Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post a reply


In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you complete the following challenge.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :arrow: :angel: :clap: :crazy: :eh: :lolno: :problem: :shh: :shifty: :sick: :silent: :think: :thumbup: :thumbdown: :salute: :wave: :wtf: :yawn: :facepalm: :bravo: :dance: :beard: :morebeard: :xmas: :HeHe: :trollface: :cookie: :rainbow: :monkeysee: :monkeysay: :happybday: :headwall: :offtopic: :superhappy: :terms: :beer:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by PefieGlie » 01 Oct 2023, 12:01

I think agnostic, but honestly i dunno

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by andymbody » 28 Aug 2023, 10:34

william_ahk wrote:
28 Aug 2023, 09:47

Not quite, I was referring to how animals mentioned in the Bible were Afro-Eurasian species, devoid of marsupials that live outside of the region. Incarnation was just one of the many human-centered elements of the religion.
Again, can you provide scripture reference or more info? I'm not familiar with this.

On a different note: (You probably already know this).
For most Biblical Christians, this life is not the priority. The next life is. And if we don't believe in an afterlife, then Christianity serves no purpose. Because we all have the capability at times of being loving, patient, kind, gentle, display self-control, following the Commandments, etc. But we also have the opposite traits, which is what Christians believe we will be judged for in the end. Our "good" traits will not be considered during judgment, any more than they are when we face a judge for a crime here on earth. We will all be found guilty of crimes against our Creator and there is a penalty that we must all pay. This is where Jesus comes in. He has stepped in front of the bullet for us and our crimes. We have a choice whether to accept His payment in place of ours, or reject His payment and pay the penalty ourselves. The punishment for our crimes will last for an eternity, not just a finite period of time. Everything in this life will have passed away and matters not, in the end. A few years here is a drop in the ocean when compared to eternity. We will all be humbled before God at some point, this is not a choice. God is simply giving us some control as to when that will take place. We can choose now and accept His mercy thru the Savior, or later and be condemned as a result of rejecting that mercy when we had the chance.

I personally believe that every human on earth will face our Creator upon death and be judged for each and every sin we committed against our Creator. No one on earth now or in the past has led a perfect life in the eyes of God (except Jesus). So we will all be found guilty in His court, and subject to the punishment that is forthcoming. Jesus did live a perfect life, yet was punished not for His crimes, but to pay the fine for all of mankind (from God's perspective, not man's). His payment for sin (that He never committed), along with His spotless record can be transferred to our account (when we choose to accept it), and our sin can be transferred to Him in exchange (which He already paid for in advance). This is the main message of the Gospel outlined in the Bible, and is very good news for ALL of us (who are willing to receive it). Biblical Christians regard scripture as exclusive Truth, and the divine Word of our Creator.

Again, I offer this as a perspective of Biblical Christianity. Which I think is within the scope of this thread. There are many "religions" that are labeled as "Christian". Not all are equal, and not all use the Bible as the exclusive and ultimate authority. I do not speak for them, or their specific beliefs. My comments are not intended to dismiss any other beliefs or convince anyone that mine are correct. I don't think this thread is intended to host any debates on religious beliefs.

But if anyone is still searching for truth, I encourage them to look into this message. This truth is not for everyone, as God must draw us to His truth in His way and in His timing. For those who are feeling this "tug", this could be God speaking to you. For those who feel the urge to resist this message, the "tug" may be coming from the other direction. Ultimately, God decides who He will draw to Himself, and when. But when we are called to respond, we should not delay. None of us know which day is our last, and most of the 150,000+ that die each day never expected it either. That only happens to other people.

Andy

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by william_ahk » 28 Aug 2023, 09:47

andymbody wrote:
28 Aug 2023, 06:15
I assume you are referring to Jesus here, and near the bottom of your post?
Not quite, I was referring to how animals mentioned in the Bible were Afro-Eurasian species, devoid of marsupials that live outside of the region. Incarnation was just one of the many human-centered elements of the religion.

The wisdom of not knowing is more important than inheriting truths imagined by our ancestors. I can place my faith in humanity without knowing the one truth.

andymbody wrote:
28 Aug 2023, 06:15
Humans do the same, but we also have access to materials to take it a step further.
That is very true. Already people are talking about how humans are different than machines because we live in the physical space. We don't have many bulwarks left to keep our humanness :lol:

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by andymbody » 28 Aug 2023, 06:15

william_ahk wrote:
28 Aug 2023, 01:23
I'm not against it if it doesn't involve bibles and human gods.
Thanks for the clarification. Your last post is interesting.

I don't think that OP intended for this thread to become a debate (which it hasn't yet). And I don't intend to turn it into one. But... for clarification... I assume you are referring to Jesus here, and near the bottom of your post?

If a Creator made all of that, would He also have the power to put on a human suit and touch the humans that He created?

How many humans have made the statement "Show Yourself!" Although this was not the purpose of His coming in this way. And, I agree that we would expect something other than a meek/mild human in sandals to convince us. So I understand the hesitation in seeing Jesus as Creator.

The question then becomes "Why would our Creator reveal Himself in human flesh this way, rather than the all powerful that He is? This question is answered in scripture.

Regarding the universe in "chaos" and not being perfect... the reason is also explained in the Bible.

Yes, I know that referring to the Bible as the source of answers ruffles feathers, and is not convincing. I personally don't have the answers, and must place my faith in something other than myself. We all must place our faith in something that we deem to be truth. The source of that truth is a choice for everyone. But this does not mean that we have the ability to create truth simply on our own (as the world has popularized). We can have a perception of what we "feel" is truth on a particular topic, at a particular time in our life. But for most (all) of us, these "truths" change over time with our experiences of each passing year. And since they change with time and experience, can we count on them to be truth, in truth?

And I agree that we are creators of nothing, we merely rearrange what is already present into a different configuration, to serve a different purpose. And AI does not create either. It presents a custom spin on the data it has access to. Humans do the same, but we also have access to materials to take it a step further. I'm sure this will happen with AI soon.

I don't expect to convince anyone of anything with this brief comment, just commenting our your last post.

Andy

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by william_ahk » 28 Aug 2023, 01:23

andymbody wrote:
27 Aug 2023, 14:40
When you say "religion"... what do you mean?
To me religion is overly anthropomorphic, it is about the organizations and stories conjured up by humans than simply believing there is a creator for the universe. The latter - theism, is sensible and I'm not against it if it doesn't involve bibles and human gods.

I can see why one would believe more in a designer, being a designer himself. My main gripe was that one should be able to realize technology is only made possible when scientists see past religion. Religion forbids you to play the creator. It stifles innovation, essentially "locking the current version" for its stability because new ideas challenge it. Though only believing in a creator and serving no church may not constrain someone that much.

Unfortunately the arguments you've given are based on misconceptions. The key issue is that the universe is not running orderly as it is. We're in the midst of chaos. Asteroids big and small hit planets and galaxies collide all the time just like dusts and shrapnel in an explosion. The Earth is not in a perpetual motion revolving around the Sun, but will be engulfed by it in the about 7 billion years. It is just that the universe is big enough that chaos seems like tranquility for eternity, that we are given the luxury to live in what is like a harmony on a tiny particle in a tiny slice of timeframe.

The big bang is not an explosion but expansion, explosion is only an adequate metaphor. It is also not the beginning of time or the universe, just the earliest event we humans can see. Because before that it is hot and dense, we cannot gather further information without any space. It was not "nothing". It is also not the entirety of the universe but the universe we humans can observe. The universe could be much more massive that the observable universe we live in is like a pebble in a lake. Thus, it is not comparable to biblical world creations. We still don't know how the universe begin.

With this in mind can we discuss further. The laws of nature did not change back in the big bang and nowadays. Therefore, the capability of having complexity should already exist back then, or may have even existed elsewhere, unobservable to us.

But complexity itself could just be an illusion. We can see how patterns repeat themselves at different scales. It's why the same paradigms permeate across disciplines. The complexity we humans perceive may not be truly complex. In fact, complexity only arises in our mind when we miss the intermediary steps of the patterns. For example if a student jumps from counting to calculus they would consider the latter as extremely complex, but if they learn mathematical concepts step by step it would not be the case. For other people computer code is complex. But for programmers it's just blocks of if-else. In the past, people cannot see any step or link between humans and other organisms, so it's reasonable that they resort to a deity to fill in the gap of human origin.

The artifacts humans create are the result of such natural coming forths. Life occurred naturally, so are humans and their creations. It is not unique and divergent to nature in any way. We just build layers upon layers of abstraction to form intelligence that seems too far to be common natural phenomenon, but are principally not unnatural.

This is particularly evident in machine learning. We have GPT-4 now but still don't know how it works at the slightest. In this case, can we really consider us as the creator? Rather, we just provided the environment for it to form. It is the very idea of machine learning - machines learning by itself instead of us programming it. And it turns out that intelligence emerges naturally when we don't step in and design it. I think this is an example for the natural occurrence of intelligence, proving that a creator counterproductive.

When we build software, we will reach a certain point where there is no such thing as designing anymore, only resource management. Deciding and allocating features. The one who abides the laws of nature better is the better designer.

I don't object to the existence of a creator, but if it exists. It certainly was not the biblical one that humans imagined because that one did not even create marsupials because he did not live in the southern hemisphere. Almost every deity imagined by humans are confined to their own culture and environments.

Again, my old malady crept in. I urge everyone to take a look this picture of galaxies taken by the Webb telescope and wonder. How do we have the audacity, to claim that a human god some thousand Earth spins ago is accountable for all of this? I'm sure the little green men would strongly disagree.

main_image_deep_field_smacs0723-5mb.jpg
main_image_deep_field_smacs0723-5mb.jpg (127.26 KiB) Viewed 6479 times

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by andymbody » 27 Aug 2023, 14:40

william_ahk wrote:
30 Nov 2022, 23:51
In all honesty, I couldn't fathom how programmers would believe in any religion
When you say "religion"... what do you mean? "Religion" is a very subjective term when used as a non-descriptive noun, so clarification is required. The OP provided context through the survey. But, in general, religion means different things to different people. I associate the term to describe a belief/faith in a Creator (or not), and the attributes and truths we assign to that Creator. One "religion" can assign completely different attributes to their concept of a Creator than another "religion". Some "religions" have no creator.

The OP stated:
"I do not follow any religion and I do not like them because I do not believe religions are a good thing."

I agree that "religion" can be a bad thing. But there is a big difference between "religion" and a belief-in and reverence-for a Creator.

To illustrate:
As programmers, do we feel that a program that accomplishes a meaningful task can write itself? Or does this require an outside source/designer such as yourself to write the program? Can "nothing" create "something/anything"? Because without an external creator, the "something" must create itself. And as far as I know "nothing" can not do or create anything because of it's attribute of being nothing in the first place.

So, is there any evidence of our Creator?

To answer this question, consider the following:

When you see a building, what is the evidence that proves there MUST have been a builder? Is the existence of the building itself, proof enough? Or could the building have assembled itself without the need for an external designer/builder?

When you see a painting, do you automatically conclude that the painting painted itself? Or does the existence of the painting prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an artist/painter must exist (or existed in the past)? This seems logical whether you can interact with the painter directly or not, or whether the artist placed a signature on the canvas or not.

When you see a book, could that book have written itself? Or does it require an author/writer? A book containing common letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, all organized with grammar, pages, illustrations, charts, a title, etc. Or could the paper, ink, language, randomly assemble themselves in an organized way simply by chance over hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions of years? How long would you say this process would take for just a 10 page book? Keeping in mind that we must start with "nothing" in the beginning. No world, no environment, no time, no physics, no ink, no trees, no language. Could a 10 page book that communicates meaningful information assemble itself from "nothing"? Who/what would the book communicate to?

How much time and effort goes into writing code to build an app or utility that is considered any use at all? Designing, writing, debugging, etc. Does this process take intelligence or could this happen by chance from "nothing" at all? And what about the world that the program is suppose to interact with, and provide a meaningful contribution to? How did that come to exist? Obviously a completely different type of "nothing" to make this happen.

If I told you that I believe that the building created itself, or that the painting painted itself, or the book/program wrote itself, would you agree with me, or strongly disagree? If I told you that there was no creator involved in making my car or my phone, and that I believe that they randomly assembled on their own. Would you question my logic in this conclusion? What proof could you offer to me that these things could not have created themselves without an outside source of intelligence? I also believe that the cool emblem/name on the side of the vehicle/phone also self-assembled itself, which refutes the "proof" of a creator. Would anyone question my intelligence for coming to this conclusion?

What about Mt. Rushmore in South Dakota? If I concluded that these shapes were the result of natural elements/weather such as wind, rain, erosion, lightning, sunlight, radiation, etc., over a long very long period of time, would I have a sound argument? And that the human presidents that they represent are nothing more than the natural evolution of those rocks millions of years later?

So, do you agree that the idea of the building/painting/book/program/car/phone creating themselves or that human presidents evolve from rocks... is outside the boundaries of general human logic?

Can you see that the same logic can be applied to all of what we see and interact with on a daily basis? From the vastness of space in the heavens to the microscopic world that is too small to see, to the energy, engineering, mathematics that hold it all together? I have not even mentioned the existence of non-material things like good, evil, conscience, emotions, morality, justice, etc. If the physical things above that I mentioned could not have randomly create themselves without intelligence from an outside source, how could the much more complex world that they exist in have been created by random non-directed processes created from a source of "nothing" to begin with?

Scientists/Scholars would have you believe that this was accomplished by a random explosion, long ago, and far away. But wait a minute... when was the last time you saw an explosion "create" anything, let alone in an organized manner? Explosions don't create organization, they destroy it. For anyone who disagrees, try placing an explosive in a box with your phone (or anything), and report the results. Will the phone and box reorganize themselves in say one-billion-billion years using the organized "laws-of-nature" created in the explosion of the Big-Bang of long ago? I don't think anyone would need to wait billions of years to know the results. We can use "logic" provided by our Creator here and now to know the conclusion of that experiment, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Before the responses flood in about AI... yes, it is true that AI can create original music, images, videos, literature, characters, defective code, etc... but AI becomes the author/creator of such work, and AI certainly did not create itself. Centuries of intelligence/technologies compounded over time to make AI and these other medias possible.

So, without digging into any "religious beliefs", we should be able to "see" that the evidence of our Creator is all around us.

Of course, our free-will to choose to acknowledge/dismiss our Creator's existence, and the attributes and truths that we assign to Him is another matter, which gives birth to many different "religions".

I understand that there are many objections to the idea of an all powerful Creator, but I don't think these objections have anything to do with lack of evidence. If we search deep within ourselves, we will find that the objection... is to giving up control, and being morally accountable to that Creator. But what we fail to realize is, we are not in control regardless. Control is an illusion, and there is actually a different puppeteer pulling our strings and he cares nothing about us in any way. By rejecting our true Creator, we are willingly accepting the enemy and his control by default. And upon our death, we will be rejected by our Creator that we rejected in life, and be united with the enemy that we embraced instead.

In case anyone wants to know from which perspective this comes... I am a Biblical Christian, not associated with any formal "religion". The Bible is what God says about Himself. "Religion" is what man says, that God says. These two sources can have commonalities, but are usually very different. The source we place our faith in, governs our actions and destiny.

I have much more to say on this subject but will suspend my "contribution" here.

Andy

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by A Keymaker » 26 Jul 2023, 03:52

I believe in science and human rights

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by joedf » 30 May 2023, 12:00

Atheism is explicit disbelief.

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by xMaxrayx » 29 May 2023, 21:34

what's the deferent between "Atheist" and "Without religion"? I though they are the same.

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by HalfWolf » 02 Jan 2023, 21:27

I believe in Islam. The fundamental tenant of the Islamic faith is monotheism. Muslims hold that the message of monotheism was the core message conveyed by all the Prophets that God delivered to humanity. The term "monotheism" is used to describe the conviction that there is just one deity (God).

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by Gio » 06 Dec 2022, 12:06

william_ahk wrote:
06 Dec 2022, 02:33
Likewise, some scientists have proposed a fascinating theory: that intelligence like ours is the universe trying to understand itself, meaning that even the universe itself does not know the meaning. Also, it's easy to forget that we are part of the universe too.

Fascinating and bizarre. The "universe as an entity that we are a part of" is a somewhat similar concept to the likes of "mother nature" and "gaia" though (albeit exchanging the earth for the whole universe).

A research on the percentage of religious beliefs among scientists shows that geosciences, which challenges the biblical origins of human beings, has lower number of theists. Physics and astronomy are similar, while fields like chemistry have a slightly higher number of theists. Scientists are not religious in general of course. This shows that understanding what kind of reality affects the room for religion.

While i can agree that many of the so called "scientists" show atheistic biases, i would argue against the idea that science itself is what is bringing those people away from God. Group biases towards certain ideologies do exist in many forms and shapes and they are NOT an indicator of a "superiority" of said ideologies. In my country, most university professors are biased towards socialist/communist ideologies. This is absolutely baffling when you consider that this "highly educated" group is probably the most well aware about the many atrocities commited by socialists/communists in the 20th century, aswell as the recent scourge of the venezuelans, which was brought about by the thriving of these very same socialist/communist ideals. This brings us to think what could possibly be the cause of such biases and while human thought is complex, certain bias-causing elements are still discernible. It just so happens that their whole careers, including job oportunities, salaries and even their oportunities for obtaining new deegres of scholarship (doctorate, etc), are extremely dependant on state funding and trade unions, which makes these individuals extremely keen as to who they have to favour or befriend.

In the case of "scientists" as a group (and their possible statistical bias towards atheism), it is important to notice that not only is this group also highly dependant on state funding (with many said "scientists" also being university professors), but in their particular case i would also point out that their individuals tend to suffer great social pressure (from inside and outside their group) to insist on a particular subset of materialist reasoning as the only acceptable way to explain reality (thus disregarding metaphysics, in example). One such example of a recent radical movement from this group is the ongoing effort by many of the so-called "scientists" towards validating the multiverse theory: a theory whose recent widespread adoptance preceeded any evidence whatsoever. This theory was adopted by many simply as a way to counter the theist argument of a fine-tuning in the universe, which was boosted by the discovery of physical constants (fixed values) that rule particle behavior and whose values would make life impractical in the universe if slightly adjusted.


In the end all i can say is this: do remeber that having a doctorate in the "biological effects of cricket sounds towards sleepiness" does NOT qualify someone as having a "better opinion" regarding existential questions (and implying such would constitute a falacy known as the "argument from authority").

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by william_ahk » 06 Dec 2022, 02:33

Gio wrote:
05 Dec 2022, 10:00
I believe one of the fundamental differences between atheist and theist programmers is that the later finds purpose to be present in the natural constructions (life, physics, etc) while the former believes everything to be of a "chaotic" nature.
Yes you're correct about that. The atheist views the natural world as governed by laws and forces, without inherent purpose or meaning. The theist, on the other hand, sees purpose and meaning in the natural world because it is the product of a higher power or creator, that this higher power created the universe with purpose and meaning. The theist believes in a plan or purpose for everything, while the atheist may see the universe as chaotic or without purpose, the result of chance or natural process. Therefore I would argue the key difference between the two is whether the universe has a purpose or meaning or not. Likewise, some scientists have proposed a fascinating theory: that intelligence like ours is the universe trying to understand itself, meaning that even the universe itself does not know the meaning. Also, it's easy to forget that we are part of the universe too.

And of course, a person with any belief would see the reality clearer if they learn programming or any science, to see that everything is connected, which may even strengthen their original beliefs, but only within the confinements of day-to-day life. For example, different fields of science have varying concentrations of religious scholars. A research on the percentage of religious beliefs among scientists shows that geosciences, which challenges the biblical origins of human beings, has lower number of theists. Physics and astronomy are similar, while fields like chemistry have a slightly higher number of theists. Scientists are not religious in general of course. This shows that understanding what kind of reality affects the room for religion.

Programming is an abstract science, it is like a virtual machine that could run on computers of any architecture. Therefore, it is at a micro level where the beliefs about the universe are irrelevant to this field of study. Another interesting point is that it seems even language models can program runnable code, albeit only short snippets. I tried out ChatGPT recently and it could even write AutoHotkey scripts, you should try it :lol:

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by Gio » 05 Dec 2022, 10:00

william_ahk wrote:
30 Nov 2022, 23:51
I voted without religion. (...) In all honesty, I couldn't fathom how programmers would believe in any religion.

Interesting. In my case the many years of programming experience really gave me greater clarification about how realities are made. This in turn brought me even greater faith. I find code to be everywhere, from genetics to the physical constants that rule particle behavior. I believe one of the fundamental differences between atheist and theist programmers is that the later finds purpose to be present in the natural constructions (life, physics, etc) while the former believes everything to be of a "chaotic" nature.

One curiosity is that a chaotic nature for the origin of everyhting is the core of ancient greek mythos (a religion).

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by william_ahk » 30 Nov 2022, 23:51

I voted without religion. It feels like atheism is against religion, while I don't have anything to do with religion. Some say it's called a nontheist.
In all honesty, I couldn't fathom how programmers would believe in any religion. But there's Terry Davis who was mentally ill and able to program TempleOS and HolyC. Thus it made me reconsider that perhaps programming or mathematics is not enough to guide people to see the world with less human fiction. Our science is barely touching the surface so there's still a lot of room for fairy tales.

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by mayalison » 04 Nov 2022, 04:55

Hmm, that sounds like a very philosophical question to me. I could compare this question with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken?

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by A_AhkUser » 07 Jun 2019, 19:48

Here's some ideas about atheism since I "voted" atheist.
I see atheism by excellence as nothing other than the criticism of the theistic theses.
This being said, it is, especially in this case, interesting to always have in mind the etymology of criticism (critical etc.): crisis.
First of all, criticism in the sense that it is always a multiscale historical critical encounter; here: it appears that Gio and jethrow, for exemple, people other than myself, believe.
Criticism, then, because this other's belief is lived as critical in relation to an original assumption, as such - in particular: the "freedom".
Criticism, finally, as the other's belief as encounter is self-criticism as such (should it turn out to be inauthentic); somehow the truth of the other's belief has its effect: the
absolute could become relative and the relative, absolute.
"What are the underlying reasons why Christianity is able to speak to people within the framework of our Empire and our philosophies of happiness?" - it may probably have
been a critical question for a Roman.
I mean, it is practically knocking on an open door: how one can hope find the truth without desiring it?

As criticism, atheism can only be based on truth - in other words: it must but cannot be conducted, as a last resort, only in the name of science: otherwise, it is often a
detrimental and complacent strategy, seeking to preserve the statu quo. Moreover, ultimately, credo quia absurdum remains an anthropological reality. Also, ritual came before myth. Atheism criticism can and must also be consistently conducted in the name of love, political equality and freedom. Why don't we want to face up love, politics and freedom? Would it be because they are in crisis - which would lead us to be fully aware of this? The masks would fall off and uncover our bunch of baloney, the myriad of fairy tales of a specific contemporary cynicism? The absolute would become relative and the relative, absolute? Certainly, it's unlikely to happen if the "other" is assumed to "believe" almost exactly like a kid or a fanatic - unless the other's belief is "tolerated" that is, does not, at the root, really move us, desiring being.
A consistent atheism do not take away the means to make to god, this remarkable figure of human history, the criticism that it deserves.
"La mode est aujourd'hui d'acceuillir la liberté d'un rire sardonique, de la regarder comme la veillerie tombée en désuétude avec l'honneur. Je ne suis point à la mode, je
pense que sans liberté il n'y a rien dans le monde; elle donne du prix à la vie; dussé-je rester le dernier à la défendre, je ne cesserai de proclamer ses droits." Châteaubriand, quoted by Berdiaev
Sorry for my bad english and thanks for reading.
Cheers.

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by jethrow » 03 Nov 2018, 15:46

Considering my avatar, I should prolly weigh in. After growing up somewhere between atheist & agnostic, life experience, science & logical deduction convinced me there is something both good & supreme beyond what can be physically measured. Also, though I put little credit in feelings, when you have a feeling combined with conviction that vastly contradicts what you currently believe, you have to pay attention.

I'm Christian, though I wouldn't classify that a religion. To avoid a dreaded 5+ paragraph response, I'll offer the following two points:
  • Ultimately your belief is a choice, even if that choice is passive
  • It takes vastly more faith to believe there is not a Creator than to believe there is

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by joedf » 01 Nov 2018, 21:31

I love how you say atheist agnostic, then You gotta choose between the 2... lol

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by trust_me » 01 Aug 2018, 07:20

I believe religion is an easy way out of questions the conscious mind throws up . I just accept that you can ask questions that simply do not have answers but just semantic constructions like where is the beginning of a circle.So i voted agnostic.

Re: Do you have any religion? | What's your religion?

Post by derz00 » 31 Jul 2018, 17:56

I have been raised to believe the Bible, and I have proved it's message to be truth by believing and obeying and experiencing the power.

Top