My Reason for Being an Atheist

  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Because if God starts taking options away we no longer have free will. :)bean-with-bacon
The options and alternatives we have available have no impact on that ability to choose.ChiliDragon
These two statements seem to contradict.

They do look a bit odd, don't they? :D Let me try and clarify them... hm. Okay, here goes: First statement: You're buying a new car. The dealership tells you that you can get it in any one of the following colors: Silver, red, blue, or green. You chose the red one, and they tell you that you can't do that. It's listed as an option, but it was just taken from you, and now your decision has been made partly by them. It's not entirely your choice anymore. Second statement: Another dealership offers to custom paint the car in literally any color you want. Any one, and they keep their word. The first dealership offered four color options, this second one offers the entire spectrum. Both of them do offer you a choice, however.
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] It's one thing to freely choose between all available options... quite another to chose between "evil" and "more evil", while knowing that the option "good"is there, we just don't qualify for it.bean-with-bacon
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Yeah, now that I read it again I don't blame you. That's one of my more incoherent posts, I think... apologies for that. Let me try again: We can chose to do good, every option we get. However, we're just human so it's not really possible for us to be 100% good, just like we can't really be 100% completely evil either. Which from a certain point of view sucks since God's impossibly high standards mean that if you're not 100% good you're pretty much screwed, but the way I see it, the fact that we can't live up to such a standard is not a good enough reason not to try.
Avatar image for luke1889
luke1889

14617

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 luke1889
Member since 2004 • 14617 Posts
For me, the fact that there are multiple religions, each professing absolute knowledge, and multiple interpretations of virtually every religion, I have more than enough reason to have nothing to do with any of them.
Avatar image for TheOddQuantum
TheOddQuantum

2472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#55 TheOddQuantum
Member since 2008 • 2472 Posts
When I was still young my father (an atheist) described to me the main ideas of the main religions of the world. Soon after, I dismissed them all. Finding that they just went against my sense of reason. I found they were completely irrational. And even when I think of it now, when I read books like the bible or books in defense of various religions it just strikes me as nigh-impossible.
Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
THUMPTABLE

2354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#57 THUMPTABLE
Member since 2003 • 2354 Posts
For me, the fact that there are multiple religions, each professing absolute knowledge, and multiple interpretations of virtually every religion, I have more than enough reason to have nothing to do with any of them.luke1889

Well said, are we flogging you in the cricket over there??:?
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#58 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

When I was still young my father (an atheist) described to me the main ideas of the main religions of the world.TheOddQuantum

No offense to your father, but if he's an atheist I kind of have doubts about the neutrality of the view you received of each religion. :P

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

Giving a cursory glance over the main ideas of various religions does not give one a very in-depth view, if it has any layer of depth at all. I'm not sure if you have good rational thinking skills as much as you have a high dose of unrelenting skepticism.
Android339

One does not need to know that rationals of Hitler to know that he was a very bad man. Similarly, one doesn't need to know the intricacies of the hundreds or thousands of religions in order to reject them.

On the same note, you have unwittingly rejected hundereds and hundereds of faiths and beliefs that you didn't even know existed from the moment you commited yourself to Mormonism.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#60 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="TheOddQuantum"]When I was still young my father (an atheist) described to me the main ideas of the main religions of the world.GabuEx

No offense to your father, but if he's an atheist I kind of have doubts about the neutrality of the view you received of each religion. :P

Very rarely does one recieve a view of religion that is neutral.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
Giving a cursory glance over the main ideas of various religions does not give one a very in-depth view, if it has any layer of depth at all. I'm not sure if you have good rational thinking skills as much as you have a high dose of unrelenting skepticism.
Android339
What is wrong with basing one's world view on unrelenting skepticism though?
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#62 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Very rarely does one recieve a view of religion that is neutral.MetalGear_Ninty

Yes, which is why it's important to pursue more than one source before making a decision.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#64 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="Android339"]

Giving a cursory glance over the main ideas of various religions does not give one a very in-depth view, if it has any layer of depth at all. I'm not sure if you have good rational thinking skills as much as you have a high dose of unrelenting skepticism.

Android339

Such reasoning reasoning is flawed for a few reasons. Hitler is a person that can be judged on a scale of good to bad by his actions, and seeing as he is responsible for the Holocaust, one would simply not require understanding of his rationale. Religions, however, are all ideas, thoughts, philosophy, beliefs, and such. It is abstract, unlike a person. One may reject any religion he wishes, even without knowing the basics, but to do so is to not do so intelligently.

I don't really see the disctinction between the judgement of a person and that of an abstract concept or belief, especially seeing as hoe people are motivated by beliefs. For example, the punishment for apostasy in Islam is generally percieved to be death -- no justification would make this right in my mind. In such cases, one doesn't need an intricate knowledge of the religion in question to criticise.

Also, I'm slightly confused. In your first post you seemed to be commenting on people who knew the basics of a religion but not the intricacies -- yet in your second you seem to be talking about people who don't even know the basics. So I'm not sure which group you're talking about in general.

While the last time I checked, the number of total religions was about 4200, the number of world religions is about 12. That means that there are only about a dozen religions worth investigating, the others simply being geographically local phenomenon. Granted, all religions start out locally, but few make it worldwide. It would simply be of no interest of me to investigate an African voodoo religion, for instance. Even then, such religions as Buddhism and Wicca don't claim to be the one true way. From off the top of my head, there are about three. Ehh, four. Mehh.

Android339

By that logic, one should reject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints outright seeing how it is largely anonymous outside North and South America.

Anyway, all religions start small, and for Christianity, Islam etc to get big, some people had to put faith in the 'local geographical phenomenon'.

Avatar image for lazyhoboguy
lazyhoboguy

1692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#66 lazyhoboguy
Member since 2007 • 1692 Posts
Android339 said

"We have believers in over 170 nations, and that includes all 7 continents, and even some where missionaries are not allowed. The bulk of the believers are in the Americas, but to say that we aren't really that well known in other countries is to stretch the truth. That's actually pretty good seeing as it's only about 200 years old. In any case, we're not stagnant. We have a very extensive missionary program. Can't count us out yet."

Sorry to get off topic from your current discussion, but this is one of the reasons why I do not follow a religion. They are man made. People sort of treat their religion like a sports team in a way, rooting them on to get more members and be larger than other relgions. 

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#67 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

There is reason that the others don't get a worldwide following.

Android339

What reason is that?

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#68 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

Yet an abstract concept or belief can motivate people to do different things based on their interpretation. An obvious example is the ideological split between Islamic fundamentalists and peaceful Muslims. Both consider Qur'an to be the Word of Allah, yet they are motivated to do different things based on their belief in Allah.

As for your example, that is Sharia law, which at times conflicts with the Qur'an in the application of ideas. The Qur'an states very early on that there is no compulsion in religion. So why you may criticize without an intricate knowledge, to do so is to not do so intelligently, nor reasonably. Android339

Actually the verses I am talking about are from the Hadith, such as:

"Kill whoever changes his religion" Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57

Even if the Qur'an says otherwise, that does not justify it, nor even if it's only applied to a historic society, as a minoriy of Islamic scholars believe, it is still wrong.

There can be no misinterpretation of this verse, it says what it says -- and that is how I can absolutely reject an aspect of religion despite myself not knowing about Islam in extensive detail.

It's irrelevant, but I switched to people without any knowledge of even the basics of religious intricacies to point out that anyone can dismiss or criticize religions, but without more than just a base knowledge, one is simply criticizing ignorantly. Android339

It's not irrelevant; you can't just shift the goalposts in the middle of a debate. All that means is that you start attacking a point I never made.

We have believers in over 170 nations, and that includes all 7 continents, and even some where missionaries are not allowed. The bulk of the believers are in the Americas, but to say that we aren't really that well known in other countries is to stretch the truth. That's actually pretty good seeing as it's only about 200 years old. In any case, we're not stagnant. We have a very extensive missionary program. Can't count us out yet. Androidguy339

You've barely got two million members outside of the Americas, considering the billions of total inhabitants, this means that relatively, this isn't very much at all.

And yeah, I could set up a religion, have 170 followers, and still theoretically have a follower in 170 nations around the world.

Buddhism far outstrips Mormonism in terms of numbers, even though it as you says doesn't profess to be the one true way.

As I believe I noted. The point is that unless a religion reaches the bigger playing field (the world), it probably isn't going to be very applicable to one's life. This very fact is portrayed in the statistics: 4200 religions total, 12 worldwide. Only a dozen were able to find a worldwide following. Such religions are more applicable to me than, say, Shintoism, a nationalistic Japanese spirit religion. There is reason that the others don't get a worldwide following.

Androidguy339
But you've ignored my point: How is a religion supossed to become popular if people adopt the philosophy of never studying small religions. If everyone employed that philosophy then there would be no religion whatsoever.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]But you've ignored my point: How is a religion supossed to become popular if people adopt the philosophy of never studying small religions. If everyone employed that philosophy then there would be no religion whatsoever.Android339
Well, if there weren't any big religions, then why would anyone adopt the philosophy of never studying the small ones? Most religions start out locally. Christianity started in the Middle East, as did Islam. Obviously these religions had more to offer than the various thousands of folk religions prevalent throughout the world. This is why they have followers world wide as opposed to just locally. You can't really tell whether a religion is going to be very popular at its beginnings, and the vast majority of them don't, so it's simply too tedious and unnecessary to study, for instance, Japanese Shintoism or African voodoo. If, however, a religion started out near where I live, I might be inclined to check it out. Yet no such thing has happened.

You're both ignoring an important detail: Not all religions actively try to spread. Islam and Christanity both have as an integral part of their creed to "spread the faith". Christians were flat out commanded to do so by Christ, if you believe the Bible. However, the root of them both, the far older Jewish faith has no such commandment, and so they are a lot fewer in number. The only way they can grow outside of their own group is if outsiders actively seek them out and ask to convert, which does happen to Judaism, but perhaps not as often to Shintoism or African voodoo religions. Since that's one of the biggest reasons Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world, with Islam being the fastest growing one right now, I thought I'd mention it :)
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#72 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
Yet the Hadith is not considered part of the Qur'an. Even the Qur'an says that the only Hadith to be used is the Qur'an, the holy book of Allah. Another example of how people interpret religion differently. The Hadith you quoted cannot be reconciled with the message of the Qur'an, and therefore the religion (in its purest form without religious authority bastardizing it) itself rejects such an idea. I do believe that killing others for changing their religion is wrong. So does the Qur'an. You can't judge a religion by its fundamentalists. Android339

So the hadith is a bastardisation of Islam, remained for the most fundamental elements of the religion?

The truth is, is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims use and accept the hadith as part of their religion. The hadith are the words and sayings of Muhammad, and thus cannot be ignored by Muslims.

It is irrelevant. I also wasn't so much as saying it was your opinion as taking the example farther with my own opinion. You say that people with only a basic understanding of religion can reject that religion. This is true, but a person with no understanding of religion can likewise reject it. In either case, one does not have enough understanding to intelligently reject it. Android339

It is not irrelevant. You don't debate someone then change the subject just because you feel like it.

Anyway, how far do you want go on this? Does one have to have a PhD in the study of a religion to be qualified to reject it?

I'll quote Dawkings to make my point: "One doesn't need a degree in leprechaunology to reject the existence of leprechauns''

Especially seeing as how to accept the vast majority of religions one first needs to accept the existence of God(s), which is a metaphysical assertion that requires no such learnings of texts and books.

It's actually pretty good for a Christian church that, again, has only been around for about 200 years. The Southern Baptists don't have much of a following elsewhere, either. Probably the only Christian church that has a huge following in a lot of the world is the Catholic church, and they've been around for 2,000 years and have exercised worldly power. The LDS church has no such track record. The word 'denomination' is not synonymous with 'religion'. Mormonism is a Christian denomination. Android339

Okay. That may be, but how does one choose between denominations? Do they have to study each one in-depth, or merely choose the most popular? Surely one can't intricately study all denominations. So people must make a decision about their faith based on a limited understanding of beliefs.

Theoretically, but let's be reasonable.

Android339

I wasn't being literal, I was just showing how that the '170 countries' line doesn't really mean much.

The whole of Buddhism probably far outstrips other Christian denominations in terms of numbers as well. Yet Christianity is still the biggest religion in the world. In any case, it's more of a philosophy than a religion. It is as unfair to separate the Baptists from the whole of Christianity as it is to separate the Latter-day Saints. Android339

Fair point. I guess that was an unfair comparison.

Well, if there weren't any big religions, then why would anyone adopt the philosophy of never studying the small ones? Most religions start out locally. Christianity started in the Middle East, as did Islam. Obviously these religions had more to offer than the various thousands of folk religions prevalent throughout the world. This is why they have followers world wide as opposed to just locally. You can't really tell whether a religion is going to be very popular at its beginnings, and the vast majority of them don't, so it's simply too tedious and unnecessary to study, for instance, Japanese Shintoism or African voodoo. If, however, a religion started out near where I live, I might be inclined to check it out. Yet no such thing has happened.

Android339

If you're going to study new religions, then why limit yourself to those local to you?

You could be denying yourself eternal salvation based on that. There is no reason why a religion Rastafarianism can't be just as prominent as Chrisitianity. You surely can't have studied all of the new religions intricately in your life, yet you reject them, when there is no apt reason for doing so.

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
Okay. That may be, but how does one choose between denominations? Do they have to study each one in-depth, or merely choose the most popular? Surely one can't intricately study all denominations. So people must make a decision about their faith based on a limited understanding of beliefs. MetalGear_Ninty
A small anecdotal argument, if I may? I personally choose my denomination because it's the one that I agree with, and vice versa, on all major points that matter to me personally. I felt that once I had found that, there was no need for me to research all the other ones. (Whether that was fair to all the other I never researched or not can of course be debated.) Just like when I agreed to marry my husband I rejected all the other men in the world without ever having met most of them, because I knew and still know that to me he is the best man in the world. Religion is as personal a choice as who to marry, and so it makes sense that it will be made the same way. The rejection of all other religions is made not because of what they are, but because of what mine is: The right one for me. I know that from an intellectual stand-point that argument is lacking a little bit, but then again, personal faith was never purely intellectual. ;)
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#75 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Okay. That may be, but how does one choose between denominations? Do they have to study each one in-depth, or merely choose the most popular? Surely one can't intricately study all denominations. So people must make a decision about their faith based on a limited understanding of beliefs. ChiliDragon
A small anecdotal argument, if I may? I personally choose my denomination because it's the one that I agree with, and vice versa, on all major points that matter to me personally. I felt that once I had found that, there was no need for me to research all the other ones. (Whether that was fair to all the other I never researched or not can of course be debated.) Just like when I agreed to marry my husband I rejected all the other men in the world without ever having met most of them, because I knew and still know that to me he is the best man in the world. Religion is as personal a choice as who to marry, and so it makes sense that it will be made the same way. The rejection of all other religions is made not because of what they are, but because of what mine is: The right one for me. I know that from an intellectual stand-point that argument is lacking a little bit, but then again, personal faith was never purely intellectual. ;)

Personally, I think the whole concept is denominations is silly, anyway. :P  If you have people who separate themselves from other people just because they can't agree on whether to pour water over an infant's head or to immerse the infant in water, then I think you have a problem there.

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts

Personally, I think the whole concept is denominations is silly, anyway. :P  If you have people who separate themselves from other people just because they can't agree on whether to pour water over an infant's head or to immerse the infant in water, then I think you have a problem there.

GabuEx
Rather than choosing to be insulted by your unfair assumptions about my criteria :P I'll elaborate a little bit: It had to do with the core teachings of the nature of Hell, how we are saved, and how God wants us to live our lives. I consider those three to be fairly major, and unfortunately, those are very high on the list of what the main denominations disagree on. While I would love to see all denominations removed and the church all one again, I think we need different denominations because people have different needs. People like me like to study, read, think and understand, so we need a church that emphasize that. People that feel before they think would find my church dull and life-less and be more at home in a Pentecostal or Baptist congregation. Different people need different things, and that's why we need different types of churches. We should support each other though, not try to paint each other as blasphemers or as not being "real" Christians... for all our differences, we're still the same. Few things make me as sad as Christians turning on each other. :(
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#77 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Personally, I think the whole concept is denominations is silly, anyway. :P  If you have people who separate themselves from other people just because they can't agree on whether to pour water over an infant's head or to immerse the infant in water, then I think you have a problem there.

ChiliDragon

Rather than choosing to be insulted by your unfair assumptions about my criteria :P I'll elaborate a little bit: It had to do with the core teachings of the nature of Hell, how we are saved, and how God wants us to live our lives. I consider those three to be fairly major, and unfortunately, those are very high on the list of what the main denominations disagree on. While I would love to see all denominations removed and the church all one again, I think we need different denominations because people have different needs. People like me like to study, read, think and understand, so we need a church that emphasize that. People that feel before they think would find my church dull and life-less and be more at home in a Pentecostal or Baptist congregation. Different people need different things, and that's why we need different types of churches. We should support each other though, not try to paint each other as blasphemers or as not being "real" Christians... for all our differences, we're still the same. Few things make me as sad as Christians turning on each other. :(

Oh, I know the history behind denominations and why they form and such like.  I just think precisely what you said there in the last paragraph.  I've seen far too many times where a person in one denomination will say of people in other denominations that they're not Christians because they don't believe the same thing... the divide between Catholics and everyone else being by far the most egregious.  While I appreciate the desire to be around like-minded individuals for the purposes of finding kindred spirits with which you can commune, I personally think that denominations, or at least too large emphases on denominations, far too often have a segregative effect on believers, bringing attention not the common ground that they share but the differences that tear them apart.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#79 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

They do so in conflict with the Qur'an, however. You can reject what the believers do and still find truth in the religion itself. I'm sure that's what the aforementioned minority does. One cannot judge the rationality of a religion on its believers, anyway.

Android339

But how can you define what Islam is? Presumabley you think the Qur'an is the only book to be considered in Islam.

But most Muslims reject this notion; and they say that the hadith is part of the religion itself. Yet that's not to say that the Qur'an is not vastly more important than the hadith.

Islam is not like Christianity, where you have one holy book and that is that. The hadith is an extricable part of Islam, as defined by the history of its followers.

I didn't change the subject. It was the same subject. I just went about it in a different way. To drive an argument only one way would be rather counterproductive. Really, did my 'change' affect the discussion at all? Please tell me how. Android339

No, because I stopped you changing the nature of the discussion. Surely, you can see that a shift from 'everybody should have an intricate knowedge of religions they reject' is a much stronger statement than 'people who don't even have a basic understanding of a religion shouldn't reject' it.

Which is why most people don't intelligently reject all denominations, as they don't intricately study all except their own. Yet one can still somewhat intelligently reject an idea without knowing the most detailed of intricacies. Everyone makes a decision about their faith based on a limited understanding of beliefs to some degree. Even atheists. Android339

Doesn't that contradict what you said at the start of this discussion?

Anyway, I don't see why the choice of denomination can be made unintelligently, seeing as how denominations even differ on how one achieves eternal salvation, which is pretty important.

As I believe I mentioned numerous times, one does not need to know any information at all about a religion to reject it. Yet to do so without an adequate knowledge of the religion beyond the simple 101 basics is to not do so intelligently. That is my point. A PhD does help, but it's far from required. There is a noticeable difference between no knowledge and a PhD, in any case. Leprauchans, by the way, are accepted as mythical by the vast majority of humankind while religion is not. Android339

You keep using this argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because a belief is popular, doesn't necessarily make it any more valid than an unpopular belief. Once upon a time, a whole lot of people thought the Earth was flat, that didn't mean the Earth was flat, because may people believed it.

Since when do metaphysical assertions not require study? Plato is full of metaphysical statements, a great example of Greek philosophy, and they are the result of rational thinking processes and learning. Metaphysical assertions don't occur willy nilly. There is, in fact, evidence for and against the existence of God, and to intelligently decide what you wish to believe in, you must study. You can, of course, reject the existence of God without doing so, but you are not doing so intelligently. Android339

Thinking? Yes, but one doesn't need to read a tonne of books to have good critical and analytical thinking skills.

Anselm didn't need a book whenhe constructed the ontological argument, yet you can't say he made any decision about God unintelligently. The same can be said about any a priori argument for or against God's existence.

Even if making decisions God required involved studying, that doesn't mean if one came to a decision against the existence of God through intricate study, that that person couldn't just deny all theistic religions outright.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

Sorry, I had to post response as two posts, due to GlitchSpot acting up again.

But it does. It shows that the LDS Church is active all over the world. Android339

Well i wouldn't consider the LDS church to be active in a country where only 0.0000000001% of people are members of the church

Well, as far as new religions, they are interesting and don't pop up that often, so I guess I'd study them, but tiny religions as a whole are too tedious to go through. There are thousands of them.

More people have found truth in Christianity and not Rastafarianism. There is a reason. If my eternal salvation depended on believing in a tiny new religion, then God is an unjust God, is He not? I cannot accept that as one who believes in a loving God. Remember that atheists reject them, too. We all do so unintelligently to some degree.

Android339
But Rastafarianism is a 20th centrury religion, thus you can't judge it on the basis of its popularity, as it hasn't had chance to grow yet.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
In pure Islam uncorrupted by religious authority and tradition, it is.Android339
Ahem. There's no such thing. ;) Though if we assume there is, what's pure Christianity? Certainly not the denomination either one of us is following... and while you might be okay with thinking of yourself as belonging to an impure and corrupted religion, I'm a little insulted by the idea. :P
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#84 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

In pure Islam uncorrupted by religious authority and tradition, it is. Android339

Well that's subjective. One cpuld easily say that an Islam without the hadith would be corrupt and detractive, especially seeing how the hadith is meant to clarify parts of the Qur'an.

The hadith to the Muslims are like the writings of the Church fathers to the Catholics. Respected, but not scriptural. The Qur'an is, indeed, vastly more important than the hadith. This is because the Qur'an is the word of God, and the hadith are the words of man. Never would any Muslim equate the authority of the Qur'an with the hadith.Android339

I don't think that is an apt comparison. The hadith is supossed to be used by Muslims on a regular basis, unlike the example you gave.

The hadith is more than just 'respected', it is essential.

Except that it is. The Qur'an is the only holy book of the Muslims. The hadith is, indeed, extricable from Islam. In any case, religion should not be defined by the history of its followers. Android339

Who decided what did and did not go in The Bible or the Qur'an? In that sense religion is influenced by the history of its followers.

I didn't even start to change the nature of the discussion. You are also entirely missing my point. I am not saying that everybody should have an intricate knowledge of religions they reject, as that would be impossible. I am simply saying that one must admit that one is not intelligently doing so. I also never said that people who don't even have a basic understanding of a religion shouldn't reject it, as would not that imply the acceptance of every religion not studied? No, they can reject it, but because they don't know anything about it they are doing so unintelligently. Android339

Well that's simply not the case, because at the start of this disussion you linked the rejection of religion unintelligently, which you now admit to being necessary, to bad thinking skills.

The acceptance of a denomination can be made intelligently, yet the rejection of all denominations would be hard to do in an intelligent manner. As you said, one is rejecting them simply because they already made a choice. Android339

Okay, then why should choosing a denomination be different from choosing a religion?

You can't blame people for rejecting religion unintelligently, when you yourself confessed to rejecting many denominations unintelligently.

Perhaps, but we are talking about religion, not scientific progress. Why anyone would waste their time delving through all religions from small to great is beyond me. It is impossible, and an intelligent rejection of all of them is therefore impossible. There must be some criteria. For instance, which religion has touched the most people? The answer is Christianity, so look there if you plan on searching. Yet you would also research Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and likewise all the other religions that have touched people the most. Android339

It doesn't really matter whether it was religion or science. My point still remains, many people can be wrong about one thing.

This is true. It is a process of learning, however, and one cannot make a metaphysical assertion intelligently on a whim. Android339

That maybe so, but that doesn't necessitate 'studying' per se, only thinking,

I had no illusions that he constructed the ontological argument unintelligently. Yet he's not who we are talking about. He obviously thought about it a great deal, and put into effect his critical and analytical thinking skills. The same cannot be said, however, of everyone who rejects or accepts God's existence.Android339

But we've been speaking in general terms this whole debate. The point remains though, you don't have to study to make intelligent arguments about the existence of God.

He could deny them. I am not saying he couldn't. That person just isn't doing so intelligently.

Android339
Of course he is, because the hypothetical person has studied and thought about the God hypothesis extensively, and rejected the hypothesis, therefore he can outright reject all theistic religions without having necessarily having to study them.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#85 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

So the missionaries in those countries are just laying about doing nothing? In any case, I may not be doing my math right, but that's about 1 out of every 10, 000, 000, 000. A country with any member has more than that. But feel free to correct my math, as it isn't my best subject. Android339

Ypu're taking my point too literally. All I'm saying is that say in a country of 60 million, you could have 5 Mormons, but that wouldn't mean that Mormonism was active in that country.

---

Also, I would ask that you address me in your quotations by my proper username. I am not "Androidguy339", I am Android339.

Android339
Oh, I'm sorry about that, I didn't realise I did it. It is just that I had to write your name, and I forgot exaclty what it was. I'll edit the old post now to rectify my mistakes. :)
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#88 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

I guess we learned a few things. Let me see if I can summarize this:

1) One cannot intelligently reject all theistic religions by study of individual religions alone.

2) One can intelligently reject all theistic religions provided one has intelligently rejected the existence of God(s).

3) One can come to the conclusion intelligently that there is a possibility of the existence of God.

a) Doing so will run into the problem stated in point 1.

b) The multitude of religions does not necessitate that all are incorrect.

c) The inability to reject all religions individually does not make one's choice wrong.

That is all I can think up right now.

Android339

Yes, I would agree with all of them.

Hey, It was nice debating with you like this; this is what this union is all about -- talking intelligently about religion and belief without insulting and jibing at your opponent with personal attacks.

Avatar image for itsTolkien_time
itsTolkien_time

2295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#89 itsTolkien_time
Member since 2009 • 2295 Posts

Sorry for all the posts I didn't read, but they mostly are walls of text and I only read 30 of them.

First off, there is a difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

Atheists completely disregard the concept of god in favor of more logistical options.

Agnostics admit that both religion and science have holes and that they cannot commit to either one.

 

I am a mix. I lean toward atheism, but I try to consider all religions as possible. Even the ancient Greek Gods... okay, maybe not them.

 

My reason is simply that I think that an all powerful being and an afterlife just don't make much sense. Not much more basis can be made than that, as there is no proven higher truth to anything.

Usually when I listen to the news and hear the stupid things people do for religion, I do this *facepalms*. The same goes for atheism, however, half the time atheist make just as little sense in their actions. Mostly all I do is focus on abiding by my morals, and those of people around me.

I simply feel more comfortable as an atheist, and its a great feeling when someone I know finds out and is so shocked. I usually LOL.

signing out, simplysensibility

Avatar image for Maqda7
Maqda7

3299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#90 Maqda7
Member since 2008 • 3299 Posts

I think by logic, I mean I've been compared to Spock before.

I've tried to understand several major faiths, tried to accept it. But I simply couldn't do it. The creation myths, the miracles, the revelations, the demons, etc., none of it really fit together when dissected with rationality as my scalpel. If there's no hard evidence to support a theory, it isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, and for me that's what divinity is, an unproven hypothesis.

Stryder1212

I must agree with this. The idea that an omnipotent being creating this entire universe just to "test" his own creation is beyond me. I can't wrap my haed around it.

Avatar image for minimme
minimme

1126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 0

#91 minimme
Member since 2008 • 1126 Posts

life is amazing

it is so complex, one person(god) couldn't have created it!!

munchlax99

God is not a person.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

God is not a person.minimme

Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics. 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#93 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
My reason: I am not a "theist" in any sense of the word.

I am not a monotheist, I am not a pantheist, nor am I a polytheist. I do not believe in a God, gods or the supernatural. I've spent a good portion of my life trying to find a religion that "works" for me and the closest I've come is Hinduism. Though, there are still some thing about it that I either disagree with or cannot fully comprehend.
Avatar image for itsTolkien_time
itsTolkien_time

2295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#94 itsTolkien_time
Member since 2009 • 2295 Posts
My reason: I am not a "theist" in any sense of the word.

I am not a monotheist, I am not a pantheist, nor am I a polytheist. I do not believe in a God, gods or the supernatural. I've spent a good portion of my life trying to find a religion that "works" for me and the closest I've come is Hinduism. Though, there are still some thing about it that I either disagree with or cannot fully comprehend.foxhound_fox
Watch out with the "'works' for me" statements. You can get many responses along the lines of "You don't find a religion that fits you. The truth doesn't have to be comfortable." and "That's like saying '2x2 doesn't equal 4 because it doesn't feel right'". Just watch out for that in discussion.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="minimme"]God is not a person.Genetic_Code
Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics.

And a someone once said, if we were cows, God would have a lot of cow characteristics. ;)
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#96 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="minimme"]God is not a person.ChiliDragon
Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics.

And a someone once said, if we were cows, God would have a lot of cow characteristics. ;)

If said God mirrored his creation in every way, yes.  However, it is man who mirrors God within the Judeo-Christian narrative.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#97 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="minimme"]God is not a person.ChiliDragon
Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics.

And a someone once said, if we were cows, God would have a lot of cow characteristics. ;)


That would be Xenophanes.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="minimme"]God is not a person.domatron23
Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics.

And a someone once said, if we were cows, God would have a lot of cow characteristics. ;)

That would be Xenophanes.

I knew it had to do with a phobia somewhere! :D We ascribe human characteristics to God because that it our only frame of reference. It's coming from our nature, not from God's. :)
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#100 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts
[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="minimme"]God is not a person.ChiliDragon
Outside of pantheism and deism, God has a lot of human characteristics.

And a someone once said, if we were cows, God would have a lot of cow characteristics. ;)

That would be Xenophanes.

I knew it had to do with a phobia somewhere! :D We ascribe human characteristics to God because that it our only frame of reference. It's coming from our nature, not from God's. :)

Phobia?