Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[LabradoRacer 2]

By experiencing and "testing" it... and the essential is probably faith. Faith requires something very unique, not everyone is willing to accept it's prerequisites... "By faith we shall see"

Jay, are'nt you Hindu... or something?

Anyway, I knew this would be a dead road, I just wanted to state something to Steph that I think she would find interesting...

"Testing"? If you actually carry out that objectively, you'd come to conclusions that go contrary to your beliefs. About faith, like with most religions, it was based on one man's fanciful tales. Oh well, as you said, it's a dead road.

And, no, I'm not Hindu. I gave up that stupid religion in 1992. I'm an atheist.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

"Testing"? If you actually carry out that objectively, you'd come to conclusions that go contrary to your beliefs. About faith, like with most religions, it was based on one man's fanciful tales. Oh well, as you said, it's a dead road.

And, no, I'm not Hindu. I gave up that stupid religion in 1992. I'm an atheist.

All your post's above makes sense now.

So u must believe Mankind came from a single cell, developed into a monkey, then into a man with intellect. and you think my thinking is absurd.

Oh well, we're responsible for our own good...or bad...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

So u must believe Mankind came from a single cell, developed into a monkey, then into a man with intellect. and you think my thinking is absurd.

No more absurd that a supernatural, invisible mega-being who can hear everyone's thoughts, but only responds to the people who believe in them and if they feel like it!

And its an ape, not a monkey

Anyway returning to the original premise... its people who are good or evil, their religion is irrelevant.

However religion or lack thereof is unfortunately used too often on both sides by the mad, ignorant, armies or politicians to do evil things....

[BradSpeedMan 6]

No more absurd that a supernatural, invisible mega-being who can hear everyone's thoughts, but only responds to the people who believe in them and if they feel like it!

And its an ape, not a monkey

Anyway returning to the original premise... its people who are good or evil, their religion is irrelevant.

However religion or lack thereof is unfortunately used too often on both sides by the mad, ignorant, armies or politicians to do evil things....

It certainly is a double-edge sword...and yes, I agree with your last 2 sentences.

and yes, it's an ape

[LabradoRacer 2]

Looking at the sorry state of the world, I don't understand why religious people / theists are so eager to say that their god's running the show.

[Massa 0]

Religion...everyone has to find their own way to derive some type of standards/guidelines/motivations/dare I say morals for their lives. There are many different ways to do that. I've always found it really silly for atheists to say "I'm sick of (whatever religion) pushing their religion on us" when atheists, too, push atheism on religious people. I think both groups are, of course, very small minorities within their religion/lack of religion.

I personally identify as an agnostic. It might be true, it might not be true, something we've never even considered might be true, I don't know, I've never found it personally useful in my own individual experience to have a feeling either way. However, I completely respect that for many, either having a religion or definitely not having a religion (because I don't have a religion, I just don't deny the fact that I could be very much wrong) helps provide clarity for how they want to approach many different things in life. I think what Brad says is absolute gold: establishing a personal relationship with the omnipotent being of your religion of choice is a wonderful way of approaching religion if you choose to be religious, just as I think non-religious people (as myself) shouldn't be so quick to think that their way of seeing the world is something they need to be spreading by denying aspects of religion and finding logical faults in them and all that. At the end of the day, in ideal circumstances (i.e. not religious persecution or wars or politics etc), it doesn't impact me when people are religious, and I try to make sure it doesn't impact religious people that I am not.

Now, all that said, I'm not going to say that people who choose organized religion, and people who are evangelical are wrong or doing a disservice to either their faith or their lack of faith (organized atheism is real, evangelical atheism is, too). I said before that people need to find their own way to derive all sorts of things and apply them to life, and sometimes, finding one's own way involves other people to support you and reframe your perspective.

Overall, it does more good than harm, and I say that as someone who was baptized Episcopalian, raised Catholic until I was eight when we left and were told to "be indepedent Christians" which I didn't do (but I also didn't not do), probably prayed for the first and only time in my life at some point when I was around fourteen, and have been agnostic since. I just think we do too much to discredit religious faith while complaining that our lack of it is discredited by others, and that, to me, is territory I prefer to avoid.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Religion...everyone has to find their own way to derive some type of standards/guidelines/motivations/dare I say morals for their lives. There are many different ways to do that. I've always found it really silly for atheists to say "I'm sick of (whatever religion) pushing their religion on us" when atheists, too, push atheism on religious people. I think both groups are, of course, very small minorities within their religion/lack of religion.

I personally identify as an agnostic. It might be true, it might not be true, something we've never even considered might be true, I don't know, I've never found it personally useful in my own individual experience to have a feeling either way. However, I completely respect that for many, either having a religion or definitely not having a religion (because I don't have a religion, I just don't deny the fact that I could be very much wrong) helps provide clarity for how they want to approach many different things in life. I think what Brad says is absolute gold: establishing a personal relationship with the omnipotent being of your religion of choice is a wonderful way of approaching religion if you choose to be religious, just as I think non-religious people (as myself) shouldn't be so quick to think that their way of seeing the world is something they need to be spreading by denying aspects of religion and finding logical faults in them and all that. At the end of the day, in ideal circumstances (i.e. not religious persecution or wars or politics etc), it doesn't impact me when people are religious, and I try to make sure it doesn't impact religious people that I am not.

Now, all that said, I'm not going to say that people who choose organized religion, and people who are evangelical are wrong or doing a disservice to either their faith or their lack of faith (organized atheism is real, evangelical atheism is, too). I said before that people need to find their own way to derive all sorts of things and apply them to life, and sometimes, finding one's own way involves other people to support you and reframe your perspective.

Overall, it does more good than harm, and I say that as someone who was baptized Episcopalian, raised Catholic until I was eight when we left and were told to "be indepedent Christians" which I didn't do (but I also didn't not do), probably prayed for the first and only time in my life at some point when I was around fourteen, and have been agnostic since. I just think we do too much to discredit religious faith while complaining that our lack of it is discredited by others, and that, to me, is territory I prefer to avoid.

Now you've done it again! Taken it to another level! Good post Eric!

I want to say in summary that I'de rather prefer being spiritual than religious, cause with religion comes ppl who judge and make rules, most that is'nt even in accordance to the word of God... et cetera.

enough of me and my broken record

[Rainmaster 7]

Just a minor point: most atheists as we think of them are technically agnostic. It's really a scale of belief. A person at no.1 might fully believe in God and a person at no.10 would be a atheist. Since nobody has an absolute disproof of God, most reasonable "atheists" would have to be an 8 or 9 on such a scale (and most of the well known "atheist crusaders" have said as much).

Anyway, no reasonable person should have any issue with somebody's private religion, providing it doesn't harm anybody. The main issue with religion is how much weight should the State be giving it. It's one thing pushing atheism, however that would happen (by adverts on buses maybe!), and another to say that gay people can't marry, or that condoms are a bad thing, or creating schools of only one faith, or having members of the Church in State institutions. There's somewhat of an imbalance there in that the former might be offensive to some religious people while another affects, either directly or indirectly, whole societies and groups of people, many of which aren't religious or are only mildly religious (and I am not saying every religious person agrees that any of those should be the case, just talking about religious thought generally and its impact on society).

Personally, I can see the benefit of believing in God, and how it might be helpful emotionally (I lost a friend a couple of years ago, so it would certainly be a very comforting thought for me), but unfortunately that isn't enough for me to ignore evidence to the contrary (let's say I'm a 9 on my scale). But even if I did believe in a God, it would not be a personal one, like the Christian God for example. It would have to be some other concept of "God" which I wouldn't even know how to describe, something like an acceptance of the complexity of life, the Universe, how we came to be here, etc (actually, Einstein said it; "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.").

[LabradoRacer 2]

All your post's above makes sense now.

So u must believe Mankind came from a single cell, developed into a monkey, then into a man with intellect. and you think my thinking is absurd.

Oh well, we're responsible for our own good...or bad...

The truth behind evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MjelxPz5Og&ob=av2e

[Caesar 0]

i believe in The Force

[LabradoRacer 2]

But even if I did believe in a God, it would not be a personal one, like the Christian God for example. It would have to be some other concept of "God" which I wouldn't even know how to describe, something like an acceptance of the complexity of life, the Universe, how we came to be here, etc (actually, Einstein said it; "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.").

A friend posted this on my FB wall an hour or so back. I believe it echoes what you & Einstein said:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. " - Carl Sagan

[Rainmaster 7]

Hadn't heard that one before, but that's even better. Cheers Jay.

[Insider 0]

Charles Atlas did. And it worked for him. So there's your answer.

And just where have you been?

[Insider 0]

Surely, the Universe operates by the laws on nature. The speed of light never alters, on Earth or in galaxies a million light years from us. A hot meal becomes cold. Snow melts when the temperature rises. Who constructed DNA? It has such order involved in it. How did this 3 billion letter matrix evolve? The biggest question for me is: whoever or whatever created 'life', who or what maintains it? Are we talking about a higher intelligence from another galaxy or a perpertual spiritual entity no one can see or touch? The latter makes little sense to me.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Indeed and in the words of that great philosopher, Scotty:

"You cannae break the laws of physics...."

[Quiet One 15]

Things that get mixed up pretty quickly when discussing religion:

1) Established Religions: what we probably want to argue about, and their morals, etc.

2) Believers: to attack an established religion's alleged morals or conducts you end up offending believers with higher moral standards that are arguing with you, thus making them get defensive (and with every reason t o feel that way). Any productive argument is basically screwed at this point.

As an example, I am assuming that Brad believes in a Christian god, even if he does not particularly adheres to any church. By merely dissing Christians as "a bunch of people following some paedophiles" you are not helping to isolate the paedophiles, you are not explaining the link between religion, morals and extreme behaviors like that and you are gratuitously offending a perfectly non-paedophile guy. (Well, he has an unnatural love for Kimi, but I don't think that is connected to his religious beliefs)

3) The actual logic on whether a god might exist or not: this is kind of a fun mental excercise but, by definition, is entirely impossible to proof or disproof. For me, the need or feeling that there might be a god makes as much sense as discussing whether Scrooge McDuck actually exist or not and if he can get me any money (just in case, if you DO exist, Scrooge, please be merciful to this, your loving serf and make a sizeable deposit into my bank account).

Those three points are somehow connected but unless you tackle each one with the extreme care and reasonability each one deserves, you will end up actually replying or arguing against the wrong point and in the end everybody ends up being offended for no cause.

The best solution when we are bored enough to discuss religion is to really measure the words, try to have some empathy with those who do not think like ourselves and find civil, beneficial for both sides ways to discuss things that are highly sensitive for good human beings...and Brad as well.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Interesting read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/intuitive-thinking-religious-belief-analytical-research_n_1457396.html

[freaky2 1]

I agree with George. My favourite personal religion is belief in reincarnation. Nothing more, nothing less... I just want to keep on living somewhere, somehow. I guess when I get senile I'll think about what it feels to be a tree leaf, or a mosquito, or... you get it!

[LabradoRacer 2]

I agree with George. My favourite personal religion is belief in reincarnation. Nothing more, nothing less... I just want to keep on living somewhere, somehow. I guess when I get senile I'll think about what it feels to be a tree leaf, or a mosquito, or... you get it!

You'll be a dung beetle in your next birth.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Things that get mixed up pretty quickly when discussing religion:

1) Established Religions: what we probably want to argue about, and their morals, etc.

2) Believers: to attack an established religion's alleged morals or conducts you end up offending believers with higher moral standards that are arguing with you, thus making them get defensive (and with every reason t o feel that way). Any productive argument is basically screwed at this point.

As an example, I am assuming that Brad believes in a Christian god, even if he does not particularly adheres to any church. By merely dissing Christians as "a bunch of people following some paedophiles" you are not helping to isolate the paedophiles, you are not explaining the link between religion, morals and extreme behaviors like that and you are gratuitously offending a perfectly non-paedophile guy. (Well, he has an unnatural love for Kimi, but I don't think that is connected to his religious beliefs)

3) The actual logic on whether a god might exist or not: this is kind of a fun mental excercise but, by definition, is entirely impossible to proof or disproof. For me, the need or feeling that there might be a god makes as much sense as discussing whether Scrooge McDuck actually exist or not and if he can get me any money (just in case, if you DO exist, Scrooge, please be merciful to this, your loving serf and make a sizeable deposit into my bank account).

Those three points are somehow connected but unless you tackle each one with the extreme care and reasonability each one deserves, you will end up actually replying or arguing against the wrong point and in the end everybody ends up being offended for no cause.

The best solution when we are bored enough to discuss religion is to really measure the words, try to have some empathy with those who do not think like ourselves and find civil, beneficial for both sides ways to discuss things that are highly sensitive for good human beings...and Brad as well.

aawwwww, I've developed such an unnatural love for you now.....

hey, waittaminute!!!!! Feels like Deja Vu!!!

[dribbler 6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo6BVPGDh0

[Kopite Girl 0]

Early on in the thread, I read why 'cougars' are more accepted in society than 'silver foxes'.

ARE YOU FECKING KIDDING ME? You males are funny dudes!

From my perspective, cougars are always talked about in a negative way. "Look at that one over there, she's old enough to be his grandmother. It's disgusting" - Why? They're just doing what blokes have been doing for centuries. Silver Foxes are looked on in pity/foolish most times, as it's the female who'll get the bad name. "Look at that Gold-digger with grandpa over there."

Like if a woman wants to have an active sex life, and she's single. Its OK for dudes to slut it about, but if a woman decides to do the whole one night stand thing and not bother to get in touch with the guy ever again, then she's called a coldhearted bitch/slut/promiscuous/local bike/easy etc. Why? Why is that still 'acceptable' in today's day and age?

I am not for one moment saying that any of you men here have treated a female that way, not for one second. For both sexes there is double standards. I just want a man's opinion.

And why is it that women call other women names like slut, etc. We're making it OK for guys to say it to us. It's not. Think before you speak!

[Quiet One 15]

I agree with what the wench said up there.

[Rainmaster 7]

I agree with the sandwich maker too, mostly But in my experience most of the girls I can think of that I know for a fact sleep around always tend to be a bit, how to put it delicately, either emotionally disturbed or completely insane That's not to say woman can't have one night stands, but I'd say I only know a couple of girls who do that who are quite normal, confident and very strong people, but for the most part it usually seems to be the former. Whereas for men, it doesn't really matter if they're emotionally messed up/weird/whatever and they sleep around, because well that's what men are programmed to do anyway. Nevertheless, there is definitely a double standard there and having an active sex life when your single shouldn't be a problem in itself for either sex.

[freaky2 1]

It's strange, I have a friend who kept saying that she hadn't had sex in ages, but at our earnest invitation to just go to a disco one Saturday night and get her spirits up she said "she couldn't do it". I guess we girls are just that weird? I would probably do the same thing Maybe we're brought up to be too nice. Maybe we just hate the thought of sleeping with a jerk (because a girl would probably remember the guy's face xD). It's a mistery!