consider a rational, objectivist Christian. Certainly not bible-thumping, fire and brimestone, yer all going to hell unless you repent. I truly find it sad that more people cannot learn from the life of Jesus and see how simple his message was. Alot of Christians out there want to be control freaks and force their view of morality on other people. It is sad that they cannot see that Jesus never once said "go force these people to do _fill in the blanK_".

I hate organized religion, especially those churches which are nothing more than businesses. I can't stand most "Sunday morning Christians." If you ever want to see who is just paying their faith lip service, then go watch a parking lot after church lets out.

I go to church now and then to have a formal place to worship and for fellowship once in a while. Luckily, I'm blessed with friends who I can have that fellowship with without having to go to a sanctuary.

as a regular church goer and someone who is involved in things, and as a basic Orthodox Christian, i find most christian lip service folks to be somewhat offensive.� i never actually -say- anything because it's not really my place, and i feel bad most of the time that i would ever harbor those kinds of feelings, but it makes me sad that people do some of the things that they do, or say some of the things that they say on a regular� daily basis, and then walk into a church building on a sunday morning and pretend that they are higher beings.� they stand on the soap box of the bible they are thumping, yet can't even practice half of the things that they require other people to do.� it's a sad, sad form of the worst hypocrite.

you're from the south so you probably see a lot more of it than i do; i've been told numerous times by various southern baptists that i am going straight to hell because i'm not a part of their SPECIFIC organizational religion.� when mormons try to convince me that orthodoxy is outdated and that they can help me revive christ in my life, i usually enjoy telling them that my religion started when christ sent tongues of flames down to the apostles and casually asked when theirs started.� they usually go away after that.� if they don't, i start telling them where their translations of their bible are incorrect and that sends them running.

people just take themselves too seriously and have unrealistic expectations of other people.� i suppose if folks would just simmer down and focus on themselves for once, i think they would find that there is plenty of house cleaning to do inside the confines of their own skin and they may be a little more friendly to others...

what an interesting discussion this has turned into ...

�-= george =-

And who are you to say that the book of Mormon is silly?

Have you *read* the book of Mormon?

Listen, I'm Jewish and I look at many Jewish texts and say "Huh, that's silly." I say "Huh, that's stupid." I say "Huh, that's just wrong." Who am I to say that the book of Mormon is silly? A thinking person who can read.

Oh, and the Torah isn't? So you're telling me there's this guy and he made the water in Egypt turn to blood?! Please!

Ok, look back and actually try to *read* what I just wrote:

"Listen, I'm Jewish and I look at many Jewish texts and say "Huh, that's silly." I say "Huh, that's stupid." I say "Huh, that's just wrong.""

Just because a book is holy to someone does not make it untouchable, does not make it immune to criticism from within or without. To assume a hands-off attitude toward *any* writing severely devalues that writing, implying that it cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Yeah, but to basically discredit an entire religion's core beliefs, or at least what separates them from the rest of the population of their religion, isn't what I'd call "scrutiny."

what, you want me to engage in a detailed Fisking of the entire book of Mormon in this discussion thread?

Ok, I'll admit, it seems pretty unreasonable to just out-of-hand dismiss the book of Mormon as silly in a forum where a detailed defense of the position isn't really feasible... but...

Come ON... have you *read* the book of Mormon??

And, out of curiosity, how come you're not picking on any of the atheists who universally reject the entirety of religion as silly, bs, a joke, irrational etc? Seems that they are discrediting something much broader and more generalized... why don't you have a problem with that? Why are you zeroing in on me for saying that I find one particular book to be silly? If I told you that I thought the new novel by joe whotsname was just silly, would you be picking on me this much?

Joe Smith..� I was a mormon for the first 12 years of my life.� I have read the book of mormon.� It is so frustrating to me that most of my family believe it is "the word of god"� Basing your belief system on a book, especially one that was found under a rock by a guy who was.. what.. 16? 17? Who said he saw Jesus and God floating in the air above him after praying and sensing dark forces trying to kill him?� The book of mormon is about Jesus coming to the America's, the mormon church was founded in..... America.� It's interesting as far as native life goes, but not that interesting, after reading about the laminites, levites, nephites, and some other ites, it leaves you with nothing. Okay that's not fair, it left me with nothing.� My grandfather was a bishop in the church, a leader of the church while he was abusing his children at home.� No one's perfect, but they say that the people who are put in positions of bishops, teachers,� elders, and prophets, are inspired by god.� If there is a god, would he put people who show up looking pretty,� with large happy families, then once they hit the parking lot are screaming at their children, fighting with their spouses, and who knows what else when no one can see them, in a position of authority?� I don't think anyone on here really doubts the validity of the book of mormon, or the mormon church.� Why is this even a topic of argument?

no Anni, it was John Smith. And I was using the novel by Joe Whotsname as an illustration of how my criticism of the Book of Mormon is no different from my criticism of any book.

No, Gella, it really was Joe Smith. (Or Joseph.) John Smith is of the Pocahontas legend, not the Mormon revelation.

*blink* really? *checks* oh, look at that. sorry, got confused there for a sec. American legends, you know, they all get mixed up...

Ok, I'll admit, it seems pretty unreasonable to just out-of-hand dismiss the book of Mormon as silly in a forum where a detailed defense of the position isn't really feasible... but...

Come ON... have you *read* the book of Mormon??

No. Nor have I read the Torah, the Bhadvad Gita, or any other religious works besides the Bible, at least, that I remember in any respect. But I won't discredit any of them as silly. I don't discredit anyone's beliefs as "silly". I may not agree with them, but I will not put them down. But I'm glad you see that it was kinda silly. I just get defensive when people's beliefs (or lack there of) are dimissed as nonsense.

And, out of curiosity, how come you're not picking on any of the atheists who universally reject the entirety of religion as silly, bs, a joke, irrational etc

Because, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I've been fighting with athiestst for a long time. I can say this or that and they still won't bother to give me my time of day. Nothing I say will change how they think. I just... have to prove myself as a worthy theist. That's basically what it comes down to.

> Because, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I've been fighting with athiestst for a long time. I can say this or that and > they still won't bother to give me my time of day. Nothing I say will change how they think. I just... have to > prove myself as a worthy theist.

That's the part I don't get. Not being able to change the way they think is NOT the same as them not giving you the time of day. It just means they're not buying your argument.

Why are you trying to "prove yourself worthy" anyway? You believe one thing. They believe (or DON'T believe) something else. BFD. No one has to "win" an "argument". And if they're being pompous arrogant a$$holes about it, tell them so -- but they're not pompous and arrogant just because you can't convert 'em.

Let me just get something straight -- I will NEVER try to convert someone. I will try to understand their point of view, but I will never *try* to actually go out there and convert. But as I argue with these people, it may look like I'm trying to convert them because my argument consists of reasons God exists in my opinion. The "in my opinion" thing always gets them.

Okay, maybe that part about them not giving me the time of day is wrong. I was just saying that they never buy any of my arguments and eventually end up "yelling" at me for trying to convert them (I use the term "yelling" loosely because these convos usually take place on the internet.)

The "worthiness"... Well, that has to do with a common misconception about Christians in general. There's a chunk of us who believes in the religious right, and for some reason, they're the most vocal. I know a good number of theists who turned a- when they were sick of these people yelling at them with all these rules. I want to show my friends that not all religious people are like that and that they have to accept me for who I am before I start arguing with them ever again. I'm not trying to convert them. I'm just trying to understand.

Nor have I read the Torah, the Bhadvad Gita, or any other religious works besides the Bible

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the Torah consists of the 5 books of Moses... in other words, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy. In other words, The "Old Testament." in other words, part of your Bible. This may be valuable information, so keep it in mind. It may prevent you from looking stupid in the future by saying you've never read the Torah, only the Bible.

Because, quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I've been fighting with athiestst for a long time. I can say this or that and they still won't bother to give me my time of day. Nothing I say will change how they think. I just... have to prove myself as a worthy theist.

Ah, I get it... so you refuse to engage the atheists in an argument or even a conversation because you anticipate that they will be mean and closed minded, but you still feel that you have to prove yourself a worthy theist, so instead you pick on the Jew.

Oh wait... maybe I don't get it. Please explain?

I *know* the Torah consists of the first 5 books of the Old Testament... but I have not read them in the context of the Jewish mindset, and therefore, have never read the Torah. I don't think I can read these books and consider them to be part of the Torah unless I'm fully aware of the background of Judiasm and have studied it.

And I don't refuse to engage in arguments with athiests, it's just that in this thread, the first thing I noticed I could really argue with was the fact that you called the book of Mormon "silly". I'm not picking on you because you're Jewish in any respect... MANY of my friends are Jewish. I don't know why you played that card.

I also have yet to see an argument I can make with an athiest on my behalf that would make sense to them without it seeming like I'm converting them. Which, as I said in a previous post, is not my intent and I have yet to find an athiest to argue with who believes that. So, yes, I make an assumption that I can't argue with athiests because I generalize them into thinking I will convert them, but I only base this thought on previous experience.

I understand what you're saying ... I guess I just don't see why it should be an "argument". I think once you (and the person you're talking to) are "arguing" your own points, it ceases to be a matter of simply trying to understand their point of view, of listening and asking questions, and becomes more an emotional or intellectual investment -- a win/lose debate-style exchange, not a "tell me about your religious views" thing. It's a completely different mode of interaction - competitive instead of inquiring.

But I may just be focussing unduly on semantics.

In other words it is becoming the argument sketch on Monty Python.

ok, let me rephrase:

you refuse to engage the atheists IN THIS THREAD in an argument or even a conversation because you anticipate that they will be mean and closed minded, but you still feel that you have to prove yourself a worthy theist, so instead you pick on one of the few religious non-atheists who has spoken up here.

I don't get why you feel that you can argue against my thinking that the book of Mormon is silly (which it is) without even really making an argument besides just asking "Who are you to say such a thing" and yet you don't feel that you can make the same argument to the many atheists in this thread who are dismissing as silly not just one book but hundreds or thousands of books upon which *billions* of people base their beliefs. Why not just use the same language with them, ask who the hell they think *they* are to do so?

As for the Torah.... if I read the book The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, and then read it within the context of The More Than Complete Hitchhikers Guide, I will still have read the same book. Even if I read it in two different translations.

As for arguing with atheists about the existecne of God... if you base your arguments on the premise that God exists in the first place, or on the premise of faith which you already know that an atheist does not have or want, then of course they are going to get hostile... all you can really say to them is that they should have faith, which *is* in essence trying to convert them. If this is not, in fact, what you do, I would be curious as to how you usually argue for the existence of God... I do not think it is possible to do so logically.

First off, me arguing against you has NOTHING to do with me trying to be a worthy theist. That was in reference to me fighting with the athiests, none of which have said anything that I find interesting to argue about. (No offense atheists.) Which is why I chose to "pick on" you. Because you said something I wanted to argue about. And none of them actually dismissed another's religion was silly. They just said they don't believe in them. Quite a difference. I can practice Christianity and understand why people practice Hinduism. Doesn't make me a Hindu, just makes me able to understand.

As for the Torah, I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say was that you can read the Torah and I can read the first 5 books of the Bible and we can find completely DIFFERENT meanings behind them because of our religious backgrounds. Understand?

Finally, my arguments with athiests have in the past gone like this, in a few simple words:

"I don't believe in God."
"Why?"
"Because of [science, personal reasons, purple flavored cows, etc]."
"Can you explain that to me?"
"I WON'T BE CONVERTED!!!!"

Okay, that's WAY oversimplifying it, but you get the gist. This is why I decline to engage in arguments with athiests anymore. Because I've decided I get nowhere in understanding where they're coming from.

My friend Diane was the only person I've had an actual discussion about this with where it was rational. Maybe that's because it was face-to-face. So I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's very hard to understand what people are getting at online.

...Did I explain it well enough?

Funny... but my conversations with overly-religious people have gone much the same.

"I believe in god."
"Why?"
"Because I do."
"But... what reason do you have to believe that?"
"Because that's what I've been taught."
"But, why do *you* believe it?"
"STOP ATTACKING ME!!!!!"

:P

none of them actually dismissed another's religion was silly. They just said they don't believe in them.

Gordon likens religion to beliving in a purple cow in orbit around Sirius and later says that atheism is a sign of rationality, implying, it seems to me, that non-atheism is a sign of irrationality. Anni says that every religion she's looked at is total bs. INCLUDING LDS (Mormons). Just for example. Why don't you take them up on that?

you can read the Torah and I can read the first 5 books of the Bible and we can find completely DIFFERENT meanings behind them because of our religious backgrounds. Understand?

Doesn't make it a different book. You said you'd never read the Torah... but clearly you have.

If you want a hint, for future reference when trying to convince a Jew of your ignorance of their Holy book, say Tanakh rather than Torah... the Torah is only a part of our Bible which also includes the Prophets and other writings.

Anyway, my point is that maybe you should read some of these books before you condemn someone for calling one or others of them silly. Because they *are* silly, a lot of them! Why shouldn't we be able to say so in a civilized society?

As for your arguments with atheists... well, read what Nate said.

Gordon likens religion to beliving in a purple cow in orbit around Sirius and later says that atheism is a sign of rationality, implying, it seems to me, that non-atheism is a sign of irrationality.

I don't understand how athiests and religious people can't both be rational. Until he says, "Religion is irrational" I have no problems with what he's saying. As for the purple cow comment, that was in response to someone saying that athiesm was not understandable.

Anni says that every religion she's looked at is total bs. INCLUDING LDS (Mormons).

No, she said they sounded like total BS. Slightly different meanings. She didn't personally attack one religion.

If you want a hint, for future reference when trying to convince a Jew of your ignorance of their Holy book, say Tanakh rather than Torah... the Torah is only a part of our Bible which also includes the Prophets and other writings.

Doesn't this somewhat prove my point?

Anyway, my point is that maybe you should read some of these books before you condemn someone for calling one or others of them silly. Because they *are* silly, a lot of them! Why shouldn't we be able to say so in a civilized society?

I'm sorry, but no matter how much I disagree with someone's religion I will never call another's beliefs silly. It's just common courtesy. I don't want anyone to call my beliefs silly, and it just feels right to treat others with that respect.

ok. you interpret their statements one way, I interpret them another. Fine.

the Torah is only a part of our Bible which also includes the Prophets and other writings.

Doesn't this somewhat prove my point?

Um... no?

I will never call another's beliefs silly.

If I come across someone who believes with all their being that the Jews are subhuman and should be exterminated, I will call that belief silly and worse. Just because something is a belief doesn't make it untouchable. If you're going to argue with my calling LDS silly, i want you to show me how it is not silly, not just talk about how it is someone's belief and worthy of respect. I personally do not automatically respect other people's beliefs just because they are beliefs. That goes for beliefs that are blatantly offensive, dangerous and wrong, as well as for beliefs that I think are... well, just silly.

> That goes for beliefs that are blatantly offensive, dangerous and wrong

Do jews have that whole plank-in-the-eye verse, too? :)

Are you implying that modern Judaism is comprised of blatantly offensive or dangerous beliefs? If so, could you please tell me what they are? I'm always curious about how other people view me/us.

And as for your question, I think it was Hillel who said do not judge a man until you have stood in his shoes. Jesus got a lot of his material from Hillel.

"No. Nor have I read the Torah, the Bhadvad Gita, or any other religious works besides the Bible, at least, that I remember in any respect. But I won't discredit any of them as silly. I don't discredit anyone's beliefs as "silly". I may not agree with them, but I will not put them down. But I'm glad you see that it was kinda silly. I just get defensive when people's beliefs (or lack there of) are dimissed as nonsense. "

my beliefs are silly. :-)

sometimes we take ourselves too seriously, m'kay. :-)

*waves hand* I have! I have!

and it's ... um ... silly. But that's not the problem I have with the Mormon belief system. I take far greater issue with its racism, sexism, homophobia, and vigorous denial of the rights of any who differ with it ... just like, um, most every other formal religion has done throughout history.

I don't want to live in a theocracy. And I certainly wouldn't want to live in a Mormon-controlled one. So, going back to a thread from ... a month ago? two? -- I don't think I'll ever be moving to Utah or its borderlands.

I take far greater issue with its racism, sexism, homophobia, and vigorous denial of the rights of any who differ with it ... just like, um, most every other formal religion has done throughout history.

Yes, I didn't even mention that bit.� That's also an issue in my family.� My being bi, not wanting to have children, looking into other churches, that at least they are beginning to be okay with, now that I've stopped looking.

It's good that your family is coming to grips with some of that. I have Mormon friends who also have seen the harsh side of the Church. They joined after the death of their father, when the oldest was 9 and the youngest 2. So they grew up in the Church and felt truly welcome. But when the eldest brother came out as being gay, the Church was pretty heartless -- gave them all a very hard time. He was excommunicated I think. A couple of the other siblings left the Church, but the others stayed. I don't know how they reconcile that.

I wasn't ex-communicated, I asked for my name to be removed from their records.� They refused to do it, even after I told them I smoked, drank, used drugs, had sex, and was bi.� *sigh* some people have all the luck.

I've heard of that happening to other people too. I guess somewhere along the line they decided that making people stay was more punishment than kicking them out. Or they could reform you if they kept you on the rolls and kept sending elders out to speak to you. I dunno.

Maybe that's how LDS has become the "fastest growing religion in America", as I've heard some Mormons claim. The reproductive rate is huge to begin with, plus there are missionaries everywhere actively recruiting new members into the fold, but if you become disaffected you can't leave. Like the Hotel California. :)

I myself as most know an not an atheist - I'm an eclectic pagan. But a woman I admired greatly was Madalyn Murray O'Hair - who was an athiest and a remarkable woman. I did a diaryland about her a while back after being reminded of how much I admired her from an article in Humanist magazine. I think she phrased what atheism is quite beautifully - I posted some of what she said here

check out www.freethought.org or www.fsgp.org

*also raises hands*

atheist!

I guess I'm agnostic. I don't believe in anything but I also don't discount the possibility that there may be something. I just don't believe in it. We talk about it a lot at home.

I can't say there isn't a god. But when I really think about it I don't have any feelings in my heart that there is someone out there who created all this and/or is pulling the strings. If god somehow became apparent to me I would not be so stubborn as to deny it to hold onto my lack of faith. It just hasn't happened in my life and I'm not waiting around for it to do so.

I envy those with faith sometimes. I think I would find comfort in something to believe in. I just....don't.

Right here.

yo.

I dunno...

I thought this thread was for people who thought Fruvous would never play another show. ;-)

well, many bands who went thru a breakup have reunions.
:)

That's what I thought it was for. :)

Blasphemy!!!

I wouldn't call myself agnostic, but then I can't think of a better word for me either.

There are a few general things I tend to lean towards, but I'm not really sure about anything.

For lack of anything original to say...

Yeah. What he said.

-- Pauley

i'm between agnostic and atheist....being raised in a very catholic house (my uncle is a catholic priest and i was sent to catholic school for 12 years of my life) it is very hard to completly shrug off everything that was forced upon me - belief wise -�when i was a kid (ie the whole heaven/hell philosophy and that there is only the "one true God").� on the other hand i firmly believe in nature and evelution and that it took billions of year to create the universe and the earth and everything on it (not seven days as some of my relatives would have you believe) and that it all happened by chance, no by an all powerful deity. I believe everyone has free choice in thier actions and are not "doing the�god's/allah's/jesus'/lord's�will".�

who can say for sure? who knows? i honestly don't care...but extreme religious freaks (of any kind) scare me.

ok, just so you know, being religious and being sane are not mutually exclusive. Not everyone who is religious believes in a literal interpretation of scripture.

Just had to say that for the sake of clarity.

...this is going to be unpopular, but I'm quite sure that being devoutly Catholic and being sane ARE mutually exclusive.���

Of course you meant: being devoutly Catholic and being sane IS mutually exclusive. Speaking as an atheist I propose that there is no neccessary connection between the two. The vast majority of christians, hindus, buddhists, jews, mohammedans and such and in their various colourings are so on no better grounds than their upbringing. Independently from religious views, or atheistic ones for that matter, insanity is spread pretty evenly among the lot of humanity. Reason is overrated.

" "

A very good point.
:D

My first attempt to reply got all flummoxed.� Here's the jist of it:

No, I did in fact mean that being�a devout�Catholic and being a sane person ARE mutually exclusive.� (Compound subject requires plural verb conjugation, and lay off my grammar unless you know what you're talking about).�

Atheism and pomposity, however, appear not to be mutually exclusive, but rather to significantly overlap.

What I mean about Catholicism is that to allow some manmade authority to tell you your soul is in mortal danger if you are divorced, use birth control, take communion from a woman, have sex if you're a priest, etc., etc., etc., is at best profoundly stupid.� This is the same organization that sold indulgances, and it hasn't come along all that far since the Dark Ages.�

That's why I (raised Catholic)�love "nondevout" Catholics, many of whom�are incredibly sane (and are some of my favorite clergy.)� I likewise admire�religious leaders who acknowledge freely�what was way way up top in this thread:� that any�notion of God that any church presents�is metaphor.��

I know of Catholic priests and Lutheran ministers who acknowledge the goddess principle.� I know atheists who believe in angels.� The metaphors work for them -- and they aren't afraid to say so.

As for me, I know energy exists and can be changed but never destroyed.��I believe that I am a part of that energy -- and that the energy�has a source to which it can return.� So I'm not an atheist.�

I also believe that there have been human beings who are avatars of that source.� I believe Christ was one.� I believe Gandhi was another.� I believe�Martin Luther King,�Jr.�was a third, and that some of the saints of various religions were still others.

And I believe that�all beings (not just of the human variety) have that potential, if we clear our minds of nonsense and ego, and�bring our energy into a state of equilibrium.� I don't think there's any stark divide between "divinity" and the natural world.� We come from the energy source, and we can tap into it at any time.

So I guess I'm a naturalist.�� And a wifty new-ager.� Yeah.�

Depends on how you define "devout". I submit that are many Catholic lay and clergy who consider themselves quite "devout" -- but they are devoted to God, not to dogma. Many Catholic thinkers, philosophers, and human-rights activists fall into this category. Think Maryknoll missionaries. Think the Berrigan brothers. Think Dorothy Day. And then there's www.fatherjohndear.org.

The Vatican may be less than pleased with this contrarian form of devoutness, and periodically rebuke it or try to suppress it -- but it's still a vibrant part of US, and global, Catholicism.

is this a response to a particular post, or just a random act of catholic bashing?

When in Rome.... bash the Catholics?

it's rarely limited to rome.

Hmmm.

I've got some vitriol stored up for the Roman Catholic Church. I think they've squandered a golden opportunity to be inclusive and welcome lost sheep back into the fold. I think they've too often let material wealth stand in the way of doing as Jesus would have. And I think that John Paul II is a fossil, and that the church will be better off without him at the helm.

So...is that Catholic-bashing? I have nothing against people who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, and to borrow a hoary old phrase, "Some of my best friends are Catholic. It doesn't bother me."

but my problem with the original post - aside from the fact that so far as i can tell it came out of nowhere, so i have no context for it - is that it had nothing to do with the church itself and everything to do with the people who belong.

being devoutly Catholic and being sane ARE mutually exclusive

to me that says if you're a devout catholic, you are insane. a out-of-the-blue loaded statement which, even though i am not a devout catholic, quite frankly pissed me off. am i reading it incorrectly?

(and i don't think your post is catholic bashing. it's drawing a line between the institution and its members, and it provides examples rather than a punchline)

Mmm...have I mentioned recently how much I love you?

> to me that says if you're a devout catholic, you are insane. a out-of-the-blue loaded statement which, even > though i am not a devout catholic, quite frankly pissed me off. am i reading it incorrectly?

I don't think you're reading it incorrectly. And I understand why it pissed you off. It seemed like an arbitrary attack on millions of people the world over, some educated and some not, who have a faith and devotion I just don't have. That doesn't mean I think any less of them for applying it and letting it help sustain them in every aspect of their lives, as I apply my own beliefs and thoughts. A specific complaint about the Church's hypocrisies, excesses and deceptions is a completely different matter from an attack on her membership.

I had some assumptions about the meaning of some of the terms listed, so I dug out my trusty internet connection to make a visit to dictionary.com.� Here's what I found: (these may not be�complete definitions; view the website for further uses, definitions and variations thereof...not to mention in no particular order)

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God, or greater Being or gods.

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God; one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism; One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.; Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism.

(eclectic: Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles; made up of or combining elements from a variety of sources; selecting what seems best of various styles or ideas)

Pagan: One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion; one who has no religion;�a non-Christian;�a hedonist;�a Neo-Pagan; one who worships false gods.

Naturalist: One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism.

Naturalism: the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations; Philosophy: The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws; Theology:The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

Neo-paganism: Any of various religious movements arising chiefly in the United Kingdom and the United States in the late 20th century that combine worship of pagan nature deities, particularly of the earth, with benign witchcraft.

Wicca: A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

God:�a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being;�a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality; an image of a supernatural being; an idol; one that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

Other terms of interest may include: Catholicism, monotheism, dualism, hedonism, universalist, Judaism, etc.

With definitions in hand, I find I am an eclectic polytheistic neo-pagan/wiccan/naturalist.

Do I believe there is a God?� Sure,�why not?� Is there just one god?� I don't believe so.� I think there is more than one god and there may well be goddesses.� I have a strong belief in Earth and Mother Nature, too.� And that Life hands each person exactly as much as he/she can handle.

I am not fond of organized religion because I believe it�exists to provide Power to a group of people.

Am I religious?� Maybe, on the polytheistic level.� I think maybe I have more faith (or spiritualism) than religion in me.

> I find I am an eclectic polytheistic neo-pagan/wiccan/naturalist.

I'd say ditto, except "Christo-pagan" instead of "neo-pagan".

What I find is, the god and goddess metaphors all work to bring me spiritually to the core of nature. I can't say I "believe" in what the various traditions call "Brigid" or "God" or "Isis" or "Ra", so much as their different aspects are essential to my understanding of my life and the universe(s). I think divinity is bigger than any of them, and unifies them all. They are the link in my knowledge between what is natural and known by science and what is dismissively called "supernatural" -- which I do not think is mumbo-jumbo, or coincidence or fluke, but is evidence of all that science does not *yet* know.

I don't know a lot about brain physiology, but I think spirituality/science are probably a right-brain/left-brain dichotomy, and that ultimately, you need to use both sides in order to work out a coherent philosophy -- whether your philosophy is that there is no God; or that your beliefs are not philosophy at all but religion, i.e. there is a God and his plan is revealed in a text you believe fundamentally; or something less polarized than those two examples.

On that note, I believe karma is a fundamental application of physics. :)

In paganism all the names of gods and goddesses are just different aspects of the same deities - it doesn't really matter what you call them. Though generally speaking, it's good to pick a pantheon and stick with it but that's mainly for avoiding personal confusion as opposed to offending any higher powers. ;)

In your form of paganism, maybe.� Not necessarily in all religions classified as "pagan" under the dictionary definition.

Pagans rarely go by the dictionary definitions...

That's�fine, but "pagan" is a pretty broad definition any way you slice it.� It bothers me somewhat when someone says "pagans believe this," because there are a lot of religions that can be defined as "pagan" that probably don't.� For instance, I don't know that the Vikings believed that Odin and Thor were both manifestations of the same God, and their religion would probably be classified as "pagan" by many.� It seems to me to be sort of like saying, "Christians believe in predestination," or something like that.

And eclectic pagans go with the deities, spirits, daemons and/or elementals that most resonate with them, irrespective of pantheon.

A "pagan" at one point in history was anyone who was not a Christian after Emperor Such-and-Such of Rome converted to Christianity.� And hence the need for restricting government from banning or endorsing a religion. :)

Emperor Such-and-Such was Emperor Constantine, I believe.� He was the first Christian Emperor, at any rate and was the one who legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire, if I remember my various Christianity & Culture courses.� Please correct me, anybody who knows differently

Yep! That's it!� Thanks, that was bugging me all night.� I knew it was something begining with Con, but my sleep-deprived mind could only come up with Constantinople (Istanbul, not...) which I just knew was wrong!

Close! (For some reason I always feel like Mike Ford when I say that.) Constantinople was named for one of the Constantines, so you were totally on the right track.

Big Ups to Byzantium!!!

I find from these definitions (as I usually do) that I most closely match "agnostic"... though not exactly.

Simply because someone wrote a book (or several varying books on a similar theme) about god doesn't mean that there is one. I would need some form of proof.

I mean... I could write a book about whatever silly color-based thing they had in a mighty wind.... and if I got enough people to buy it, it'd be a "religion".

Doesn't necessarily make it so.

Simply because someone wrote a book (or several varying books on a similar theme) about god doesn't mean that there is one. I would need some form of proof.

ok, here's something I don't get... why is it so important to some people to know that there is a God? Why is there this question at all? I mean, I understand how someone who follows a religion dogmatically and belives and acts on the literal letter of their religion's particular holy book would want to feel that they are justified in doing so and thus would have to think that they know that there is a God commanding them through said book... but, and maybe this is just cause I'm a Jew, my understanding of religion is that it has less to do with God than with human interactions. Religion is supposed to be a guide for life, or at least a jumping-off point, just a way of looking at the moral and ethical truths that a certain society has come to basically agree on, not an air-tight logical proof of anything.

In Judaism, the way we exalt God is by exalting life. That has long been my understanding. You "worship" by living well, by heightening your awareness and consideration of yourself and you actions and the way they affect the world and the people around you. Based on this, I see no reason to wish to know that there is a God... I don't have to. What I understand as God is something like the essence of individual and collective personal human existence. You know, the big *(I) AM*? I have reason to think that such a thing exists, or at least that it is valuable to think about the world and human life in such terms.

So really, this whole idea of proof doesn't make much sense to me.

To me, there has to be some kind of God because even science has not been able to explain the universe. Or the Cambrian Explosion. There exists enough circumstantial evidence, along with the historical record of the life of Jesus to give support to the sense of a creator, and in particular the Christian notion of one. I'm not saying the Bible is totally factually and unerringly the Word of God, but being a scientist and analyzing the theories out there, they all have one big fat hole: creation. Even with evolution, it cannot explain the scientific evidence. The Big Bang theory even starts with "there was this tiiny bit of matter" Where did it come from?

Some people turn to religion out weakness, insecurity or fear in their own mortality. The Christians I associate with are all extremely logical, analytical people who have examined the evidence pro and con, examined the historical record and decided the Christian notions on God and life appear to be more likely than other explanations.

I dunno, now I'm rambling so I'm going to end this.

ok, this argument always bugs me...

science is not a monolithic thing. it is not an institution. Science is a process of inquiry. The fact that "science" has not explained everything in the universe, every object and its existence, every phenomenon and its genesis, proves nothing other than the fact that we haven't yet gotten there, or that humanity might be limited in what it can understand through scientific inquiry as we now know it.

And... I just have to ask... what does proof of a historical Jesus have to do with the existence of God?

Just an interesting sidebar. An archeologist working near Jerusalem found the grave of someone marked "Joshua son of Joseph" (OK it was actually in Aramaic so it would be closer to Yeshua ben Yoseph). The deceased was crucified around the time Jesus (Yeshua ben Yoseph in Aramaic) was. The archeologist didn't publish. When someone asked him if he was at all excited that he might have found Jesus's grave he said, "No, it can't be Jesus because he was resurrected and ascended to heaven."

I think I got this story from Stephan J. Gould. It is certainly the kind of point he liked to make.

joshuah is yehoshua, not yeshua. The difference is subtle and the meanings are essentially the same, but the two names are different and could not be easily mistaken for each other in Hebrew writing.

I'm confused. I thought the grave (ossuary box) they found was of St. James, the brother of Jesus, not Jesus himself?

Or are you talking of a different case?

The ossuary box, actually, was a fake, as seen in this article.

this is a different case. This wasn't published by the archeologist. He just told the story to Gould or whoever it was who wrote what I read.

Ah. My bad.

I agree that scientific knowledge grows and there will always be something that current scientific knowledge can not explain. My point is that given current scientific knowledge, the concept of a God (and in my case, a Christian god) is not outside the realm of possibility or logic/science.

Some people point to scientific knowledge to deny the existence of God. Scientific knowlege cannot resolve apparent contradictions in scientific evidence, nor disprove the notion of a God.

I'm always open to scientific proof.

> And... I just have to ask... what does proof of a historical
> Jesus have to do with the existence of God?

The fact that the events of Jesus' life as documented in the Bible have been largely been confirmed by archeological investigation. In addition the account surrounding his resurrection are contradictory to what most people cite as refutation of the account (i.e. his followers stole the body, the guards moved his body, etc).

The confirmed evidence of a historical Jesus match many of the events of the biblical Jesus. The account of his resurrection are amazing enough given the socio-political climate at the time to lend creedence to the fact that the account is most likely truthful.

These are just my reasons for believing. Other people are going to have other reasons for believing what they believe, and that's fine. I'm not trying to force anyone to believe what I believe.

I'm curious about the archeological evidence you cite... could you give me a source?

and... I'm not sure I get your meaning about the account of the resurrection. Whose account? You mean in the gospels? If so, I'm not sure how you view that as particularly reliable. The probability of a person existing and being in a certain place at a certain time as described in a book does not necessitate the validity of every detail of every account given in said book. Just because Jesus may have been at Kana, for example, does not prove that he turned water into wine as the Gospels suggest. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of the accounts of the life of Jesus as described in the Gospels may have been based on historical fact does not necessarily mean that he was in fact resurrected as described.

And... correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it true that only 2 out of the 4 Gospels actually describe Jesus coming back to his disciples after death, and that the other two simply describe the empty tomb?

note... I'm seriously curious where you get your info, I'm not trying to be a jerk about it.

>I'm curious about the archeological evidence you cite... could
> you give me a source?

I don't have them on hand, and most of them I got through Lee Strobel's books "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith", which have fairly detailed and length bibliographies. I'd be happy to look it up and give you the citations via frumsg.

Three gospels describe the ressurection (Matthew, Luke, and John). The more important part of the description of the resurrection is the socio-political context. The guards were not just guards, they were Roman centurions. They were commanded to guard the tomb and make sure noone disturbs it. If centurions disobeyed and order, they were put to death. So, any collusion on moving the body by the guards is highly unlikely.

Also, the disciples were crestfallen upon Jesus' death; they even doubted. Yet after the resurrection, they went out and preached the gospel and Jesus' teachings. They generally weren't received warmly; they were mocked, jailed, threatened with harm and death. Why would they choose to do this if what they had seen wasn't true? Why would the bring that level of persecution on themselves if it weren't true?

There are discrepancies in the Bible; it is after all written by men. The discrepancies are not big things though. If you have 5 people witness the same event, you will get 5 different accounts with subtle differences based on perception and each person's own biases. The gospels agree on all the major points of Jesus' life.

Most of the archeological evidence just confirms the location of places and events as they were described in the bible.

The gospels were far from eyewitness accounts. Most of them were written more than 50 years after the events, and were designed for very different audiences. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke, which agree the most in point of view) had plently of time to get their stories straight.

A good treatment of the material can be found in the documentary "From Jesus to Christ," from PBS home video.

Starfox... you seem to be basing everything you are saying on the premise that the Gospels are true to the letter. That is a very shaky premise to start with. How do you know that there were centurions stationed at Jesus' grave? How do you know that the accounts of what the desciples did are true? And besides that, people bring persecution upon themselves for all sorts of causes that they want others to believe. Sometimes the cause is more important than the truth for some people.

Most of the archeological evidence just confirms the location of places and events as they were described in the bible

This doesn't suprise me... these were people writing about real places and real events... that doesn't mean that they didn't insert stories into these events that didn't actually happen, or that they didn't exaggerate certain things.

Look, I'm not trying to mess with your faith... obviously, if you believe this, you're going to believe it. That's your perogative. I'm just not sure that trying to show that it can be proven it scientifically rationally and logically is the best idea.

Point to one place that I said that the Gospels are true to the letter. I've said the exact opposite, that there are discrepancies and errors and exaggerations. In fact, in my opinion, you have to take into account the fact it was written by men to understand and have faith.

They were commanded to guard the tomb and make sure noone disturbs it. If centurions disobeyed and order, they were put to death. So, any collusion on moving the body by the guards is highly unlikely.

This assumes that the account is true.

Why would they choose to do this if what they had seen wasn't true? Why would the bring that level of persecution on themselves if it weren't true?

This assumes that the account is true.

If you don't accept the premise that the gospels are true, then these "proofs" are meaningless. As you said, most of the archeological evidence confirms only locations of places and events. This is not, to my mind, proof of the content of the events. Now, the fact that there is no proof doesn't mean that these things never happened, and I'll concede that my opinion is that the scope of possibility is extremely wide... my point is not that these things didn't happen, but rather that you can't at this point really prove that it did or didn't, as you seem to be claiming.

The story about the guards is backed up from multiple sources (Pharises and Roman documents).

The gospels are basically true in the general sense. And early early Christians and Paul's letters bear out the level of persecution they went through. So, both these points are confirmed by multiple sources and lend creedence to the accuracy of those aspects of the gospel record.

There are certainly errors, omissions and embellishments in the gospels, but that does not mean the overall general account (i.e. the big events, not necessarily the specifics) aren't true.

How many points of verification and corroboration are necessary before you accept that the basic account is most likely true. And besides, you accused me of claiming they are "true to the letter", which I never did.

I don't have archaelogical proof - but I'm familiar that there is proof.�

An "interesting" read is a book titled "Who Wrote the Bible."� I don't have the author right at hand, sorry.� AND this book covers primarily the Old Testament.� The point made throughout this book is that the Bible is a conglomerate of many, many writers.� This can be seen by the different styles of writing used (text can actually be diagrammed.)� (This same theory can be applied to the New Testament: more than one writer.)

A writer would take what already existed of the holy texts and "add" to it: maybe a "miracle" was written in some 50 years prior.� Then, when the "miracle" happened, it was prophesied.� The miracle itself could be proven historically...but the prophecy itself cannot.� That's where faith comes in.

As for the New Testament; historically speaking, the Gospels themselves were written by different writers.� The first�book (I don't have all my ducks in a row, bear with me here), Matthew, was written AFTER Mark.� Mark was written some 40 years after the death of Jesus.� Matthew was written shortly thereafter.� Luke was written after both books and used some judicial license with the stories with both Matthew and Mark.� The book of John was written an astonishing 100 years or so after the death of Jesus.� (Which brings to mind...how accurate are the red-lettered words of Jesus, anyway?)

Which all boils down to...faith.� There are definite discrepancies.� There are historical facts to back what was written throughout the texts.� There were books omitted, women deleted and oh, yeah, about Jesus' siblings...� Faith.�

The most amazing thing I ever saw was the professor teaching about the discrepancies in the New Testament who had such faith that he was a religious leader, too.� He had questioned his faith and had the strength to believe.� Still gives me goose bumps.

One of the major points which support Jesus being the prophesized messiah is an analysis I read of the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament there are something like 137 characteristics given for who the messiah would be (stuff like where and when he would be born, who his mother would be, the nature of his birth). Some of them are rather vague, but there are some very specific details which are prophesized. Jesus met every single one of them.

Yup.� He sure did.� (Oh, except for the extra generation - there's a conflict about which nth son Jesus was of King David.)� Remember, though, that much of the text was written AFTER he was born.� Including the Old Testament text; the prophecy was written into the earlier text.�

It's like taking an event that happens today: say, a bank is robbed today by a man dressed as a woman.� That can be pre-prophesized by having someone take their original diary text and rewriting a dream or something, so that by the time the event happens, it fulfills the prophecy.� The proof?� It's in writing, of course.�

Um... you know that no messiah is ever mentioned in the Torah, right? No messianic writings are present until the later writings of the prophets during the later first and second temple periods where the Israelites had been vanquished by the assyrians and the Judahites were facing imminent exile... it's a later idea cooked up buy a desperate people.

As for Jesus... he was very familiar with the "Old Testament" being a devout (if radical) Jew himself. When he rode into Jerusalem on that Donkey, for example, he knew *exactly* what he was doing.

And finally, you seem to not have taken my point about the New Testament... what makes you think that everything written there is true? As was pointed out, these are not eyewitness accounts. These are the stories (some, no doubt based in fact) that were told about this revolutionary and pretty popular guy... is it so inconcievable that legends about him would pop up?

I'm very familiar with Who Wrote The Bible... it is one of my favorite books and I've used it a great deal in my studies... though I think it does more to counter the contention that the Bible is a divine document that to support it.

"What I understand as God is something like the essence of individual and collective personal human existence. You know, the big *(I) AM*? I have reason to think that such a thing exists, or at least that it is valuable to think about the world and human life in such terms. "


Well, then... apparently I'm jewish.
:D
That summed my thoughts up far better than I had done in this thread, certainly.

well, that doesn't make you Jewish, it just makes you crazy like me.

...God is something like the essence of individual and collective personal human existence.

To think, all this time I considered myself to be an atheist! What a fool I was. Either that, or i misunderstand the above statement. Can the the term "God" become so metaphorical that it really refers to an as yet unrealised level of existence of humanity?

Some of us think it has been realized, but only by a rare few we consider avatars. Is that really metaphorical?

"If God didn't exist, man would have to invent him," said someone-or-other. The need to know that we are moving toward an improvement on the current state of affairs seems to have driven human endeavor throughout history (with some obvious instances of backsliding, but the overall momentum has been "progressive" not "regressive" -- witness that we're all having this mostly amiable discussion instead of an Inquisition or a war.)

And now I'm earwormed with Cadence Carroll: "As we revolve we will evolve to a place of love."

Yes, despite some backsliding we have definitely progressed, but our enlightenment is relative. Somewhere in the future our successors may look at our outlook with the same repugnance that we have for our progenitors' opinions about witches, the flat earth theory and rule by divine right. Those you consider avatars are nowhere near the full potential either just yet. No matter how far ahead of the rest of us they are, they too are what they eat. We are all subject to the "Zeitgeist" to a greater extent than we feel comfortable to admit. The closest I can conceive of a God is the development of that "Zeitgeist."

Erm, and yes, I think man (excuse the sexism) had invented God, from the animistic through to the monotheistic and beyond (e.g. gaia?)

> Those you consider avatars are nowhere near the full potential either just yet.
> No matter how far ahead of the rest of us they are, they too are what they eat.
> We are all subject to the "Zeitgeist" to a greater extent than we feel comfortable
> to admit. The closest I can conceive of a God is the development of that "Zeitgeist."

Okay ...

Definition: avatar: A temporary manifestation or aspect of a continuing entity.

Of course those I consider avatars are (have been) subject to the Zeitgeist. They are/were "temporary", of the world and time into which they were born, not outside it. That does not mean they aren't a manifestation of humanity's potential (the "continuing entity").

I think the difference here is, you're defining "development of the Zeitgeist" as necessarily a collective accomplishment; while I think individual humans who have been beacons of that development throughout history, lighting the path, are tapping into the "continuing entity" in its highest form, while living in their own historical time and trafficking in the societal language of that time. They are working between the worlds of humanity's development at that time, and what it has the potential for -- and their every action seems intended to bring those worlds closer together.

Meanwhile, most humans are/have been a lot slower on the uptake at best, and at worst have corrupted much of the avatar's example and existence. And I'm sure I'm guilty of that too.

But my point is: no, my "avatars" are not the entirety of human potential. They express it clearly, but are not its sum. They each are a historical individual, a micro not a macro. But they have upended and remade the Zeitgeist in the process of their lives, showing us what is possible for humanity. There is a pure potential to existence, and I believe -- no, I *think* -- we have seen flickers of it in other, individual beings, although not yet in any collective form.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

Although I do consider the "development of the Zeitgeist" as necessarily a collective accomplishment, I also consider it as necessarily involving the action of each and every individual.

Which of the two aspects may be regarded as being prior to the other remains a moot point from a metaphysical point of view. Its a bit like the chicken and the egg conundrum.

I�ve tried to take a bunch of people�s questions and statements, and synthesize a post.� I often refrain from posting in this sort of discussion - about a hot-button issue that is close to people�s identities, and therefore to their defense mechanisms.� Since I�m always questioning my own religious beliefs, I can end up extra-sensative when I think other people might attack them.� I know that my faith has flaws.� I also know my knowledge is incomplete.

This past Saturday I led Rosh Hashana services at my parents� synagogue.� I love leading services, and I�m good at it.� But I always come back to the same question � do I believe what I�m saying?�

Well, what am I saying?� Most of it is in praise of God.� This time of year, when Jews repent, the prayers are extra full of �master� and �father� and �we have sinned.�� That concept of God reflects images in the Torah and other ancient texts.� I personally do not believe the Torah was handed to Moses.� I believe it is the written version an even more ancient oral tradition of a community trying to understand its world.� But I find in that search for understanding, and the drive of a people to remain a community, something special, something that I might as well call Divine.� And I love the stories in the bible. When I dive into those texts and learn something more about a biblical character, and it teaches me something about myself � that is when I most find myself in the pursuit of God.�

Prayer is another means of pursuit, one which was embraced after the destruction of the Second Temple.� And �traditional� prayer is that which was codified over centuries.� By men.� By the time I�ve gotten them, they are pretty much outmoded, or worn out.� Here�s an image: they are stones turned over and over and over by the river, and have landed at my feet.� I can pass them by, or pick them up.� And usually, they�re just rocks � prayers that I�ve heard and said over and over, in an archaic language, not really touching. �But sometimes, they are gems that someone else threw in upstream � new prayers, many by women, which feel a lot more comfortable to say.� And sometimes I�ll take a rock and fashion it myself into something a bit different, to go back into the river and tumble away for someone else to find.�

So� do I believe what I�m saying?� Sometimes.� Sometimes I choose to use an updated text.� I think in the end, I believe in why I�m saying them.� I believe that the belief in God is very comforting, and connects me to my past, enriches my present, and tumbles into my future.� And I think it�s very rational to want to feel that way.

It looks like y'all could use a dose of old-school religion, yo.

(agnostic buddhist here, btw :-)

*ROTFLMAO!!!!!*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

josh, you are bleedin' awesome.

�-= george =-

::snork:: Okay, that's silly. ;o)

Interesting pic.

Especially since there are two non-whites in it, and yet there is still a
white Jesus.� Jesus�almost always�has strong European/Scandinavian features for
someone born in the Middle East. =)

At least he's not blonde!

*laugh* there is that!

Yeah!
Blondes suck!

:D

*kicks Nate in the head*

*pins Nate so Anni can kick him again*

Sheryl? Wanna get in on this?

*kicks naight b/c it's fun*

Heeee!!!
:D

Oh! We kick him and he laughs *kicks Nate harder, feels guilty and kisses it better*

Sure... non-believers represent... but... WHAT do they represent??

Arguing with a(n) theist/atheist about the rational basis of his or her beliefs is like bailing a boat with a sieve...

We all (even so-called nihilists), on some level, want to make sense of the universe and our place in it. The sooner we recognize that common condition, the better off we'll be.

"he's a nihilist"

"that must be exhausting"

Damn.
Jaci beat me to it ;-)

"it's erev shabbas man!"

Every time I see (or use) the word nihilist I think of Flea getting hit with a bowling ball....

I'm a practicing Christian (because I haven't got it right yet) who attends a United Church of Christ (liberal protestant) congregation. If we had a catechism, this would be in it:

Q. What happens when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a United Church of Christ-er?

A. You get someone who knocks on people's doors and doesn't know what to say.

Hee. Vance Gilbert tells that one about Unitarians. Except for them it's "... and doesn't know why."

Atheist.....although I prefer the term "skeptic".� The original definition of the word.� To quote one of my heroes, Michael Shermer, "Etymologically, in fact, its Latin derivative is scepticus, for "inquiring" or "reflective." Further variations in the ancient Greek include "watchman" or "mark to aim at." Hence, skepticism is thoughtful and reflective inquiry. To be skeptical is to aim toward a goal of critical thinking."

Thus true skepticism is not "anti-religion", it's a method of thinking critically about all things, *including* religion and religious ideas.

My philosophy professor once decided that I am a pragmatic skeptical Jew.

my response:

*blink*
*giggle*

You can also count me as an atheist. Growing up, my mom always told me that we were Methodists, probably because she and most of her brothers and sisters were christened as such. But growing up, I never really learned what makes a Methodist a Methodist. We never went to church, not even on holidays, so religious holidays were almost purely secular. I never even talked about religion with my mom or uncles (I never prayed, and I don't know if they do, I think my mom might), but that's fine with me. Anyway, I used to always say, "I'm a Methodist," because my mom used to say, "we are Methodists."

Anyway, by the time I got to 8th grade, I realized that I didn't really believe in God, and I felt like I had no faith within me of any kind. If I tried to believe what they wanted me to believe about God or any other higher power, I felt like I was faking it, so I just thought, "hey, I really don't believe in any of this." And that's how it was for me.

I'm personally very comfortable with that, but I hate to mention it around my mom (I think she doesn't believe me) and my Uncle John, whom I'd say is a generalized Christian. It seems to make them sad, when I talk about it, even though it doesn't make me sad to feel that way. A� cousin once said it sounded depressing but to me, it really isn't. It only makes me sad to see them saddened by it, you know? But�it feels like there is no other way to feel.

Got this article from joolee.

I thought it was an EXCELLENT one.

Let's hear it for apatheism!

But I disagree profoundly that Ronald Reagan practiced nonapatheism while President of the US. Or, more specifically, his behaviour indicated that perhaps he was personally apatheist, but he certainly was NOT apathetic when considering the religious views of others and how they impacted the social construct. And think that difference -- apathetic consideration of one's own religion, or an apathetic view toward the practices and beliefs of others -- is a profound one.

I for one am intensely interested in religious belief systems, as is probably obvious by the number of posts I've made on the both the Believers and Non-Believers threads. I'm hardly an "apatheist" in the personal sense.

But I really couldn't care less what other individuals believe -- religious belief or nonbelief doesn't make you any more or less a decent, moral human being in my eyes. And I think that's a bit different from "apatheism" such as Ronald Reagan's, which was a matter of him personally not practicing or inquiring much into a belief system -- but presiding over, and enabling, a political and social culture of intense NON-apatheism, of religious activism and partisanship, and downright intrusiveness on the part of some religious bodies into the lives of all Americans.

It was under his Presidency, and withe the aid of his outspoken friendship toward their form of "Christianity" that the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family began their rise into eminence in American politics and the country's social construct. Reagan actively encouraged this. He did not practice apatheism in the sense of taking a hands-off approach about extremist nonsecularism, about the promotion of the agenda of "Family Values" (ie, conservative Christian values -- certainly not Unitarian family values or Reform Jewish family values).

To my mind, this "brother's-keeper" form of nonapathy is extremely dangerous to religious and social freedom. And that's where I'm likely to become judgmental about religion or about religious people -- not whether their beliefs make them moral or immoral people, but whether they try to enforce those beliefs on everyone else, or judge others as "mistaken" or "immoral" or "condemn" them, or legislate against their full equality or ability to participate in society. Then I say ... not that they are bad people for being devout, but that they are supremely arrogant people for judging not just their own spiritual state but that of others. And they are extremely dangerous people for attempting to coerce an entire nation into abiding by their personal religious convictions.

So that is how I view the public religiosity of the Christian Coalition, and the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham, and Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer ... and Ronald Reagan, and Rick Santorum.

this thread is cuntastic.

*runs away*