Which religious group?

[Mr. Lucky]

I do believe I'm being civil, albeit passionate. If not, please let me know.

 

[Samsa]

I do believe I'm being civil, albeit passionate. If not, please let me know.

I don't think anyone was singling you out, but commenting on the tone the thread has started to take in general.

 

[Mr. Lucky]

I don't think anyone was singling you out, but commenting on the tone the thread has started to take in general.

I didn't think that. But, seriously, I do get quite...excited about certain subjects. If I step out of line, feel free to let me know.

 

[dundeedavie]

The british philosopher Hume used the unprovability of the existence or nonexistence of god in explaining "hume's fork" there he said that that which cannot be proved or disproved cannot be resolved and basically is a waste of time to argue. That's why they call it faith and belief.


Fast

i'm with him .. personal belief systems are infinite in their complexity and cannot be argued to any conclusions .


my own is i believe in god but would never subscribe to any organised religion ...and after being brought up a catholic you'll understand why ..i feel the whole thing is corrupt of it's purest principles

 

[surely]

Would it be wise to assume others believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy also? Is it not unwise to ask to be taken seriously without any proof? By all means, everyone should think and believe how they want. I only assume the reasonable. Just a thought here too. Didn't mean to step on your toes also.

don't worry, you didn't come close, in any case I have boots with steel toes.but what did you mean to do?
No it would not "be wise to assume others believe in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy also?" That's my point: its unwise to assume what others believe.
Yes it may be "unwise to ask to be taken seriously without any proof" although it may be reasonable to treat them with respect in public communication even though you may regard their position with derision.
{i take it you didn't get the reference to bebop a lula or was i being dense?}

 

[Bebop]

Surely, I did not get the reference because I am the one that was being dense. A very good play with words. lol

 

[John in Covina]

Excuse me, but I must beg to differ: I deeply admire people of true faith. When I say 'true', I mean a faith that provides solace and comfort in times of trouble and gratitude in during the good times. True faith that does not require superiority, agenda, or control over another. I know many people of that ilk from many a religion: I count as friends a Catholic priest, a Protestant Pastor and Rabbi. And, among them, there is respect for each others faith, not disdain. And, as far as I am concerned, respect for my differing interpretation and practice of, well, all of the above! I know many folks who talk about God on daily basis, but do so in a manner that invokes the idea that it's not about who is right, but about what can I learn from another that will help me find my way! That is the spiritual! And spiritual trancends dogma because one is of man and the other is...more!

To put in such narrow terms, as above, a mass generalization is to do a dis-service to all. We ALL seek...meaning, answers, comfort. But comfort found in setting yourself above another simply because of your beliefs is not comfort at all, it is hubris. And hubris, as is most of those dark aspects of the ego, human - not divine.

Now, I am not directing this at you specifically, John. I just find that when such a general position is taken, it must be rebutted.

*************

You're excused!

I know that "All Beagles are dogs, but not all dogs are Beagles."

In general what I have written is true. You may differ, but most others do not. If you have been thru the same discussions about religion, God, spirituality, ghosts, miracles, the supernatural and the lot, you will find that the object of the discussion is to debunk the other side, not Kumbayah time. I offer no dis-service, I do attempt clarity. (If ones world is so full of greys then there are no black or white, no sureity in anything can be possible.) People of faith tend to be tolerent of other people's faiths BUT NOT ALWAYS, many people that are atheists tend to be determined to disprove faith, FROM MY EXPERIENCE. It is then all: semantics, logic and the debating team time, who gets points for what and how to destroy the other point of view.

You may not behave that way but these discussions tend to draw those responses. I have been down that road many times, often to the point of being able to predict the responses. In most times those that argue on the side of "reason and logic" against faith have strong arguments especially when they are well versed in the technics of debate and science. Faith has a hard time with those whose disbelief is rock sure. To them explainations of Faith is genetics and brain chemistry. My understanding of Faith will hold no water for them. I know that Faith comes thru the hearing of the Word, but I only understand it because my heart has been opened to it by the Holy Spirit. With that statement I might as well have said Martians invented Baseball for some. The truth or logic of that is like trying to descibe the color red to some one that has been blind all of their life. I don't know that it can be done.

Take the use of analogies, If I were to say to me evolution is the equivalant of taking a warehouse full of clock parts putting them in a huge dryer and at the end of a billion years you come up with a clock completely assembled, running, with the correct time, that can duplicate itself. Immediately someone will lable that analogy as some 'type' of argument that just becasue of the type it now has no merit and then will make fun of it. Or explan how it doesn't apply. To me it is a good analogy. Or take the scientists that calculated a list of the things that has to be "right" with the earth for life to exist where the chances of getting it right all by itself are slim to none suggesting a divine influence. Somebody will go debunk that. So it goes, back and forth.

I don't know that either way anybody wins. Does everyone seek meaning in their life? To be honest, I'd actually say No, I don't think so. So many people seem too preoccupied with something to actively seek meaning to life.


If I could set up a poll I'd like to tie 2 questions together:

1) Which group is smarter Religious or Non Religious people.
2) do You consider yourself to be in the smarter group.

 

[SpitfireXIV]

there wasn't an "Evangelical" option, so i went with the most closely related in my opinion: "Baptist." "Lutheran" would have also worked, seeing how i do believe in what Martin Luther beleived in....

i think it would have been easier if it were polled by religion, and not break it down into denominations... denominations just tend to differ on the finer details, not the particular God.

 

[metropd]

I am Jewish as everyone has probably figured out and my family has had some remarkable survivors but I call myself Jewish for the blood spilled in my family's name, as a remberence of their lives, not because of an intangable force. The way I like to think if god created man he lets man create his own destiny . But I would never pray to a god who interacts with this world because NO god worth praying for would let those autrocities happen to such beautiful people.

 

[Dr Doran]

But I would never pray to a god who interacts with this world because NO god worth praying for would let those autrocities happen to such beautiful people.

We are on the same page, my good fellow. I hope by "beautiful people" you are talking about more than your own people, though.

it may be reasonable to treat them with respect in public communication even though you may regard their position with derision.

Fine point. My wife is Catholic. So are all of her family in Poland and here in the USA. I do not believe in invisible beings at all. But it is right and proper to treat people's beliefs respectfully even if one cannot agree.

 

[MK]

.

But I would never pray to a god who interacts with this world because NO god worth praying for would let those autrocities happen to such beautiful people.

That would be a God who wouldn't allow free will.

 

[MK]

.

there wasn't an "Evangelical" option, so i went with the most closely related in my opinion: "Baptist." "Lutheran" would have also worked, seeing how i do believe in what Martin Luther beleived in....

i think it would have been easier if it were polled by religion, and not break it down into denominations... denominations just tend to differ on the finer details, not the particular God.

Agreed.

 

[John in Covina]

I am Jewish as everyone has probably figured out and my family has had some remarkable survivors but I call myself Jewish for the blood spilled in my family's name, as a remberence of their lives, not because of an intangable force. The way I like to think if god created man he lets man create his own destiny . But I would never pray to a god who interacts with this world because NO god worth praying for would let those autrocities happen to such beautiful people.

*************

You may wish to re-read Job.

 

[RIOT]

MYSELF

Roman Catholic by birth, Agnostic by choice

 

[Samsa]

That would be a God who wouldn't allow free will.

Not necessarily... God must have known what would happen in every era of mankind's existence. He knew that the holocaust would happen, He knew about the black death, Hiroshima, etc....yet He still created the world, knowing what evils would befall innocent people.

I think it's important to note that metropd's point is that he cannot believe in a God that *does* interact with the world, and yet still allows things like the holocaust to happen. Devoutly religious people believe in miracles, healings, etc...yet this is not seen as a challenge to "free will." So why would it be an interference with free will if the all-powerful God were to step in stop the slaughter of 6 million Jews and 5 million other "undesirables."

Which brings me to the other point: free will does not mean doing whatever one pleases. Free will, at least in Christian theology, means the will's ability to choose the good, the highest good being God. As St. Augustine said (I'm paraphrasing) "we labor under free wills that are not free."

 

[RIOT]

Not necessarily... God must have known what would happen in every era of mankind's existence. He knew that the holocaust would happen, He knew about the black death, Hiroshima, etc....yet He still created the world, knowing what evils would befall innocent people.

Nostradamus is god? :eusa_doh: lol

 

[Samsa]

Nostradamus is god? :eusa_doh: lol

What?

My point is that the Judeo-Christian God - one that is *omniscient* - would have known such things, yet proceeded with Creation anyhow.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[RIOT]

What?

My point is that the Judeo-Christian God - one that is *omniscient* - would have known such things, yet proceeded with Creation anyhow.

I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

Just different strokes for different folks, that's all.

 

[Samsa]

Just different strokes for different folks, that's all.

I'm not looking to pick a fight or anything, just trying to understand what you meant by the comparison to Nostradamus.

 

[RIOT]

Same. I don't worship so religion to me is just some form of mental stability created by man to build a higher being that controls ones self from doing evil.

My reference to your line was that Nostradamus did predict all that in writing and he is by all means not revered as "holy" or "godly", a heretic if anything. It's just that your belief is your belief, and my belief is mine. Let's just leave it at that.