What do YOU believe?

[der Astronom]

Well, I personally think lots of religions are absurd, but you're not changing what people believe in by spitting on what they believe. I will not allow religious intolerance in this forum.

As for what classifies as religion, that should be stuff that you actively believe in without any evidence. However, since atheists don't believe in God, and you can't believe a negative, and you don't believe in stuff you don't know, you may consider atheism and agnosticism as not being a religion. Deists, on the other hand, have no evidence for believing in a god; they just do.

 

[Onusha]

Well, I personally think lots of religions are absurd, but you're not changing what people believe in by spitting on what they believe. I will not allow religious intolerance in this forum.

How am I being intolerant?

As for what classifies as religion, that should be stuff that you actively believe in without any evidence.

That's called Faith. Religion comes from the latin religio which means "to bind", or to bring people together and essentially in modern usage, religion can be any number of things, a political ideology, a movement, etc... Deism doesn't bring people together in any way because it is one simple singular belief and not a system or dogma or what have you.

 

[der Astronom]

Okay, I guess I phrased that wrong, but the way you're putting across your criticisms of other people's religions has no place in this thread and is irrelevant to what you choose to believe in. If you want to go ahead and criticize other people for not being agnostic or atheist, go right ahead and make a thread on it, or focus it around why you choose not to believe in such things rather than saying why other people shouldn't believe. Otherwise you're basically telling people what to do with their lives, which is not really any of your business unless they're your personal friends or something. But I will tell you this now: you'd better not have any intentions of making such a thread for the sake of changing people's religions. People may believe in things that don't make sense to you. It's not really your problem if they do.

The term "religion" is commonly used to refer to "organized" religion, in the sense of what people's personal beliefs are, particularly that concerning gods, or a god. The fact that I use such a term "religion" to refer to this definition, and the fact that you are twisting what I am using (and what other people commonly refer to this as) is mere sophistry. Otherwise, you will also have to concede that Scientology is a religion, as are many other fanatical cults. The fact that a word has Latin roots does not necessarily mean that the English usage of such a word retains the same meaning.

The only condition imposed on being a deist is that you believe in a god who has no interference on the universe at all, except for its creation. Just because there's only one condition for this belief does not mean it can't be a religion; it very much does involve a god.

 

[Onusha]

Okay, I guess I phrased that wrong, but the way you're putting across your criticisms of other people's religions has no place in this thread and is irrelevant to what you choose to believe in. If you want to go ahead and criticize other people for not being agnostic or atheist, go right ahead and make a thread on it, or focus it around why you choose not to believe in such things rather than saying why other people shouldn't believe.

I guess you're right, I have a terrible tendency to derail any thread towards blatant criticism. Sorry.

Otherwise you're basically telling people what to do with their lives, which is not really any of your business unless they're your personal friends or something. But I will tell you this now: you'd better not have any intentions of making such a thread for the sake of changing people's religions.

It is not my primary objective to "change" his religious belief as such, rather to question his reasoning for believing it.

The term "religion" is commonly used to refer to "organized" religion, in the sense of what people's personal beliefs are, particularly that concerning gods, or a god. The fact that I use such a term "religion" to refer to this definition, and the fact that you are twisting what I am using (and what other people commonly refer to this as) is mere sophistry.

No, it really isn't. From wikipedia -

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Does Deism qualify as this? No.

Otherwise, you will also have to concede that Scientology is a religion,

It is, but it's also a dangerous one.

as are many other fanatical cults.

Well yeah...

The fact that a word has Latin roots does not necessarily mean that the English usage of such a word retains the same meaning.

Refer to wikipedia article.

The only condition imposed on being a deist is that you believe in a god who has no interference on the universe at all, except for its creation.

Although they are a minority, there are Deists who believe in an anthropomorphic God. It's not a dogma.

Just because there's only one condition for this belief does not mean it can't be a religion; it very much does involve a god.

Again, from wikipedia-

Deism is a sub-category of theism, in that both entail belief in a deity. Like theism, deism is a basic belief upon which religions can be built.

 

[der Astronom]

I guess you're right, I have a terrible tendency to derail any thread towards blatant criticism. Sorry.



It is not my primary objective to "change" his religious belief as such, rather to question his reasoning for believing it.

But that's not the purpose of this thread. What business do you have to question stuff that other people probably refuse to stop believing in?

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

Well, let's see here. Deists believe in a creator who doesn't interfere with the universe. Since no one's seen this god, much less, had evidence for him, it might as well be considered supernatural. Since it also concerns the universe, it is relevant to the cosmos. Admittedly, it's difficult to classify deism because there is that supernatural element, but it's a bit like atheism in that there is no dogma that says you have to do anything for this god--because he has nothing to do with the universe after it's been created. Some definitions of religion only require a belief in some supernatural element. This wouldn't be quite the same as the agnosticism that asserts it's impossible to know if god exists, and says absolutely nothing about whether or not a supernatural element actually exists; it's a bit more abstract than that.

But since you probably won't buy that, here's some I found from your beloved Wikipedia:

• God gave men reason.
• God exists, created and governs the universe.
• God wants human beings to behave morally.
• Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.

Although they are a minority, there are Deists who believe in an anthropomorphic God. It's not a dogma.

Just because not every deist follows the exact same moral doesn't mean it can't be a religion. Just look at Christianity. There are lots of people that call themselves Christians, yet none of them believe in the same set of things. They don't all agree on homosexuality, the existence or concept of limbo, the kinds of people that go to hell or its conditions, what things are considered sin, the concept of intolerance, slavery, the trinity, and certain other passages in the bible. Yet, the only thing they all agree on is that they believe in a single God somewhat based on the bible.

Again, from wikipedia-

Are you trying to say a religion can't be built upon another religion? If so, please explain.

 

[Onusha]

What business do you have to question stuff that other people probably refuse to stop believing in?

If we don't question the motives of people's beliefs we'd still be in the dark ages. The Age of Enlightenment came from questioning traditional values and beliefs.

Are you trying to say a religion can't be built upon another religion? If so, please explain.

No of coarse I'm not saying that, Protestantism came from Catholicism, Sufism from Islam, etc...

 

[der Astronom]

If we don't question the motives of people's beliefs we'd still be in the dark ages. The Age of Enlightenment came from questioning traditional values and beliefs.

Again, this is all about the focus. I did ask that you phrase this in a way that explains why you choose or choose not to believe certain things, and most philosophical writings during that age were not necessarily written from the perspective of questioning other people's beliefs, but why the author themselves did or did not believe certain things. In other words, they explained their reasoning without the need to bug other people about what they believe. Even if they had, you can achieve the same thing without doing that.

 

[Onusha]

Perhaps, but there's a difference between tolerating what someone believes and allowing them to believe it without question and thus allowing for the spread of ignorance, which does spread like the plague in todays society (the modern rise in neo-Nazi/Nationalist groups, especially in Europe, comes to mind).

 

[ZKnight7]

I believe in the crystals theory.... Wait you mean religeon? Atheism

 

[sneaks428]

i barley ever go to church but i still believe in god and stuff

 

[Onusha]

i barley ever go to church but i still believe in god and stuff

Dirty fundamentalist, get out now, we don't accept your radical beliefs around here.

 

[Jonny]

My apologies Karl Friedrich Gauß but I feel I should be given a chance to defend his more insulting accusation.

I said ancestor worship was racist, because it is. Where does your family lineage stop?

I honour in two kinds of ways: those I know of (Grandma, granddad, great grandma, and great granddad) that regularly honoured through my thoughts and actions.

And those that I don’t, which yes goes back to the first real Homo sapiens sapiens who would have been black.

I never put limits on due to colour of skin, only you did. I never said I honour white peoples ancestors.

Ancestor worship does not promote racism, a racist promotes it to be so and the average Joe assumes it is by association.

Only the limits put on it can be racist, not its self.

Also

Dirty fundamentalist, get out now, we don't accept your radical beliefs around here.

lol

 

[Mitsuki]

Katsky, I would suggest you watch what you say around here. Please don't insult members and their beliefs or further consequences will be issued.

 

[FF7Guru]

I'm agnostic. I respect other religions and their beliefs/practices, but I wouldn't practice them myself. I think that science can explain almost everything, but there are some things that are either un-answerable or can be explained by God's existence, e.g. the meaning of life. But religion is basically a mass opinion, no offense to anyone. It's hard to follow what you are led to believe if there's no proof. I'd rather stay agnostic and explain myself at St. Peter's feet than be Christian and discover that there's no heaven, you know?

 

[der Astronom]

Perhaps, but there's a difference between tolerating what someone believes and allowing them to believe it without question and thus allowing for the spread of ignorance, which does spread like the plague in todays society (the modern rise in neo-Nazi/Nationalist groups, especially in Europe, comes to mind).

Oh really? So during the Age of Enlightenment, did they outlaw people from practicing Christianity? Did they prosecute and torture the people who didn't believe in deism or atheism? I don't doubt that many intellectual circles then might have discussed religion or encouraged more naturalistic religions or beliefs, but they did not force or harass other people to believe the same way they did if they did not want to, or did not question their beliefs. Unfortunately, I have said this time and time again, but there is simply no medicine for ignorance. The best you can do is bring to light the reasons for why you choose to believe as you do, and not pester other people about the things they believe--it's really not your business, and no matter what you say, people won't change their beliefs. If they do, it's because they choose to, and not necessarily because you told them about it.


Perhaps I shall ask you this. What if you're wrong?

If you feel the need to press your point further, please make a separate thread about it. This has nothing to do with sharing your own beliefs with other people.

My apologies Karl Friedrich Gauß but I feel I should be given a chance to defend his more insulting accusation.

I don't mind if you do, but you really shouldn't have to. Such accusations of his should not even be in this thread.

 

[The Messenger]

To just clarify my self on this question. I do not claim a religion in particular, just a relationship. Now if you are asking the question of which religion do I get fed the Word of God, it would be Christianity. As for other religions and people who are parts of them, I have no issue with them. We are not to judge someone just because they are a part of a certain religion. But yeah. I hope this makes sense.

 

[VirginBlack]

I'm Roman Catholic. I believe in all that The Church teaches.

 

[der Astronom]

No... but the point I was making was that the established institutions, philosophies, beliefs, etc... were questioned. I'm not proposing to make his bizarre belief system illegal, and if I implied otherwise, feel free to quote, rather I was questioning his reasoning for believing it.

Well, you said it bothered you that they were "allowed" to believe these things, as if it were somehow wrong to believe everything except the stuff you believe in. If that's not what you're trying to say, then please make yourself more clear. So when I say that the people who made the Age of Enlightenment possible weren't forcing other people to believe the same things they did by torturing other people or prosecuting them for thinking differently, there was no indication that they didn't allow other people to believe the things they wanted to. They just disagreed with some people about what they believed, and shared what they believed without telling other people they had to buy it.

How is questioning his belief 'harassing' him?

See above. You seem to imply that you are questioning his beliefs, not for the benefit of understanding why he believes as he does, or for the sake of curiosity, but for the sake of proving he's wrong or not justified to believe what he wants.

People are justified to believe what they will. Even if you disagree, there is no medicine in the world that stops them from doing so, if you choose to see that as ignorance.

It is ignorant not to question things.

It is ignorance to believe in things for which no one or nothing can confirm. That was what I meant when I said that there is no medicine for ignorance. No "medicine" you have "cures" anyone of their ignorances, regardless of what they believe.

If it's displayed on a public forum, it's damn well my business. I don't have a life so I have to interfere with the lives and beliefs of others through a digital medium.

Religion is a rather personal matter. You may say that it's the poster's own fault for sharing his religion in a public forum because the thread requests such a topic, but on this forum, we do not appreciate or condone the harassing or interference of other people in their own personal lives; ie, their religion. If you are here on nothing more than a crusade to make everyone believe the same as you, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting about that.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in months.

Can you really know if someone has changed what they believe? Under a sword, a pagan would sooner be Christian or pretend to be one than openly remain pagan and die. But how do you know these people aren't secretly believing in the same things they've always believed from the beginning? The will may be foolish to some eyes, but it remains unchanged. That is what I mean when I say that there is no medicine for ignorance. You can probably change a few people with weak wills, perhaps, but by no means can you change everyone. There are people so devout they would rather deny you by plugging their ears and singing than be harassed by your words.

Here's a thought: What if the people you are questioning simply agree with what you believe to make you stop bothering them?

I will not allow you to use this forum as a means to bother people if they feel you are badgering them about what they want to believe.

You just contradicted yourself. Have you ever heard of christian missionaries? Christianity has skyrocketed in numbers in Latin America and Africa in recent years.

Gee, I wonder how they did it--sweet talk or war? If it was the former, they sure did a better job than you did. In other words, the people who heard these missionaries chose to agree with the nice promises the missionaries gave them and changed on their own. If it was the latter, there is no way to tell if they secretly never changed.

How can a question be an objective right or wrong?

I might ask you the same question, since you seem to think everyone who doesn't believe the same things you do are wrong. If that isn't the case, then you don't really have a reason to make other people stop believing what they do.

If you think religion does a lot of harm, I admit it does. However, you can't assume that just because someone believes in a religion that they themselves are causing harm or are a part of it. People believe in religion for personal reasons; it helps them get through the day or makes them feel better. They don't believe in religion necessarily because they're suck ups for god and want everyone else who doesn't believe to suffer; there are some people like that, but by no means does everyone who believe in religion think the same way. I admit I don't understand why they need someone whom they can't see to get through the day; it doesn't work for me. However, if it works for them, and they're not forcing their religion on other people or prosecuting people who don't believe the same things as they do, I don't see why you need to worry about them.

If you disagree, I hope you realize that by pointing fingers at people who believe in religion because they're "causing harm", you are no better than the fundamentalist Christians that accuse all atheists of being evil.

 

[One-winged Demon]

I'm a Christian Ortodox but i don't really believe all these stuff.

 

[Laro]

I'm a Roman Catholic but I prefer the Buddhism ways. Mainly because Buddhists are more focused in the peace of mind and soul. Some of the Catholic ways seem to be too far-fetched such as Heven and Hell. Buddhists believe in reincarnation which seems to realte to the term deja vu.

I don't see why are there different religions and what is the point in them? Why couldn't the whole world be united and worship the power that created us all?