# Are you a believer ?



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

After reading The God Delusion and agreeing with Richard Dawkins just curious how many believers/nonbelievers/agnostics are out there.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I believe in God and pray twice a day. I don't really believe in churches of any kind _for me_, although I certainly see that other people get something out of it. My wife goes to chuch once a week.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Universe, if it isn't a pluriverse is to beautifull to be some random set of acts until order came from kaos. It even created sentient beings to admire it's handiwork.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

If your question is "Do you believe in God", yes. If it is "Are you a true believer in your particular religion", that's a little more tricky. I think my picture is next to the definition of "Cafeteria Catholic". Hopefully I'm wearing a nice suit in it.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Atheist.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Atheist. I don't agree with everything Dawkins has to say (for instance, his attempt to get people to use the term "brights" to refer to atheists was pretty foolish), but overall he captures religion pretty well.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> If your question is "Do you believe in God", yes. If it is "Are you a true believer in your particular religion", that's a little more tricky. I think my picture is next to the definition of "Cafeteria Catholic". Hopefully I'm wearing a nice suit.


Sorry, thought everyone would be familiar with the Dawkins book since it's created quite a broo-ha-ha. Do you believe in god, higher power, supernatural being. Don't care what religion/sect/denomination. I prefer to think of myself as a pantheist - not many or all gods - but in nature or the universe - which some have described as a sexed up athiest - you can celebrate soltice without any god.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Yes, I absolutely believe in God, and His salvation through grace alone. I'm Lutheran.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm also Lutheran. (Missouri Synod.)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm also Lutheran. (Missouri Synod.)


LCMS here too.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am an agnostic but live my life in a godless fashion. As I have explained before, I think athiests are making the same leap of faith that religious folks are. On this topic, I clearly am without knowledge and lack faith in either position.

I would like to believe however. It is not comforting to think that upon my physical death, I cease to exist (am I sure others here are actually comforted by the though of a dissolution of Wayfarer, lol!). Also, as I stated, if there is an afterlife, I would much prefer Valhalla vs. eternal tranquility. Lotus eaters do not do well in life, I fail to see why they'd do well in the afterlife.

Regards


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Cool. 

(I'm guessing you are in your twenties. I am 50.) 

It's nice to see a younger guy strong in the faith! A lot of younger people are being drawn into the Pentecostal arena. It truly is nice to see a younger guy staying in the Lutheran faith.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of _The God Delusion _that was published in a recent issue of the LRB:

A.C. Grayling had a snappy retort to Eagleton in a letter published in the following issue. Good stuff all 'round.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Die-hard, rigorous German Lutheran and proud of it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Cool.
> 
> (I'm guessing you are in your twenties. I am 50.)
> 
> It's nice to see a younger guy strong in the faith! A lot of younger people are being drawn into the Pentecostal arena. It truly is nice to see a younger guy staying in the Lutheran faith.


I'm 28. I'm actually a converted Episcopalian. My wife was raised in the Lutheran church, and I made the change while we were dating in college. I really enjoy the Lutheran church. We attend a very traditional church, so the liturgy is much the same as the Episcopal church. My wife's grandma still longs for the days of the old Red Book though!

Wayfarer,

Although it is not Valhalla, my pastor has assured me that there is beer in heaven.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Atheist.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Although it is not Valhalla, my pastor has assured me that there is beer in heaven.


:icon_smile_wink: Is there enough wiggle room to get whisky and the occasional act conjugation?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> :icon_smile_wink: Is there enough wiggle room to get whisky and the occasional act conjugation?


uisge beatha? I'm sure the "water of life" is not forgotten. :icon_smile:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

One of the German Polkas that I sing sometimes at weddings gigs goes "In Himmel es gibt kein bier." (In Heaven, there is no beer.)

I suppose old German Polkas are probably not your best source for theological research, though.

My congregation is gradually losing members, (we are downtown and the oldest Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in Lansing.) We still use the old red hymnals, though. It is one reason I picked that church when I transferred my membership to Lansing. I love the old red hymnal. 

In fact, the newest hymnal has brought back some of those hymns!!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Armenian Apostolic


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> One of the German Polkas that I sing sometimes at weddings gigs goes "In Himmel es gibt kein bier." (In Heaven, there is no beer.)
> 
> I suppose old German Polkas are probably not your best source for theological research, though.
> 
> ...


That is interesting, we have been gaining new members, and many of them are former Pentecostals. My pastor attributes the trend to young people seeking structure in their lives, something the super churches do not offer.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Charismatic is not the same as Pentecostal. I don't like Charismatic, which has an appearance of Pentecostal. 

I like Pentecostals the most. And Fundamentalist is second.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Our church is in a downtown inner city location. (I will stop FAR short of calling it a ghetto. Lansing has some run-down areas, but generally, there are not a lot of violent crimes here. For the most part, I have no fear when attending church.)

However, most of our area Missouri Synod Lutherans prefer to attend churches that are closer to their suburban homes. Our congregation is the group of old-diehards who have memories of growing up with Trinity (our church's name) and want to keep attending Trinity. At 50, I am one of the congregation's youngest members.

Out in the suburbs there are about 10 (too many?) churches.

It's nice to see you gaining membership among young people. While I believe there is a place for any Christian Church that sticks to the doctrine, I believe (possibly because I have only been a Lutheran) that our church has the most accurate interpretation. I love the liturgy and the hymns. 

My selfish opinion is that some churches are getting to close to entertaining and to far away from worshipping. However, I will not point any specific fingers. I'm sure that most of the people in the "entertaining" churches would not feel that way about themselves. In our society, any expression of real Christianity is a good thing.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I would much prefer Valhalla vs. eternal tranquility.


Valhalla ends with Ragnarok, doesn't it? - I'll take eternal tranquility.

Fomer Presybterian (PCA) in the process (i.e., taking RCIA calsses) of converting to Roman Catholicism (not sure if I'll do it) - I want to be as reactionary as possible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Valhalla ends with Ragnarok, doesn't it? - I'll take eternal tranquility.


But you forget, it begins again. The eternal cycle.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> That is interesting, we have been gaining new members, and many of them are former Pentecostals. My pastor attributes the trend to young people seeking structure in their lives, something the super churches do not offer.


That's interesting because I'm a pentecostal and sometimes I wish the church I go to would offer a little more substance in teaching etc rather than fluff.

I know we all worship the same God (which is why we shouldn't whinge about inter-denominational transfers) but it's interesting to see the different vehicles of discoveriing that relationship.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

Lushington ,
thanks for those links. A great faith re-affirming read.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Terry Eagleton wrote a scathing review of _The God Delusion _that was published in a recent issue of the LRB:
> 
> A.C. Grayling had a snappy retort to Eagleton in a letter published in the following issue. Good stuff all 'round.


What's amusing is that Eagleton is a Marxist defending religion here. Good reading, but have to give the nod to Grayling's commentary for cutting through the murk in pithy style.

lol on the Derrida comment too.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Catholic.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

US News said something like 1% of Americans self proclaim themselves to be athiests. Does that sound right?

I however, am not. I would be considered fairly religious I guess, but I wish I was more religious. I fall somewhere in the Moravian/Methodist mix. 

For the last couple months I've been attending Presbyterian services but I think I prefer the Methodist/Moravian upbringing I had. It is a traditional church I go to but I wish they sang more of the old rugged hymns. 

They don't have stained glass windows either which I had grown accustomed to. They are very sartorially advanced though.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

BertieW said:


> What's amusing is that Eagleton is a Marxist defending religion here. Good reading, but have to give the nod to Grayling's commentary for cutting through the murk in pithy style.
> 
> lol on the Derrida comment too.


The current issue of the LRB contains a few more letters on the matter that are worth reading, including a retort to Grayling that may or may not, depending on one's view, pull the rug out from under his feet. More good stuff on all sides.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

super k said:


> Lushington ,
> thanks for those links. A great faith re-affirming read.


You're welcome. I've sent the link to several devout believers that I know, and they all have enjoyed Eagleton's blast immensely.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

I was raised Catholic. I turned to religeon as a teen to get myself through some tough times. My exploration was mainly self-directed however. As such, while I still consider myself Catholic, I also believe that any mainstream religeon is essentially worshipping the same God.

Which of course, makes sense. After all, is it no unlikely that a different race and culture around the world made up a different name and ritual to worship God, they have a different culture and language.

I don't attend Church however, except on rare occasions. Faith is about a relationship with God, and Church all too often is nothing more than a social event that people feel they must attend. IMO, it is more important to actively think about and explore your faith than it is to dress up and sit in a pew while daydreaming about the waffles you'll be having for brunch, or who's going to win the football game later that afternoon.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I always thought athiests are like the students who, regardless of ability resent teachers looking over their shoulders. Friend of mine is an athiest and got angry because I observed all the major religous holidays. He said athiests should have one day of observance too. I said they did, April 1st. My extended family is all over the religous affiliation map. Personally, I'm studying for crismation in the Orthodox church.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Roman Catholic, and *not* of the cafeteria variety.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> I always thought athiests are like the students who, regardless of ability resent teachers looking over their shoulders.


Okay, I'll bite. What does this mean?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

We should note, for the record, that we're talking about "atheists," not "athiests."

I have a difficult time fully overcoming my religious upbringing, but I'm certainly agnostic at best, and closer to believing only in the natural order of things. And, it must be said, the Wodehouse. In my view, atheism is as impossible to prove beyond a doubt as is devout belief. In both cases, if we're being intellectually honest, we simply do not know.

That said, I largely conduct my affairs without much supernatural concern, and certainly without any of the traditional rituals.

I do still appreciate the spirit of Christmas and much of the season's trappings, including the songs. Just fairy tales to me, but delightful ones.

Cheers.

Another nonbeliever:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lunch followed by a walk and conversation in the park with Madeleine Murray-O'Hare or Joseph Campbell. I rest my case.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Kav said:


> Lunch followed by a walk and conversation in the park with Madeleine Murray-O'Hare or Joseph Campbell. I rest my case.


Or on the other hand, what if the choice were between Stephen Jay Gould and Sun Myung Moon?


----------



## classicmike (Nov 12, 2006)

Raised Roman Catholic, married a Lutheran. It's OK. Seems like Catholic light without the kid issues. Oh well, I'm home from golf by the time she is done praying for my soul anyway.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*lifelong atheist*

Atheist/non-believer. I have been a non-believer virtually all my life, at least since I was four. I am now 61.

Religion is interesting, especially American religion. I identify somewhat with Episcopalians, and even joke that I am "culturally Episcopalian." Likewise, I have anabaptist ancestors, and feel a sense of kinship with that history. But when it comes to believing, I have never wanted nor been able to make a leap of faith.

I do enjoy the Christmas holidays for the decorations and childhood memories, but not for the theological content. I used to enjoy midnight mass on Christmas eve, again, not for the theology, but for the greenery and incense, and for an imagined sense of continuity with neolithic European ancestors. Now it is enough to have a decorated tree with an electric train running around it.

I read the Koran several years ago and recall thinking at the time that it made even less sense than the Bible.

I intend no disrespect for those of you who do believe. I just want to share my perspective with the hope that you might find it informative.

Gurdon


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I would like to believe however. It is not comforting to think that upon my physical death, I cease to exist.


I don't know... I don't recall existing prior to my birth, so I don't think I would mind not existing at all again. How could I?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

I'm one of the don't knows. 

It's been my observation that "not believing" requires as much energy and stubbornness as "believing" and that's way too much effort to put into something that can't be known either way.

Scientifically, I side with the atheists though.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

classicmike said:


> Raised Roman Catholic, married a Lutheran. It's OK. Seems like Catholic light without the kid issues. Oh well, *I'm home from golf by the time she is done praying for my soul anyway.*


I'd be in BIG trouble if I tried that. Wife used to be nicknamed the Popessa.


----------



## MadViking (Sep 22, 2006)

I'm atheist and very much agree with the views of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris - i.e. I think the world would be better off without religion.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

android said:


> I'm one of the don't knows.


Respectfully, I don't think too many believing Christians will claim to absolutely KNOW - that's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge."

I'm not sure that all forms of Christianity are in conflict with science, in any case - it was a Roman Catholic priest, for instance, who was instrumental in developing the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaitre. And certainly not all (probably not most) Christians reject evolution, etc.

And, if you accept the big bang theory as "scientific" - don't you find yourself at a loss to explain how that little mass, variously described as the size of a baseball or a beach ball, which exploded in the big bang, and which is the source of all matter in an infinite universe (roughly speaking) came into being in the first place? Science can only say - it simply existed - seems like an unsatisfactory explanation from a discipline which seeks to explain cause and effect.

For now, I'll side with the "weak-minded" as Jesse Ventura described religious people. It does no harm, and as bad a person as I am now - I'd be far, far worse without my crutch/myth/fairy-tale, etc.


----------



## AddisonBelmont (Feb 2, 2006)

Religion has caused been the cause of far more wars than mere politics, and when you put the two together, trouble's sure to follow, but anyway, yes, I'm solidly Christian. 

On the other hand, few people have described the appeal of exhausted disbelief as hypnotically as Swinburne, who's all but forgotten these days. Here's "The Garden of Proserpine" written back in the day when people bought poetry by the pound:

.............................................. 
Here, where the world is quiet;
Here, where all trouble seems
Dead winds' and spent waves' riot
In doubtful dreams of dreams;
I watch the green field growing
For reaping folk and sowing
For harvest-time and mowing,
A sleepy world of streams.

I am tired of tears and laughter,
And men that laugh and weep;
Of what may come hereafter
For men that sow to reap:
I am weary of days and hours,
Blown buds of barren flowers,
Desires and dreams and powers
And everything but sleep.

Here life has death for neighbor,
And far from eye or ear
Wan waves and wet winds labor,
Weak ships and spirits steer;
They drive adrift, and whither
They wot not who make thither;
But no such winds blow hither,
And no such things grow here.

No growth of moor or coppice,
No heather-flower or vine,
But bloomless buds of poppies,
Green grapes of Proserpine,
Pale beds of blowing rushes,
Where no leaf blooms or blushes
Save this whereout she crushes
For dead men deadly wine.

Pale, without name or number,
In fruitless fields of corn,
They bow themselves and slumber
All night till light is born;
And like a soul belated,
In hell and heaven unmated,
By cloud and mist abated
Comes out of darkness morn.

Though one were strong as seven,
He too with death shall dwell,
Nor wake with wings in heaven,
Nor weep for pains in hell;
Though one were fair as roses,
His beauty clouds and closes;
And well though love reposes,
In the end it is not well.

Pale, beyond porch and portal,
Crowned with calm leaves she stands
Who gathers all things mortal
With cold immortal hands;
Her languid lips are sweeter
Than love's who fears to greet her,
To men that mix and meet her
From many times and lands.

She waits for each and other,
She waits for all men born;
Forgets the earth her mother,
The life of fruits and corn;
And spring and seed and swallow
Take wing for her and follow
Where summer song rings hollow
And flowers are put to scorn.

There go the loves that wither,
The old loves with wearier wings;
And all dead years draw thither,
And all disastrous things;
Dead dreams of days forsaken,
Blind buds that snows have shaken,
Wild leaves that winds have taken,
Red strays of ruined springs.

We are not sure of sorrow;
And joy was never sure;
To-day will die to-morrow;
Time stoops to no man's lure;
And love, grown faint and fretful,
With lips but half regretful
Sighs, and with eyes forgetful
Weeps that no loves endure.

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

Then star nor sun shall waken,
Nor any change of light:
Nor sound of waters shaken,
Nor any sound or sight:
Nor wintry leaves nor vernal,
Nor days nor things diurnal;
Only the sleep eternal
In an eternal night.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

AddisonBelmont said:


> Religion has caused been the cause of far more wars than mere politics, and when you put the two together, trouble's sure to follow, but anyway, yes, I'm solidly Christian.


I'm very glad (I really mean that) that you are a Christian however if I hear one more time how "religion has caused wars" or anything to that effect I'm going to scream.

People cause wars, not religion. Religion is a grace given to us so that we may commune with God. To say that religion has caused wars is as ridiculous as saying "hands cause stealing".


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm very glad (I really mean that) that you are a Christian however if I hear one more time how "religion has caused wars" or anything to that effect I'm going to scream.
> 
> People cause wars, not religion. Religion is a grace given to us so that we may commune with God. To say that religion has caused wars is as ridiculous as saying "hands cause stealing".


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm very glad (I really mean that) that you are a Christian however if I hear one more time how "religion has caused wars" or anything to that effect I'm going to scream.
> 
> People cause wars, not religion. Religion is a grace given to us so that we may commune with God. To say that religion has caused wars is as ridiculous as saying "hands cause stealing".


Well there's a lot of long-exploded myths that have been propagated on this thread but this is one that certainly does grate.

I normally bite on this one but was just about to avoid it until I saw your response.

To the previous poster, if you want to talk in pure numbers, in the past 100 years deaths resulting from atheist belief systems outnumber all deaths from religious based wars in human history.

The religion causes war myth is one of the greatest furphies commonly accepted in society today, in my view.

Sure, wars have been started in the name of religion. But they are a tiny minority. To the next poster, don't bother mentioning the crusades, because that will only prove my point.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

VS said:


> I don't know... I don't recall existing prior to my birth, so I don't think I would mind not existing at all again. How could I?


The opening pages of Nabokov's _Speak, Memory_ contain perhaps the most eloquent meditation on this dichotomy:

"The cradle rocks above the abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of life between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for (at some forty-five hundred heartbeats per hour.)"

Of course, VN himself "rebelled against this state of affairs" and believed that beyond the prison walls of time there lay a transcendent "otherworld," which might be accessed by means of the "velocity of thought" and the sympathetic imagination.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Asleep at the wheel*

I'm inclined to think you're probably right, in the overall numbers.

Stories like this one support your claim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Similarly, those of us who doubt the deity's existence can cite these mass murders, both secular and religious, as informing one foundation for our skepticism.



pt4u67 said:


> I'm very glad (I really mean that) that you are a Christian however if I hear one more time how "religion has caused wars" or anything to that effect I'm going to scream.
> 
> People cause wars, not religion. Religion is a grace given to us so that we may commune with God. To say that religion has caused wars is as ridiculous as saying "hands cause stealing".


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

*What do you mean by "God"?*

Asking whether one is a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist makes no sense until you specify what you mean by "God."

If your definition is along the lines of "the supernatural intelligence that created the universe" or "the source of the life-force" or Tillich's "ground of all being," then I'm an agnostic. I see no conclusive evidence in either direction. (And I'm not sure that Tillich's definition makes any sense to begin with.)

But whether the universe had a creator is not the relevant question. Such a Creator might no longer exist, or might have since turned His back on humanity, or might be inherently evil.

When people ask whether you believe in God, they usually have a much more specific concept in mind-namely a God who is (1) omnipotent, (2) omniscient, (3) omnibenevolent and morally perfect, and (4) who loves each individual human, wants the best for us all, and actively intervenes on our behalf. _That's_ the God people are interested in, the one Walter Kaufmann called "the God of popular theism." And I agree with Kaufmann that the problem of suffering shows that such a God does not exist. Under that definition, then, I'm a confirmed atheist.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm an apatheist.

Also, I believe in ghosts.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

This poll is very seriously flawed. Neither choice one nor choice two is mutually exclusive with choice three. In fact, the poll contains a logical fallacy. If one says they are either a believer or a non-believer, then they cannot be sure. Thus, if you check either the first or second choice, by definition you would also have to check the third choice. If you are sure, then you do not have to believe.

For example, I am a believer, but at the same time, I'm not sure one way or another. If I were sure one way or another, then I wouldn't be a "believer." I would just be sure.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

odoreater said:


> If one says they are either a believer or a non-believer, then they cannot be sure.


This is often true but not always. There are people who are dead certain there is proof one way or another -- they saw Jesus' face in a pancake, maybe, or a prayer appears to have been answered, or they think they heard the voice of God. I know people like this and not all of them are especially crazy. Other people believe a horrible event proves no God could exist. I happen to believe that my belief is a choice and freely admit the non-believers could be right; however life is more palatable to me if I believe. My wife is a Catholic, and the priest we had to meet with before we married in the church told me there is irrefutable historic proof that Christ existed and did all these things. I told him of my concept of God and he said I was wrong, and I said, "I don't expect you to agree with me. You're a Roman Catholic priest and you wouldn't be one if you didn't believe as you do. I'm not trying to get you to accept my views, I'm just telling you what they are."


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

crs - I agree with everything you just said. But I think that the concept of "faith" as understood by Christians, requires "belief" without "knowledge." People who say that they "know" that God does or does not exist are full of it.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

If someone witnessed a major act of healing right in front of their eyes, I think they could well be qualified to say that they are 'sure.'

Just one example.


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

crs said:


> This is often true but not always. There are people who are dead certain there is proof one way or another -- they saw Jesus' face in a pancake, maybe, or a prayer appears to have been answered, or they think they heard the voice of God. I know people like this and not all of them are especially crazy. Other people believe a horrible event proves no God could exist. I happen to believe that my belief is a choice and freely admit the non-believers could be right; however life is more palatable to me if I believe. My wife is a Catholic, and the priest we had to meet with before we married in the church told me there is irrefutable historic proof that Christ existed and did all these things. I told him of my concept of God and he said I was wrong, and I said, "I don't expect you to agree with me. You're a Roman Catholic priest and you wouldn't be one if you didn't believe as you do. I'm not trying to get you to accept my views, I'm just telling you what they are."


Well, there's irrefutable proof that Jesus existed, but that's a key word. Existed. We can't prove that He did what has been claimed in the Bible and other older texts.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> People cause wars, not religion.


That point is rather weak, is it not? You could also say "people cause wars, not ideology" yet we tend to think that some ideologies (e.g. nazi) have a lot of influence in some conflicts (e.g. WWII).



Newton said:


> Well, there's irrefutable proof that Jesus existed, but that's a key word.


There is? Last time I checked there were only a handful of references in contemporary historical texts (mainly Suetonus and Flavius Josephus) and those references were considered by many to have been added by medieval copists. I don't know what the current consensus is among historians, but it was something on the lines of "strong probability of existence", not "irrefutable proof of existence" when I was last interested in the subject.

Of course, that is not that important as I agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think there are three words: Faith is fact; Belief is what you believe, but no proof; and hope. After these three words is agnostic and atheist. These words are for the Jewish and Christian Faiths.

What other religions believe are a whole nother world.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I am not sure what you mean by "faith is fact."



WA said:


> I think there are three words: Faith is fact; Belief is what you believe, but no proof; and hope. After these three words is agnostic and atheist. These words are for the Jewish and Christian Faiths.
> 
> What other religions believe are a whole nother world.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I am not sure what you mean by "faith is fact."


A personal fact?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Étienne said:


> That point is rather weak, is it not? You could also say "people cause wars, not ideology" yet we tend to think that some ideologies (e.g. nazi) have a lot of influence in some conflicts (e.g. WWII).


No it's not. People are responsible still even though ideology has some influence. The idea of nazism is not what killed six million Jews. It was Adolf Hitler. The idea of nazism is still with us however I don't see Jews being hauled off the concentration camps. _People_ drove those trains, guarded those towers, gave the orders and sat around a table conceiving the "final solution". This notion of religion or secular ideology being the "cause of war" nonsense is an attempt on the part of many to abdicate the role of free will and choice from the affairs of Man.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Lushington said:


> The opening pages of Nabokov's _Speak, Memory_ contain perhaps the most eloquent meditation on this dichotomy:
> 
> "The cradle rocks above the abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of life between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for (at some forty-five hundred heartbeats per hour.)"
> 
> Of course, VN himself "rebelled against this state of affairs" and believed that beyond the prison walls of time there lay a transcendent "otherworld," which might be accessed by means of the "velocity of thought" and the sympathetic imagination.


That is the hubris/egocentricity of mankind speaking, though.

"But I'm so special! How could my existence not continue on some sort of existential plane!"

Of course we are all special and it does matter what one does and shares and experiences. But we have no proof that it matters other than at this moment and in the memories of our surviving friends and family. And to all my fans out there.

I'd like to be remembered like Socrates or Darwin or Shakespeare. But I probably won't be and in the meantime, in this moment, this is some GREAT coffee I'm drinking.

In the moment,

VS


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

VS said:


> That is the hubris/egocentricity of mankind speaking, though.
> 
> "But I'm so special! How could my existence not continue on some sort of existential plane!"
> 
> ...


But god loves you, how could you be so impolite as to not believe in him.
:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

VS said:


> Of course we are all special and it does matter what one does and shares and experiences. But we have no proof that it matters other than at this moment and in the memories of our surviving friends and family. And to all my fans out there.
> 
> I'd like to be remembered like Socrates or Darwin or Shakespeare. But I probably won't be and in the meantime, in this moment, this is some GREAT coffee I'm drinking.


I can share your sentiment (although I am a believer). But this is only the case because I am reasonably disappointed and cheerless since a few months ago. How can you reduce your post-mortem future exclusively to memories as long as you feel some _meaning_ to life?

By the way, resurrection is one important part of my belief but definitely not the main part. Actually, I am not sure whether I would deserve it anyway.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Étienne said:


> There is? Last time I checked there were only a handful of references in contemporary historical texts (mainly Suetonus and Flavius Josephus) and those references were considered by many to have been added by medieval copists. I don't know what the current consensus is among historians, but it was something on the lines of "strong probability of existence", not "irrefutable proof of existence" when I was last interested in the subject.
> 
> Of course, that is not that important as I agree with the rest of your post.


I don't think that's quite true - I think the argument is that the writings of Josephus were potentially added to. He did mention Jesus and Christianity in his writings, but scholars argue that insertions were made to his writings subsequently to bolster the claims of divinity by Christians. (see example ). Christians, obviously existed circa. 70AD so, it would seem logical that Josephus might mention a breakaway sect. Nevertheless, when stripped back, I think the vast majority of scholars believe that the writings of Josephus constitute an independent attestation of his historical existence.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The flaw in our arguments is a static creation, static God and static universe. I think the photograph of new stars being born by the Hubble telescope is a reminder nothing is old, or new. Our arguments pro and con are in danger of also being static. As Robert Earl keene sings, "The road goes on forever, and the party never ends."


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

VS said:


> That is the hubris/egocentricity of mankind speaking, though.
> 
> "But I'm so special! How could my existence not continue on some sort of existential plane!"
> 
> Of course we are all special and it does matter what one does and shares and experiences. But we have no proof that it matters other than at this moment and in the memories of our surviving friends and family. And to all my fans out there.


I can see your point, but wouldn't it be equally arrogant to assume that our finite experience, our infinitely small understanding of the universe, allows us to make the sweeping conclusion that our present moment is the sum of existence? (I fear that seems more confrontational than I intend; I'm asking the question genuinely.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> The flaw in our arguments is a static creation, static God and static universe. I think the photograph of new stars being born by the Hubble telescope is a reminder nothing is old, or new. Our arguments pro and con are in danger of also being static. As Robert Earl keene sings, "The road goes on forever, and the party never ends."


You see, that brings us back to Valhalla and the Nordic view. Nothing is static, all of creation goes through destruction and re-birth in grand cycles.

To some other current posts: nearly 20 years ago now, I took a class in Olde English. The prof, a very learned linguist and English scholar, gave us many tidbits. One I clearly remember was that "eternity" has come to mean different things. The people listening to Beowulf being played by their _schop_ believed eternity meant, "for a long time, in the memory of others" not our current formulation of forever as an ongoing spiritual entity. Just his statement, no sources to back up what he told us, but I have always found that interesting.

Regards


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The prof, a very learned linguist and English scholar, gave us many tidbits. One I clearly remember was that "eternity" has come to mean different things. The people listening to Beowulf being played by their _schop_ believed eternity meant, "for a long time, in the memory of others" not our current formulation of forever as an ongoing spiritual entity. Just his statement, no sources to back up what he told us, but I have always found that interesting.
> 
> Regards


Immortality in classical western antiquity simply meant being rememberd after your were dead. You lived on in your children or what you built or what you wrote. Or so I recall being taught something like that.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

VS said:


> That is the hubris/egocentricity of mankind speaking, though.


It is indeed; but any discussion regarding this matter reveals human hubris and egocentricity. In fact, just about every discussion reveals this; presuming, of course, that only humans are capable of "discussing" anything.



> I'd like to be remembered like Socrates or Darwin or Shakespeare.


VN very well might be remembered in a similiar manner as this stellar trio. Thus, his egocentric rebellion against eternal extinction is perhaps justified.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Some of my most delightfull sentient conversations have been with cats, oaktrees, the west wind and a great seabird while drunk on a beach. I assure you all of creation has a place in this life and the next.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Some of my most delightfull sentient conversations have been with cats, oaktrees, the west wind and a great seabird while drunk on a beach. I assure you all of creation has a place in this life and the next.


Well we _are_ made of stardust, so maybe there is a next life.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> Some of my most delightfull sentient conversations have been with cats


Our cat told me to ignore the dogma. At least that's what I think she said.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Raised Anglican, became a Presbyterian when the Episcopalians got too wacky for me. Suspect I am a reincarnated Puritan.

:icon_smile:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I can see your point, but wouldn't it be equally arrogant to assume that our finite experience, our infinitely small understanding of the universe, allows us to make the sweeping conclusion that our present moment is the sum of existence? (I fear that seems more confrontational than I intend; I'm asking the question genuinely.)


That could be true. I just think we cannot know, and if the sum of our lives lies in how good we make others' lives, that's okay as well.

If the total sum of my life is my DNA, which lives on in ash that nourishes a plant which grows to feed a hungry person, how could I possibly be upset about that?

There may very well be a heaven and hell or reincarnation, but all we can really be SURE of is our own reality, and that is the point I'm trying to make.

There are people all over the world laboring under different views of what their afterlife experiences will be like; this is all based on faith and is great. What I am saying is, all we can be sure of objectively, is the present moment, and I believe we should make that moment as... LOVELY and special as we can. I think any God would want us to do so.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Faith is Fact; When reading the Bible I see Divine Relevations to men. A bush that is not consumed when burning, and even speaks. Angle stirring up the water and the first person in gets healed. A fire from heaven consuming the drenched contents on an alter. Are these facts to you or belief or disbelief? How can they be facts? How can they be belief? Why beliieve in a God who can't? Why believe in a God that would lie about it? If you were standing at the edge of the Red Sea and an old man with a stick hits the water and the water parted, then it would be no longer a belief but a fact. That to me is true Faith. Doesn't make one right with God, though. But you know God exist. Reading the Bible there are lots of miracles- if the church your going to hasn't any miracles - why are you going there? If God sets the example of lots of miracles in His presence (just read the Bible) and your sitting in church that never has miracles, isn't it time to consider if your even in a real church or a make believe church? Worse yet, some churches have agnostics as preachers- what kind of church is that? And then there are conns who pretend to do miracles- stay away from them. Since God is not of His creation, which means He can do things not of this creation - those things we call miracles.

And doctrines; try a few and you will be cured of gullibleness real quick, but you will have faith in the ones that do work. Doctrines are mostly words against words, there are so many of them. Sounding right is not proof of anything.

If God gave us brains and says that His creation reveals Him to us, then how can there be athist? Or, agnostics? 

Evolution and Mt. Everest surely have problems. If it takes 12 million years to grind down 4,000 feet of granite under glaciers, so they say, then how can there be soft rock and sea shells on top of Mt Everest? Simple 3rd grade arthimatic puts a little pin into the big balloon (hot air) of evolution.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Yes, I believe in God. I pity those that do not.

M8


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

M8,

Mr. T agrees with you. So do I.

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> M8,
> 
> Mr. T agrees with you. So do I.
> 
> Karl


God appreciates that, and sends along a recent photo of Him for you to keep by your bedside:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Fogey,

Do you have a PayPal account? Perhaps we could all chip in so you can get back on your meds. 

Karl


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Fogey said:


> God appreciates that, and sends along a recent photo of Him for you to keep by your bedside:


"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Hebrews 13:2


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

WA said:


> If it takes 12 million years to grind down 4,000 feet of granite under glaciers, so they say, then how can there be soft rock and sea shells on top of Mt Everest? Simple 3rd grade arthimatic puts a little pin into the big balloon (hot air) of evolution.


I fail to see the probem. You do know that mountains don't appear because all the rock around has been eroded, right?



Martinis at 8 said:


> Yes, I believe in God. I pity those that do not.


I generally have no problem with religion, much less religious persons. I pity those who have a condescending tone, though.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I am very definitely a believer...read the Bible and pray on a daily basis and attend Church each Sunday. I guess living my life just one step closer to Hell than some, provides a bit of extra motivation for nuturing the faith!


----------



## jml90 (Dec 7, 2005)

I just saw this thread and don't feel like reading the whole thing so I'll just voice my opinion. I was baptised Catholic go to a Catholic school go to church on Sunday and do all the Catholic BS. No matter how much they force down my throat I ain't gonna like it. The Bible has been taken too far. I beleive is was just moral fiber. The church is now just a bussiness. But, I may just be a lapsed altar boy


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Congregational protestant


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Odd how this subject always brings out the best in people, both the heathen and self-professed faithful, is it not? This is one of those things where the "judge not lest ye be judged" certainly comes to a grinding halt for many of the people that subscribe to that dogma. Many of the heathens are no better....I had forgotten all that dribble about "brights" too. I like my three precepts in life much better: work hard, pay your taxes, do not annoy your neighbors. Works at the individual level as well as at higher levels if you think about it.

Cheers


----------



## Tom72 (May 8, 2006)

I was brought up Irish Catholic, an altar boy, but became an agnostic in the 70's. I later became active in my wife's family's faith, they are Episcopalian. During the agnostic period I had some personal issues arise that I thought were insoluble. After years of effort to solve these issues on my own, I asked for God's help. He gave it. Life is GOOD.

My personal experience was proof enough for me. But I fully understand that it is not proof in any rational or logical sense, and means little or nothing to you. Even as an agnostic I think I suspected that there was a spiritual or mystical plane in our existence, things are not just "what they seem" or what can be touched, measured, identified, or quantified. Now I believe that. (But not in Lizard People!).

I am grateful for my rigorous Roman Catholic upbringing. Today, I think I understand some of what they were trying to tell me. I am just the type of individual who needs to be hit on the head three or four times with a 2x4 in order to pay attention!

Church is something I look forward to now. I think most people I go to Church with share the same beliefs I do, I have known many of them for years now, and some of them are my closest friends. They care about my family and me. We care about them.

Episcopalians are notoriously poor proselytizers (sp?), so I fit in quite well! We are active in a lot of charitable programs, but seem to do little of the recruiting that some other churches do, especially here in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. Other than trying to "set an example", the only outreach I do is to make my son go to Sunday School. But I do try to let people know that I am there to talk (not preach!) if they have a problem. I don't have the answers. But sometimes people need to talk and don't have anyone nonjudgmental to talk to. I accept anyone else's belief (or non-belief) system; pity ain't in it. I can only say what is right for me, not what is right for anyone else. 

Remember Pascal's Wager, all true gamblers believe in God.

"By the Grace of God I am a Christian man, by my actions a great sinner, and by calling a homeless wanderer..." The Way of a Pilgrim - anonymous Russian Christian


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Tom72 said:


> Remember Pascal's Wager, all true gamblers believe in God.


Pascal's wager refuted: https://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm


----------



## Newton (Oct 6, 2006)

Pascal's wager is a nice question but you ultimately cannot base your life decisions on that or its refutation.

I don't know whether I believe in theistic evolution or a six day creation. Both sound just as ridiculous as the other, both have seen wide acceptance at different times. 

I'm going to wait until a theory comes along that has some credence to it.

Meanwhile, I'll continue believing in God not because I want to (because I .. er.. don't) but because my mind cannot deny it.


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

*Credo*

Credo in unum Deum. Patrem omnipotentem, factoren coeli et terrea, visibilum omnium et invisibillium. Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum. Et ex patre natum ante omina secula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero...Et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum, et vivificantem qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur qui locultus est per prophetas. Et Unam Sactam Catholicam et apostolicam eccelsiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculi.

I could go on, but I suspect you get the point.

Joe


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> We neither want nor need your pity.


Yes, but you heathen types will get my pity anyway. Just wait and see what God has in store for you if you continue like this until your death. You will need all the pity you can get.

By the way, even the Devil believes in God.

M8


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Odd how this subject always brings out the best in people, both the heathen and self-professed faithful, is it not? This is one of those things where the "judge not lest ye be judged" certainly comes to a grinding halt for many of the people that subscribe to that dogma. Many of the heathens are no better....I had forgotten all that dribble about "brights" too. I like my three precepts in life much better: work hard, pay your taxes, do not annoy your neighbors. Works at the individual level as well as at higher levels if you think about it.
> 
> Cheers


Well, even though you admit being a heathen, your three precepts in life are almost like mine and Ms. M8: work hard, play hard, drink hard liquor :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Étienne said:


> ...I generally have no problem with religion, much less religious persons. I pity those who have a condescending tone, though.


You mean like the intellectual atheists who believe that man is answerable to man. Have you heard of Lenin and Trotsky?

M8


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Yes, but you heathen types will get my pity anyway. Just wait and see what God has in store for you if you continue like this until your death. You will need all the pity you can get.


This kind of smug thinking is why, although I believe in God, I have zero interest in belonging to a church.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

crs said:


> This kind of smug thinking is why, although I believe in God, I have zero interest in belonging to a church.


Okay, rationalize all you want. But churches, despite all their faults, have brought the Word down through the ages, not to mention our Western culture, arts, education, basis for governance, etc. In fact Western Civilization is founded on our religion and churches. As that goes away, then the default is what you see happening in places like Germany and France. Islam.

M8


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Okay, rationalize all you want. But churches, despite all their faults, have brought the Word down through the ages, not to mention our Western culture, arts, education, basis for governance, etc. In fact Western Civilization is founded on our religion and churches. As that goes away, then the default is what you see happening in places like Germany and France. Islam.
> 
> M8


It's not a rationalization. It's simply a distaste for those who would presume to judge other people's future in the hereafter, a job that is reserved for one being only, in my view. I find most clergy less eager to condemn people to hell than some of their followers are. And I would prefer not to share a pew with such people, much less coffee and doughnuts afterward.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

crs said:


> It's not a rationalization. It's simply a distaste for those who would presume to judge other people's future in the hereafter, a job that is reserved for one being only, in my view. I find most clergy less eager to condemn people to hell than some of their followers are. And I would prefer not to share a pew with such people, much less coffee and doughnuts afterward.


Think about the civilizing effect of religion through history. That person who judges you in the pew is from the same genesis as the man in the black robe who judges you in the court.

To not acknowledge religion is to cast aside your civilization. That void will be filled by people of faith. Even if these people of faith are Muslims, e.g., France, Germany, et al.

This modernity is a form of cultural suicide.

M8


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I do believe in God. I think part of my belief is due to the beauty of nature and the way animals interact with us. Their seems to be a grand design that seems impossible to exist without a Creator.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Personally, my academic studies at University ( you, know- wink,wink,nudge,nudge- that troublesome root word of universe they oft times forget) only reinforced my faith through science. 6 winged angels in my church? The bumblebee I saw working the flowerbed outside by aeronautical laws should not be able to fly at all.If evolution gives us bumblebees, why not angles through faith? And that business of creating the world in 6 days, now what is that all about, given we can't seem to find time in a 40 hour + work week anymore to even toss the Mcrib and Coke sack out promptly? Maybe 6 days of 24 hour astronomic measure really equate to a few billion give or take 30 minutes. I'm just happy to be here, since my consciousness hasn't come up with to many other options: to hear this message in latin press 1, for Sanskrit press 2 . For athiest press 3, for theist press4 and for any other questions please wait on the line and Madonna will be with you shortly to explain the Quaballa.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Yes, but you heathen types will get my pity anyway. Just wait and see what God has in store for you if you continue like this until your death. You will need all the pity you can get.


Did Jesus not have a conversation that was recorded in one gospel or another, where he was asked about those that are good of heart but not Xtian and Jesus stated there was a place in Heaven for them? I could be wrong, I make no claims to being a biblical scholar.

Also Brother M8, some verse about "drink thou not strong drink"? Yer going to Helllllel, yer going to Hellllel 

Besides, I still want Valhalla!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)




----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> You mean like the intellectual atheists


Them and their religious counterparts, of whom you are a very fine example. The difference being that Lenin and Trotsky do not post on this board.



Wayfarer said:


> Besides, I still want Valhalla!


The Muslim paradise is quite nice too. Difficulty to choose which particular paradise suits me best is certainly among my problems declaring that one of those countless faiths is the right one. The Buddhist paradise (in some denominations) is one of the worst, I think.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> The Muslim paradise is quite nice too.


Must be. A lot of people are killing to get in.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Yes, but you heathen types will get my pity anyway. Just wait and see what God has in store for you if you continue like this until your death. You will need all the pity you can get.
> 
> By the way, even the Devil believes in God.
> 
> M8


Scare tactics like those have been used for millennia to terrify the simple. Let me clue you in, fella: they don't work on intelligent people in the 21st century. If you're going to win converts to your particular brand of superstition and irrationality, you'll need something better than that.

Here's another suggestion: Consider changing your signature libation. This would seem to be more in tune with your character:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Did Jesus not have a conversation that was recorded in one gospel or another, where he was asked about those that are good of heart but not Xtian and Jesus stated there was a place in Heaven for them? I could be wrong, I make no claims to being a biblical scholar.


I doubt it as there was no such thing as a "christian" when Christ was still alive. However I do remember allusions to Him being the Way.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I doubt it as there was no such thing as a "christian" when Christ was still alive. However I do remember allusions to Him being the Way.


Ah yes, telling point. I think the question was more along the lines of "what about those that do not believe" in the one god. Haysoosus said something about those that are good in heart have a place in Heaven. Again, not 100% sure, I make no claims to being a biblical scholar. However, since I have removed the gross logical error, maybe someone knows the passage?


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

Well, I was raised Irish Catholic, but currently identify myself as an atheist (much to the chagrin of my mother and grandparents). I just can't take organized religion seriously...any person with a decent imagination could write stories that are just as good, or indeed better, than those that appear in the Bible. To assume that they are the direct word of God (as many believers do) seems like a crock of bullshit.

Sure, religion has done lots of good over the ages, especially through its contributions to art and architecture. But I still can't put my money on Catholicism or any other form of religion.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

The Institute of Unicorn Research () has much information about Her Holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whom everyone knows, deep down, to be the real One True Goddess.



> The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know
> this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
> 
> Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
> ...


-from the Virtual Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

https://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Brilliant. Now I am stuck on the horns of a dilemma: Should I worship the unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

https://www.venganza.org/



Fogey said:


> The Institute of Unicorn Research () has much information about Her Holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whom everyone knows, deep down, to be the real One True Goddess.
> 
> -from the Virtual Temple of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
> 
> https://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Brilliant. Now I am stuck on the horns of a dilemma: Should I worship the unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?









​
Touched by his noodly appendage.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> Scare tactics like those have been used for millennia to terrify the simple. Let me clue you in, fella: they don't work on intelligent people in the 21st century. If you're going to win converts to your particular brand of superstition and irrationality, you'll need something better than that.
> 
> Here's another suggestion: Consider changing your signature libation. This would seem to be more in tune with your character:


So you are "intelligent". Like most who make this claim, they acknowledge no higher power than themselves. This is what leads to tyranny. See Trotsky and Lenin, and I guess *É**tienne*.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Interesting how the pink unicorn and spaghetti monster really haven't caught on.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> This is what leads to tyranny. See Trotsky and Lenin, and I guess *É**tienne*.


Wow. Obviously your religious faith has failed to teach you civility.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Wow. Obviously your religious faith has failed to teach you civility.


Oh c'mon. Relax. It's not as if I am going around setting fires and rioting. By the way, how is the _Lamb a la Citröen_ over there these days? :icon_smile_big:

M8


----------



## Tom72 (May 8, 2006)

Étienne said:


> The Muslim paradise is quite nice too.


Careful, Etienne! One of the successful Muslim suicide bombers showed up in paradise, and Patrick Henry kicked him in the tail, George Washington pasted his ear, and Robert E. Lee slapped his face. He cried "Allah! Allah! Where are my 70 virgins?"
Thunder rattled and the Lord spoke: "I said Virginians, stupid, and you have 67 more to go!"

Yours,


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

LOL. My, oh my. You guys are funny.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

LOL. My, oh my. You guys are funny.

Yes, I'm a believer. 

I'm Southern Baptist by upbringing/tradition. But now, closer to non-denom, new-testament Bible-church (who loves wine and is ambivilant about other controversial social issues.) 

While I don't believe simply for the sake of "fire-insurance", I don't think that living a good, wholesome lifestyle can possibly be harmful to me or mine. Better safe than sorry. It is, after all, "faith". If you can think of better principles by which to live than the beattitudes or the fruits-of-the-spirit, then I'd love to hear them.

Let's face it, some truths are universal.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't dispute the desirability of living according to an ethical code, one that enables individuals to come together in mutual trust for mutual benefit. I just don't need to appeal to a supreme deity to accomplish the goal.

To date: Haven't murdered or stolen, nor do I have any intention of doing so. In fact, last time I was even in a fight was the fourth grade.



Jill said:


> LOL. My, oh my. You guys are funny.
> 
> Yes, I'm a believer.
> 
> ...


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

BertieW said:


> I don't dispute the desirability of living according to an ethical code, one that enables individuals to come together in mutual trust for mutual benefit. I just don't need to appeal to a supreme deity to accomplish the goal.
> 
> To date: Haven't murdered or stolen, nor do I have any intention of doing so. In fact, last time I was even in a fight was the fourth grade.


And you think Christianity and religiously influenced social norms had nothing to do with it? Did you grow up in a bubble?


----------



## Clovis (Jan 11, 2005)

*Believers*

When people ask me if I am a Believer, I usually take a deep lungful of air and tell them in a low slow voice that I worship Dracula... which generally gets them moving on along and out of my way. On the other hand if they wish to discuss the form and function of religion in society then I will be more than happy to spend the day chatting with them about the role of religion in the cultures of the world.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Trolling again, Fogey?

Are you 12?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Since this is among the most-mailed stories on NYT today, some of you may have already seen it. But if not:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?ex=1164776400&en=f6a1b1fb00d94208&ei=5070


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Interesting article. Unfortunately, I fear that this quote is probably correct:

“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.”


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2005)

Nothing can put a guy off christianity like a Catholic school. 

Came to the conclusion I dont believe in God and he doesnt believe in me. I kinda liked it that way, so I just kinda do my thing and try not to mess with anyone elses things.

Living in Asia has given me a pretty decent appreciation of buddhism, and that seems to fit with my principle of not messing with other people's things, so that puts me in the yes bracket of this poll.


----------



## queueball (Jun 16, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Interesting article. Unfortunately, I fear that this quote is probably correct:
> 
> "There are six billion people in the world," said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. "If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming - it is like believing in the fairy godmother."


I fear that quote is correct also.

*********

I believe in a higher being. I do not believe in church. There are too many 2+2=5 "teachings" for me.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Tom72 said:


> Remember Pascal's Wager, all true gamblers believe in God.


I admit that I don't "get" the wager, or people who say they believe in god by choice. How is that real belief?

I believe that 2+2=5, but it's not a matter of choice.

Similarly, if, like Pascal, you say you believe in god because things will turn out better for you than if you do not, isn't that really saying that you're going to *pretend* to believe in god?


----------

