Religion?

[Thefamiliar]

The only people who can say for sure whether God (regarless of one's individual concept of such) exists or not are the dead.

You break consistency (and maybe reveal an underlining belief) when you post this. A true agnostic wouldn't take for granted that the dead were sentient. That's a basic--and important--Christian belief.

That would be wrong.

The dead being sentient, or having souls that live on are pre-christian ideals.

All cultures and and people through out the world have this belief, that the soul lives on after the bodies die. While some may have stepped outside of the norm, and believed in nothing after death, it's not purely christian.

An agnostic would certainly be able to speak about life after death, and still be within the right of the claim that they are agnostic.

Don't forget, Christianity wiped out or assimilated the belief's that came before. Don't be so quick to tag something christian, for the truth of the matter is that it probably originated before Jesus was born. As there was no Christianity before Jesus. Christianity being the religion that was derived from the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have to question the assumption that the sentient dead, as you put it, meet with their god in a heaven somewhere. That's a very crucial matter of faith, but it's mere supposition, when you think about it.

All this "We'll know after we die" -- why should we know then, if we don't know now? Who says that an afterlife will be any better, smarter, longer, fancier than this life?

 

[fifty5]

I have to question the assumption that the sentient dead, as you put it, meet with their god in a heaven somewhere. That's a very crucial matter of faith, but it's mere supposition, when you think about it.

All this "We'll know after we die" -- why should we know then, if we don't know now? Who says that an afterlife will be any better, smarter, longer, fancier than this life?

Playing Devil's advocate, so to speak, if you and I are wrong and there is a God, afterlife and so on, then something will happen after we die.

That's what makes this debate difficult: both sides need to consider what follows if we are wrong.

For myself, I look forward to an infinite, dreamless 'sleep'.

 

[Handley_Page]

I'm also pleased to see that so far, this thread seems to have steered clear of a flaming row. It's good to read a straight thread from time to time.

I was raised in the Christian faith (CofE, for what that title is worth), and accepted the tennets as taught me. My Father sometimes took me, especially when I was younger, but as I grew up, he never forced me to go. Of course, we in the UK did not, at least in those days, get pelted with extremes of one view or another (as one writer has put it - 'keep it simple'). I was able to sing so I was in the local church choir for a while (then we moved house), and I heard all manner of preachin' - but none of it wild ranting; ever.

My life in the RAF put me close to the Padre but there was also never a great deal of ranting (that was always the territory of the drill Instructors), and Church services were fairly short and the Sermons of a more practical nature (being good and comradely, as the Lord indicated, etc..).

I always believed that a man carries his God in his head. IT matters not what one calls Him (Ra, Osiris, Yahweh, Manitou or whatever), but confidence in some sort of supreme being seems logical, somehow (At the very least he pressed the button marked "Start" and set off the Big Bang).

Life went on without trouble until I was diagnosed with throat cancer and that brought all manner of problems; but not of a religious or philosophical nature. I was about half way through the Radiation & Chemo treatment one Firday night watching TV and in some pain (like swallowing razor blades or half-bricks).

You know how Walt Disney cartoon films 'paint' the name 'Walt Disney' in yellow & gold on a midnight-blue background ?
And if you've ever watched NCIS you'll know what I mean when I refer to the 'Gibbs flick' - yes ?

So there I am watching TV when across the front of my mind, in very bold letters, just like Disney, were the words:
"I shall fear no pain, for I walk in the footsteps of my God".
This was over a year ago.

So far, my consultant seems to think I ain't got a problem and I am recovering, albeit slower than I'd like (they don't tell you that six weeks of treatment can be followed by 19 months of recovery). But it does not hurt.

As a pal of mine put it. "I think", he wrote, " that it is better to believe and then risk discovering that there is no God, than not to believe and discover you were wrong".

Keep it simple, I say. I have my God and it works for me. It may not be the same as yours.
Be at Peace, folks.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Pascal's wager, yeah. "it's better to go through the believing in God motions, just in case there is one."

Haha, no. If that putative god is omnipotent, me going through the motions of belief would be transparently obvious to it. It would know because omnipotent, that I never really did believe, and dump me in hell or whatever, and then all those Sundays I'd wasted on playacting in some church or another could have been better spent fucking my girlfriend after all.

Thing is-- I am not capable of belief.

Not capable.

If belief were sight, I''d be colorblind, if belief were music, I'd have no ear for it.

So, the wager doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Athalia]

I have to question the assumption that the sentient dead, as you put it, meet with their god in a heaven somewhere.

To this, I can only add this from Kurt Vonnegut (a famous athiest), writing in Palm Sunday:

“Bertrand Russell declared that, in case he met God, he would say to Him, "Sir, you did not give us enough information." I would add to that, "All the same, Sir, I'm not persuaded that we did the best we could with the information we had. Toward the end there, anyway, we had tons of information.”

 

[Harry Leg]

Pascal's wager, yeah. "it's better to go through the believing in God motions, just in case there is one."

Haha, no. If that putative god is omnipotent, me going through the motions of belief would be transparently obvious to it. It would know because omnipotent, that I never really did believe, and dump me in hell or whatever, and then all those Sundays I'd wasted on playacting in some church or another could have been better spent fucking my girlfriend after all.

Thing is-- I am not capable of belief.

Not capable.

If belief were sight, I''d be colorblind, if belief were music, I'd have no ear for it.

So, the wager doesn't mean anything to me.

I think you underestimate your capabilities.

I'm not saying you will ever believe in anything. But I think you are capable of anything.

There was a statistician by the name of George Bernard Dantzig. When he was a student at Berkeley, one day he arrived late for class. He quickly copied down the 2 problems on the blackboard assuming it was homework. It took him longer to complete than usual, but when he was finished he asked his professor if it was too late to hand it in. His professor told him to leave it on his desk.
A few weeks later his professor knocked on his door. He was amazed that George had been able to solve the problems. They were not homework but instead examples of problems that no one had been able to solve. If George had known this, he probably wouldnt have tried. But because he didnt know that he shouldnt be able to solve them, he did.

Its amazing what you can accomplish if youre not led to believe you cant.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Very true.

I'm experimenting with frequent nocturnal urination events. Its very interesting. Assorted authorities blame the prostate gland. But I discovered a twist in the hose: With a sleep aid nocturnal urination events are significantly reduced. It implies that maybe sleep has greater influence on bodily functions than known.

Shazzam! The Danes did a study of sleep deprivation, and discovered that males increase urine production when sleep deprived. Not females.

 

[jomar]

Sort of surprised that the "that's why they call it faith" argument hasn't been mentioned...after all, many scientists believe in God and black holes.

Anyway, I'll go with agnostic, of which every church needs a few.

And I believe in evolution and the big bang theory...until it is disproven and something better comes along, that is.

 

[SevenSquared]

Pascal's wager, yeah. "it's better to go through the believing in God motions, just in case there is one."

Haha, no. If that putative god is omnipotent, me going through the motions of belief would be transparently obvious to it.

Not only that, you would also be required to believe in every religion, large or small, simultaneously, because even if god does exist, you would have absolutely no idea which one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think you underestimate your capabilities.

I'm not saying you will ever believe in anything. But I think you are capable of anything.

There was a statistician by the name of George Bernard Dantzig. When he was a student at Berkeley, one day he arrived late for class. He quickly copied down the 2 problems on the blackboard assuming it was homework. It took him longer to complete than usual, but when he was finished he asked his professor if it was too late to hand it in. His professor told him to leave it on his desk.
A few weeks later his professor knocked on his door. He was amazed that George had been able to solve the problems. They were not homework but instead examples of problems that no one had been able to solve. If George had known this, he probably wouldnt have tried. But because he didnt know that he shouldnt be able to solve them, he did.

Its amazing what you can accomplish if youre not led to believe you cant.

I can't tell if you're joking or being sincere, sweets. If you're joking, congrats on a very subtle approach
If you're not joking, I gotta say WTF?

 

[sr71plt]

That would be wrong.

The dead being sentient, or having souls that live on are pre-christian ideals.

Not so much, actually. Name a few pre-Christian religions with that belief. A few, maybe, not many. Not even the Hebrew religion that Christianity flowed from. Certainly not ones claiming to be agnostic (which was the point of the discussion).

 

[Harry Leg]

I can't tell if you're joking or being sincere, sweets. If you're joking, congrats on a very subtle approach
If you're not joking, I gotta say WTF?

I dont believe I'm capable of ever taking anything too seriously...especially myself


Although I do tend to get the WTF response a lot

 

[Thefamiliar]

Not so much, actually. Name a few pre-Christian religions with that belief. A few, maybe, not many. Not even the Hebrew religion that Christianity flowed from. Certainly not on claiming to be agnostic (which was the point of the discussion).

Native Americans believe(d) in a god, when they died their dead w walked the milky way to get to the happy hunting grounds.

Norse cultures (celtic) believed in multiple gods, you joined them after death, vallhalla for example or hel. (wonder where we get the idea of hell from?)

Aboriginies of austrailia believe in life after death.

African tribes do. As well as sout american tribal people, who are still in exsistance today, and never heard of jesus.

People of china, and japan believe in a soul going on after life, and meeting the keepers.

I am posting from my phone, so its difficult to cite them in depth. But mythologies of the world and god(s) and afterlife started far before christianity took root.

The egyptions believed in life after death...it really isnt difficult to find the information.

 

[sr71plt]

Native Americans believe(d) in a god, when they died their dead w walked the milky way to get to the happy hunting grounds. [not agnostic. Believe(d) in a deity.]

Norse cultures (celtic) believed in multiple gods, you joined them after death, vallhalla for example or hel. (wonder where we get the idea of hell from?)[not agnostic. Believed in deities.]

Aboriginies of austrailia believe in life after death.[not agnostic. Believe in gods]

African tribes do. As well as sout american tribal people, who are still in exsistance today, and never heard of jesus.[Too much of a sweeping generalization. Agnostic or not?]

People of china, and japan believe in a soul going on after life, and meeting the keepers. [which ones are you claiming are agnostic and still believe in an afterlife?]

I am posting from my phone, so its difficult to cite them in depth. But mythologies of the world and god(s) and afterlife started far before christianity took root.

The egyptions believed in life after death...it really isnt difficult to find the information. [not agnostic. They believed in gods.]

Sorry, you have presented sweeping generalizations over large groups of peoples with widely disparate internal beliefs.

Also, the discussion was about agnostics. And the religion we were talking about was Christianity. I didn't mean to imply that agosticism only related to Christianity. You can't believe in a god and be an agnostic--but to be an agnostic you also have to think about the concept of deity to doubt that there is one (you can't doubt what you haven't heard proposed). So, you have to drop out all of those groups that have a god (or multiple god) belief from the get go--or that haven't run up against any discussion of the existence of a god at all.

Agnostics. My post was posted to the discussion of agnosticism (the doubt that there is a god or multiple gods--but still believing in a sentient life after death).

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I can't tell if you're joking or being sincere, sweets. If you're joking, congrats on a very subtle approach
If you're not joking, I gotta say WTF?

C'mon, Stella, even the White Queen, in her youth, she claimed, was able to believe in at least six impossible things before breakfast; surely you can believe in something impossible, too!

 

[Thefamiliar]

Sorry, you have presented sweeping generalizations over large groups of peoples with widely disparate internal beliefs.

Also, the discussion was about agnostics. You can't believe in a god and be an agnostic--but to be an agnostic you also have to think about the concept of diety to doubt that there is one. So, you have to drop out all of those groups that have a god (or multiple god) belief from the get go--or that haven't run up against any discussion of the existence of a god at all.

Agnostics. My post was posted to the discussion of agnosticism (the doubt that there is a god or multiple gods).

Agnostic believe that all religions have merit, and are valid.

Aethists believe that no god or afterlife exsits.

I would need a computer and a lot of room to site individual tribal beliefs, or go indepth in larger cultures. Even christiaity canbe divided into sects, subcultures etc. I figure if christiaity could be generalized so could the rest.

I apologize though, the missuse of the word agnostic threw me. Carry on.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Not so much, actually. Name a few pre-Christian religions with that belief. A few, maybe, not many. Not even the Hebrew religion that Christianity flowed from. Certainly not ones claiming to be agnostic (which was the point of the discussion).

Sorry, you have presented sweeping generalizations over large groups of peoples with widely disparate internal beliefs.

Also, the discussion was about agnostics. You can't believe in a god and be an agnostic--but to be an agnostic you also have to think about the concept of diety to doubt that there is one. So, you have to drop out all of those groups that have a god (or multiple god) belief from the get go--or that haven't run up against any discussion of the existence of a god at all.

Agnostics. My post was posted to the discussion of agnosticism (the doubt that there is a god or multiple gods--but who still believe in a life after death).

Seems to me, Pilot, that your post was explicitly about "pre-Christian" religions with beliefs in an afterlife, and TheFamiliar, though vague and general, is quite correct. And I don't think he was claiming their beliefs were the same, or that it constituted proof of an afterlife, just that the notion of an afterlife for spirits of the dead existed independent of Christianity and its multifarious conceptions of life after death. In that, he most assuredly is correct.

 

[sr71plt]

Agnostic believe that all religions have merit, and are valid.

No they don't--not under the definition of agnosticism. All they have to do is not believe that the existent of a god function is known or knowable. They don't have to think a single thought about all or any established religions. They just have to doubt the existence of god.

Gawd, how does an erotica discussion board let it get itself tied up with arguments about religion?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Agnostic;

A= "none" Gnosis ="knowledge"

Agnostics claim no knowledge of the existence or not, of any god or gods. This awareness of the lack of knowledge does not constitute a religion. Many agnostcs choose to take part in their local religion and call themselves followers of it

Many decide to live an atheist (A="none" theo ="god") and non religious life.

The issue of life after death may or may not be bound up in someone's views about deities. Almost every person who believes in a god also blieves in an afterlife, and so do some atheists and agnostics.

 

[PennLady]

Agnostic believe that all religions have merit, and are valid.

Not to jump on, but that's not any definition of agnostic I ever heard. Here is a wiki page on agnosticism, and here is the M-W definition of "agnostic."

The gist is: agnostics believe we do not or cannot know the existence, or not, of any god(s).

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

Not to jump on, but that's not any definition of agnostic I ever heard. Here is a wiki page on agnosticism, and here is the M-W definition of "agnostic."

The gist is: agnostics believe we do not or cannot know the existence, or not, of any god(s).

That is what I have understood agnostics to be.

I do believe that the main organized religions to be nothing more than manipulative bodies using fear and/or carrot and stick to get people to behave a certain way. It has been going on for so long that people accept it as normal. If the church didn't like something, they would "edit" their holy books to make is seem that their deity spoke directly against it. For example, there was a time when eating pork was not a smart thing to do so to have people not eat pork, the church forbade it. Then people learned how to raise pigs where they weren't carrying all sorts of diseases and pork can be eaten, yet because the religious texts are several hundred years old they have not been updated.

I think the world would be a better place if we didn't let organized religion dictate the way people are to think.

Side rant: The next time I hear a person thank God/Jesus for their being able to win something I am going to puke. To think that a god would care enough about one person/team and not about the other is the most arrogant and self-centered statement a person can make. Oh, so God chose you to win over another of his creation, aren't you just special?

 

[PennLady]

I do believe that the main organized religions to be nothing more than manipulative bodies using fear and/or carrot and stick to get people to behave a certain way. It has been going on for so long that people accept it as normal. If the church didn't like something, they would "edit" their holy books to make is seem that their deity spoke directly against it. For example, there was a time when eating pork was not a smart thing to do so to have people not eat pork, the church forbade it. Then people learned how to raise pigs where they weren't carrying all sorts of diseases and pork can be eaten, yet because the religious texts are several hundred years old they have not been updated.

You've confused me. If they could edit it before to say don't eat pork, then why don't they just edit again to say you can?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

You've confused me. If they could edit it before to say don't eat pork, then why don't they just edit again to say you can?

It's not simply a matter of hygiene; in fact, the bible doesn't mention pigs at all. It does state that god created "fish with scales and fins that swam in the sea, birds of the air with feathers and wings, and beasts of the earth with four legs, cloven hooves, that chewed the cud." Everything else was "an abomination unto the lord," and not to be eaten.
"Kosher" is not just eschewing rather than chewing pork; no lobsters, clams, bats, eels, rabbits, even (oh no!) penguins either. That is, everything that doesn't perfectly match the categories of creation is forbidden.
And they do sometimes edit: grasshoppers get a special exemption in Leviticus 12).

 

[topace]

Well, I'm clearly not an atheist or an agnostic!

I believe in a higher power, but I don't call it a "god". Notice no capitalization and the quotation marks.

Do I believe in an after-life? Not really, but I've seen evidence of "help from a higher power" (ie. help in circumstances where no help should be there) so it's possible.