What do YOU believe? - Page 7

October 3, 2008, 9:26 PM

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?

October 3, 2008, 9:29 PM

Because there are people that don't believe in a greater power, and then people don't see this great power as being the same thing or having the same properties. Some people believe out of fear, others do it because they were told to since they were very young, and there are some others that do it because they really think it's true.

Then there are others like myself who don't believe because we chose our religion (or lackthereof).

October 5, 2008, 10:39 PM

I'm a very passionate Atheist, I think Religion is a corrosive, dangerous and evil force that is gonna end up destroying the world.

October 16, 2008, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverFjell

I'm a very passionate Atheist, I think Religion is a corrosive, dangerous and evil force that is gonna end up destroying the world.

And yet humans have been practicing religion of some sorts for over 5000 years!

But yeah organised religions can be corrosive... Don't particulary believe it to be evil, but in the wrong minds, wrong words and twisted in the wrong way, anything can be bad.

October 16, 2008, 5:50 PM

You could say the Dark Ages nearly destroyed all hope of us ever being considered intelligent, enlightened beings worthy of saying we're unique--in a good way.

There's always going to be that argument about whether we're bad, or religion is bad. But religion is artificial; not divine, like some people like to think. Someone wrote the holy scriptures that people believe in, and people who don't anything about science or the world at all can't tell a metaphor from a lteral reading. You have to make a certain reading of the bible in order to get any sense out of it.

A rather strange way of reading a book, where you ignore certain parts, hand-wave away stuff with metaphors and pick out the stuff that appeals to you, wouldn't you say?

November 22, 2008, 11:48 PM

i should have posted here first

i believe in a literal interpretation of the bible where you cant just say "I choose not to follow this because i want to" i believe that if you take what the bible is saying literally you can make sense of it like some of the things in the old testament i do not follow because Jesus and others in the new testament said i didn't have to. like not working on the sabbath
Mark 2:27 (Words of Jesus in red.) 27Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath;

or keeping kosher

Mathew 15:11
11It is Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

November 23, 2008, 2:09 AM

I'm an atheist, prone to worrying fits of agnosticism that are always dispelled by someone doing something that proves my previous assertion that all of it is utter bullshit completely correct.

There's a Gene Roddenberry quote that sums up my general line of thinking. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

November 23, 2008, 10:18 AM

Francie, i think you've misundestood agnosticism then

Agnostics believe in a higher power who created the universe. They don't neccesarily believe he created humans or "watches" us, or in a heaven etc etc. Just that there is a creator that isn't depicted in any existing religion =)

Going into specifics means it is no longer agnosticism, but is a new religion =P

November 23, 2008, 9:45 PM

Sounds more like agnostic theism...

Anyways, I think that the term 'agnosticism' covers a wide range. My personal understanding of it is that there is an inability to prove or disprove the existence of some sort of god, and so there is no point in either believing or not believing, because there is no possible answer.

To clarify, I believe there is far more evidence against the existence of any sort of god. I'm not unwavering in this belief, but when I see somebody doing something unbelievably stupid and/or horrible, I am convinced once again there cannot have been a god who would intentionally create any of it.

Further, with the Roddenberry quote I was leaning towards any sort of organized religion, rather than the overall existence of a god.

I feel like I sound like an asshole, but I'm not meaning to be. >>

December 4, 2008, 3:53 AM

Quote:

Francie, i think you've misundestood agnosticism then

Agnostics believe in a higher power who created the universe. They don't neccesarily believe he created humans or "watches" us, or in a heaven etc etc. Just that there is a creator that isn't depicted in any existing religion =)

Going into specifics means it is n