Atheist!

[HappyLlama]

It is good to see that this thread has settled down to a more amicable discussion.
Hats off to wmsr2 for responding civilly at last.

It is always interesting to read other peoples views/beliefs, even if I do not always concur with them. C'est la vie.

The folks here are friendly if you treat them with consideration and respect. They have their own world views brought about by their own life experiences. They will treat you with consideration and respect in return.

I do not understand why you have to use the pronoun 'we', though. Are you a hive intellect?

*does happy llama dance*




*trots off*

 

[past_perfect]

Thank you for allowing me to explain my position on the scripture verses you cite and other religious matters. Please overlook the tendency of mine to respond like a carnal person that has been attacked and threatened. I accept that my attitude has not been conducive to telling the truth in a believable manner. I will try to improve beginning now.

I have already cited passages where God hates and their are literally thousands of more passages that illustrates God's displeasure with unbelievers, if one considers all the synonyms in the Bible of the word hate. You have probably read these citations on this thread by now, I only refer to the fact these citations are here and do exist.



I agree that my view of God is limited to my world view of good and evil. It is my view that only God knows what the thoughts and intents of a person's feelings are. That is why we must allow God to judge but passing the word and judgment of God along to people is not judging. Perhaps I failed to point this out.

Also, when I referred to a "fool" it was my intention to point out that that was the opinion God had of people that did not believe in him. That is what the Bible teaches. We are not allowed to judge who is a fool and who is not, but God still know and God had decided to damn that person. Whatever being damned is, is also up to God. Again, I was only attempting to pass the word along.

I am sorry that I have failed you and will be trying to do better. Thank you for your criticism. I will try to improve my behavior based on your thoughts.

Displeasure, granted - hate - there we probably diverge in our interpretations. I am not claiming that mine are right either, but my understanding goes more along the lines that if you want to live a life that elevates rather than bogs you down, you have to follow the rules as laid out in the Bible. As impossible as that might seem to most of us, some have reputedly succeeded, such as St. Francis or Meister Eckhart, both arriving from very different approaches or paths. Those are not dissimilar to the core teachings in many other religions, some of which embrace your natural theology approach as one possible path of approaching God also, as in Hinduism for instance. I am glad we can manage to discourse in a more cordial manner.

 

[ishtat]

Thank you for asking these questions. I believe in one God. God is the most rational force in the universe and he is a God to all men. To accept God or to reject God becomes the premise for all reasoning. My belief in God comes to me by natural theology, although revealed theology (Bible) is important and offers much wisdom to man.

After accepting God's existence as self-evident truth, it is possible to base all life decisions on God's existence. To know about God, one must first determine what the universe is really like. Then, ask this question:what would a God be like that would create such a universe. This how the deduction process begins.

The deduction process is the beginning of any epistemology (theory of knowledge) which includes science, math, logic, or ethics. It is my belief that a correct deduction process will lead the mind to a perfect model of behavior, which I believe is Jesus Christ. Man is free to make his own deductions on how life should be lived. This explains why there are many different religions but still only one God. A religion is a deduction.

The position of the Bible in my beliefs is as follows. The Bible is a collection of the best representation of good wisdom and the evil wisdom that man has collected and deduced. It is the word of God because it seeks to illuminate the Truth. Believers do not have to prove the Bible to be true in order to believe the Truth. The Bible's role is to confirm the faith of the believer, which is based on correct deductions. Christians do not need to defend the Bible because its truth is found in natural theology by the observation of nature. If the Bible is discredited, Truth still remains knowable to men of good will.

There is much more to be said about my personal beliefs, which I will be happy to share with you if you have further curiosity about my beliefs.

Thank you. Rather than argue I will just state my position. I do not believe in god, yours or any others. As god does not exist he cannot be rational. Similarly I don't accept or reject him, he just has no existence. I'm not going to get into a debate about what is truth and what is belief because it will take far too long. But clearly, given my view of god, your definition of self evident truth is merely a claim which cannot be substantiated.

I think that men can exercise their own free will to arrive at an appropriate ethical code without dependency on some external agency (such as a god).

Jesus of Nazareth was a good man, above all he was a compassionate man as were the other great religious leaders Confucious, Lao Tze, Zarathustra, Buddha, Hillel, the writers of the Vedas and Mohammed . None of these great men was a theologian nor was any a promoter of dogma. Everyone of them taught their followers to live a good life and be good to their neighbors. Unfortunately the churches and priesthoods which succeeded them perverted their teachings with farcical theology for their own ends.

Jesus was also a racist, a man of anger and he treated women poorly from time to time, I don't condemn him for that because his compassion overcame these occasional lapses.

The Bible to me is a fascinating series of books and I am reasonably familiar with it. However my interest is in its history, its propaganda and as a literary achievement. Because of my perhaps eccentric education in England I have been fortunate enough to read it in Classical Greek and Latin and that alone has taught me that this is a very human and not a divinely inspired work.

Jesus Spoke Aramaic and the first record of what he said was written in the non canonical Gospel of Thomas (Most scholars agree that this was the primary source for Matthew's gospel) His words were then translated into Greek, then Latin and then one thousand years later without using a single original or even near contemporary resource into English. The Authorised, King James version in particular is riddled with errors and though great English it is terrible translation. But that's enough of that.

Now to get down to basics; why do people believe in any religion let alone a particular religion . I think that the cause of religion and the belief in some external mental or spiritual support is fear. Primitive man was fearful of everything unexplained in the world and sought solace in religion . As men gained knowledge of their world the numbers of fears diminished but the one great fear remained and for most people still remains, the fear of death.

All religions offer a deal, a promise that there is something better than oblivion. There ain't but that doesn't stop them trying. Ultimately religious people fear atheists because of their lack of sharing of the fearfulness and they resent it.

Finally a little homily. About 3300 years ago (1300BC) a man called Zarathustra had one of the greatest insights of all time. It is recorded in the Gathas, the hymns to Ahura Mazda (his name for god) that he said and I paraphrase, 'every man and woman has the free will to think good thoughts , say good words, and do good actions.' Then having been the first man to enunciate the principle of man's free will he spoilt the logic of it by stressing that if man did not seek goodness in this life he would have a pretty bad afterlife. Having discovered the free will of mankind Zarathustra promptly destroyed it by shackling it to religion and god. I hope that one day those shackles are no more.

 

[Verdad]

JL:

~~~

You stumbled, quite inadvertently, on something that interests me...to a point, that is.

I, too, have followed the discoveries, mysteries and theories of astronomy and the universe, most likely longer than you have, and the information and knowledge is almost beyond comprehension, in view of time and space, matter and energy and the origins of everything in the universe.

I have read before, hundreds of times, the humility, one is expected to feel standing before a vast ocean, in orbit around earth, on the way to the Moon and in your circumstance of recognizing the vastness of space and time.

I have often wondered why so many look outside themselves, in your case, before the Big Bang, to find a daddy to lean on and comfort them.

Must be a troubled childhood...my best guess.

I would suggest another aspect, another perspective, might be more productive and even beneficial as concerns a state of mind.

Stand before that ocean and smile; knowing you can sail across it.

Orbit the earth and smile; knowing science and man's mind put you there.

Marvel at space, where new stars are born and old ones die and black matter exists and black holes come and go and cosmic bursts of energy, travelling longer than earth has existed impact upon your instruments.

Look at the universe and smile; knowing that we are part of it and have our own duration of sentience, something no one, to our knowledge, has ever possessed before.

Then look within and smile again; the only supernal inspiration you need is in your own mind, your own life, and what you can make of the span of time nature alots us.

Once you are at peace with your inner self...then set forth to construct a philosophy suitable for a sentient intelligent being and do include a consistent plan of action to express that unique, one of a kind, perception of the Universe that only you possess.

That is why it is the individual that is supreme; that is why each and every life, from the moment of conception is valuable, unto itself.

Thanks for the inspiration.

Amicus

This is a beautiful post, as is Ishtat's post, above. Here, I think you speak for most atheists. You do for me, anyhow. And you do a wonderful job of explaining why we're not, in fact, a bunch of whiners running in circles after the death of god. The moral sense, the sense of wonder, none of it depends on a belief in supernatural. Yet some conclusions differ.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe in immortal souls. I believe in a connective energy that is shared with all living things. I believe in a God that is a less powerful but more aware aspect of this energy. This is the God that various people throughout time have been able to converse with, on any number of levels.

So, when I say "higher order," I mean a level of existence above/removed/parallel with our own, but to which we are all connected.

Ah. I do not share this belief. And I'd like you to think about what you mean when you say "above/removed/parallel" because those words have assumed some very vague meanings in popular culture.

You mentioned Nirvana; I have always had a particular fascination and sympathy for that belief, as it is close to my own. In the faith in which Nirvana exists (Buddhism), the soul is reincarnated over and over until a state of true abandonment of ignorance is achieved. At which point the individual is fully released and moves on elsewhere. As you said, Nirvana is not a place, but a state of being.

I should ask you how you define "state of being" now! What I mean to say is that nirvana is a mode of perceiving the world, in the way that squinting, or perhaps wearing blue lensed glasses or something, changes ones visual perception. It does not change the actual world, and it does not change your place in it.

Where I disagree with that idea is that I believe there is a final destination, a "heaven." My reasoning for that is when you have enough individuals attaining the same state of being, you have a collection (or congregation, if you will), and it is only natural that any collection of beings, in any state, will have a shared existence.

Yeah, I know, that was probably a little chaotic. No one's asked me to explain my beliefs before.

Nor do I believe this, Slyc.

But what I see in your belief is the acute sense of symbolism that humans have, that makes us different from our primate cousins. They have to physically touch each other, to maintain a sense of who they are, and of their tribes; we can put off the physical touch and substitute speech, or perceive a oneness whether or not it actually exists.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah. I do not share this belief. And I'd like you to think about what you mean when you say "above/removed/parallel" because those words have assumed some very vague meanings in popular culture.I should ask you how you define "state of being" now! What I mean to say is that nirvana is a mode of perceiving the world, in the way that squinting, or perhaps wearing blue lensed glasses or something, changes ones visual perception. It does not change the actual world, and it does not change your place in it.Nor do I believe this, Slyc.

But what I see in your belief is the acute sense of symbolism that humans have, that makes us different from our primate cousins. They have to physically touch each other, to maintain a sense of who they are, and of their tribes; we can put off the physical touch and substitute speech, or perceive a oneness whether or not it actually exists.

I take above/removed/parallel to just mean a different, unknown dimension.

I also don't share all of Slyc's beliefs. But what I think separates me from fundamentalists of any stripe--be they self-identified fundamentalist Christians or militant athiests--is that it's OK with me for folks to listen to what others say about their beliefs and then choose their own without being challenged or proseltized by those of any other persuasion. (Can you read between the lines here?)

 

[xssve]

This country was founded by Christians, but this is largely the result of the Christian having killed anybody who wasn't, so it's really not much to brag about.

It was in fact, Jefferson I believe, who argued that the separation of Church and state was not to preserve politics from the corruption of religion, but to preserve religion from the corruption of politics.

In any case, more accurately, after reading Antonia Fraser's biography, I believe the roots of the American secular states probably had it's origins in the levellers of the English Civil Wars of the Seventeenth century; the context was one of great strife over complex issues of both religious and secular governance. Oliver Cromwell prevailed through a combination of military prowess and a providentialist populism.

The levellers, who promulgated the concepts of expanded suffrage, rule by popular mandate, rule of law, and religious freedom and tolerance (freedom of conscience) did not prevail at the time, but they did inspire a new wave of political theory over the next hundred years based on those precepts: Locke, Hume, even Adam Smith, which eventually influenced the framers of the Constitution, who created the foundations of a government based on those precepts.

I for one, stand by the record: all fucking theocrats do is fight over scraps and fuck everything up - religion and politics don't mix, and if you think the world was a better place under theocratic rule, you're fooling yourself - the Puritans, including Cromwell targeted things like Crucifixes and Icons, they fought over the pettiest shit you can imagine, and it was a bloody fucking mess.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I take above/removed/parallel to just mean a different, unknown dimension.

I also don't share all of Slyc's beliefs. But what I think separates me from fundamentalists of any stripe--be they self-identified fundamentalist Christians or militant athiests--is that it's OK with me for folks to listen to what others say about their beliefs and then choose their own without being challenged or proseltized by those of any other persuasion. (Can you read between the lines here?)

Slyc said

If you allude to yourself, Stella, I find it hard to believe you believe in nothing. At the least, you believe in yourself, and there are many philosophical grounds for a belief system based in that.

(of course that was back a handful of pages because of this babbling lunatic we've got weaving around in here.)

So now slyc and I are talking about what it's like to not believe-- and pinpointing the things I don't believe in. To do that, I find, it's easiest to establish what things slyc believes in. To explain why I don't share those beliefs, I think it's polite to explain why I don't, otherwise, I'm just rudely shooting him down.

This "higher order" routine-- I have my concept of what some people mean by this, but it's awfully vague catchall term. And it's often the case that when I ask, they can't really define it as easily as they thought. never hurts to exercise one's mind!

 

[sr71plt]

It was in fact, Jefferson I believe, who argued that the separation of Church and state was not to preserve politics from the corruption of religion, but to preserve religion from the corruption of politics.

Yes, that's what he argued--because that's how he could argue toward the goal he was seeking--at the time. Jefferson was a politician. His intellectual preferences were with those in England who were dismantling the church institution and those in France preparing to guillotine the church institution.

I argued much the same point as you have in an editorial in the University of Virginia Cavilier Daily (Mr. Jefferson's University, in the center of Jefferson country) back in the early 1970s--and I got roasted with a firepit of documentation otherwise.

 

[sr71plt]

Slyc said (of course that was back a handful of pages because of this babbling lunatic we've got weaving around in here.)

So now slyc and I are talking about what it's like to not believe-- and pinpointing the things I don't believe in. To do that, I find, it's easiest to establish what things slyc believes in. To explain why I don't share those beliefs, I think it's polite to explain why I don't, otherwise, I'm just rudely shooting him down.

This "higher order" routine-- I have my concept of what some people mean by this, but it's awfully vague catchall term. And it's often the case that when I ask, they can't really define it as easily as they thought. never hurts to exercise one's mind!

Fine. I still see a whole lot of "you can't believe what you do because I have the truth" and I'm going to cram my truth down your throat from both sides on this thread.

 

[xssve]

Yes, that's what he argued--because that's how he could argue toward the goal he was seeking--at the time. Jefferson was a politician. His intellectual preferences were with those in England who were dismantling the church institution and those in France preparing to guillotine the church institution.

I argued much the same point as you have in an editorial in the University of Virginia Cavilier Daily (Mr. Jefferson's University, in the center of Jefferson country) back in the early 1970s--and I got roasted with a firepit of documentation otherwise.

You don't agree? You think organized religion is happy without state sponsorship and subsidization? Recent events would argue otherwise, even with the fortunate expedient of 24/7 televised fund drives.

Point is, doesn't matter what you think Jefferson was trying to do, or even what he may have been actually trying to do, you can worship any religion you choose, without fear of persecution, it's not my fault that Xtians seem to think that they're being persecuted if they can't shove it down my throat - I'm not the one showing up at your door every couple of weeks to tell you you're going to hell, telling you who you can marry or love, or how, etc.

Clinically, believing in the existence of unseen entities is delusional - ordering your life according to alleged communications from same is indistinguishable from schizophrenia - it's a free country, but I prefer to base policy on real phenomena rather than imaginary.

It oughta be enough to have your freedom, it's enough for me.

 

[sr71plt]

You don't agree? You think organized religion is happy without state sponsorship and subsidization? Recent events would argue otherwise, even with the fortunate expedient of 24/7 televised fund drives.

Point is, doesn't matter what you think Jefferson was trying to do, or even what he may have been actually trying to do, you can worship any religion you choose, without fear of persecution, it's not my fault that Xtians seem to think that they're being persecuted if they can't shove it down my throat - I'm not the one showing up at your door every couple of weeks to tell you you're going to hell, telling you who you can marry or love, or how, etc.

Clinically, believing in the existence of unseen entities is delusional - ordering your life according to alleged communications from same is indistinguishable from schizophrenia - it's a free country, but I prefer to base policy on real phenomena rather than imaginary.

I was only commenting on your specific example. Documentation doesn't support what you asserted as to what Jefferson either thought about the place of religion in society or the agenda he actually pursued toward those goals.

Folks around here habitually use Jefferson to support whatever point they want to make--they often misuse him.

 

[xssve]

I was only commenting on your specific example. Documentation doesn't support what you asserted as to what Jefferson either thought about the place of religion in society or the agenda he actually pursued toward those goals.

Folks around here habitually use Jefferson to support whatever point they want to make--they often misuse him.

I believe that is a direct quote, taken from Will's Under God: Religion and American Politics, although to be fair, it's been many years since I read that and my memory may be playing tricks on me.

Whoever said it, I think it's quite a sensible point, it's a slippery slope, and has been recognized as such lo these many years - curious that for the last two hundred years of an ostensibly "god fearing Christian country", nobody ever succeeded in effectively undermining the establishment clause until the last administration.

i.e., nobody trusts politicians, but somehow if religion gets mixed up in there too, it somehow supposedly sanctifies the ordure of the same old base greed and power mongering.

One of the primary recipients of faith based funding, for example, is Moon's Unification Church, which most Americans consider somewhat sketchy - but he is a very big contributor to the neo-con/republican cause both financially and media wise, while faith based funding is quite naturally being used to finance prostheletization efforts in violation of the charter elsewhere. Duh.

Independent religion has often served as an effective check on government and private industry power, at least since the industrial revolution, and I don't want to see them on the government payroll; it's bad idea, and as I say, has traditionally been perceived as such without much argument.

 

[sr71plt]

I believe that is a direct quote, taken from Will's Under God: Religion and American Politics, although to be fair, it's been many years since I read that and my memory may be playing tricks on me.

We don't see a whole lot of Garry Will around here in Jefferson's Albemarle County. Just could be that we know our Tom, warts and all, a bit better than Garry Will does.

 

[wmrs2]

You don't agree? You think organized religion is happy without state sponsorship and subsidization? Recent events would argue otherwise, even with the fortunate expedient of 24/7 televised fund drives.

Point is, doesn't matter what you think Jefferson was trying to do, or even what he may have been actually trying to do, you can worship any religion you choose, without fear of persecution, it's not my fault that Xtians seem to think that they're being persecuted if they can't shove it down my throat - I'm not the one showing up at your door every couple of weeks to tell you you're going to hell, telling you who you can marry or love, or how, etc.

Clinically, believing in the existence of unseen entities is delusional - ordering your life according to alleged communications from same is indistinguishable from schizophrenia - it's a free country, but I prefer to base policy on real phenomena rather than imaginary.

It oughta be enough to have your freedom, it's enough for me.

In my opinion, I think that we all appreciate and champion the meaning of you closing statement: It oughta be enough to have your freedom, it's enough for me.

There are many in this world that think that man should not be free and their governments and lifestyles.What premise or reason would you base the fact that you should even have any freedom whatever? I am not asking this question to disagree with you but I am really interested in the reasoning process that led you to believe the way you do.

 

[radepor]

Because atheist (particularly to an American) means a person with a different religion. A religion is simply the most basic belief system held by a human. Atheism is a religion, the belief that there is no god. It's a threat to anyone (particularly Jewish/Protestant/Muslim) whose religion does not permit the possiblity of any other belief system (religion) being correct. That is, if your religion is right, then I must be wrong and I cannot be wrong - so, I'd rather kill you than admit the possibility that I'm wrong (or even that we're both right).

 

[sr71plt]

Because atheist (particularly to an American) means a person with a different religion. A religion is simply the most basic belief system held by a human. Atheism is a religion, the belief that there is no god. It's a threat to anyone (particularly Jewish/Protestant/Muslim) whose religion does not permit the possiblity of any other belief system (religion) being correct. That is, if your religion is right, then I must be wrong and I cannot be wrong - so, I'd rather kill you than admit the possibility that I'm wrong (or even that we're both right).

Can't believe you left out the Catholics in the "particularly" clause.

 

[wmrs2]

It is good to see that this thread has settled down to a more amicable discussion.
Hats off to wmsr2 for responding civilly at last.

It is always interesting to read other peoples views/beliefs, even if I do not always concur with them. C'est la vie.

The folks here are friendly if you treat them with consideration and respect. They have their own world views brought about by their own life experiences. They will treat you with consideration and respect in return.

I do not understand why you have to use the pronoun 'we', though. Are you a hive intellect?

*does happy llama dance*

*trots off*

With all due respect, your assessment that everybody around here has their own world views brought about by their own life experiences seems to fall short of reality. Of course the same thing would be true of society at large. Most people, Christian and atheist alike, have no idea of what a world system is. It appears to me that it is a small percentage of any population, including this forum, that really know or care to know on what their beliefs are based.

I hope this does not blow your hat off and I hope to add to the civility of the conversation, but it seems that when people's values are challenged, that is the time that civility breaks down. There are several reasons for being here, one is that I have a Gadfly nature. But my greatest motivation is that I am looking to test my beliefs. It has been my opinion for awhile that I have worked out a very solid and believable world view. At least it works for me. By test, I mean to throw out my ideas here a little and there a little and allow others to find fault with my ideas. It is my belief that it only helps a person if he discovers errors in his thinking process. That seems to me, that is the reason all of us should be here.

Now, I know the door is opened here with these statements for you to voice your anger but please, make this statement of this post true and honest:They will treat you with consideration and respect in return.




To be true and honest with yourself. I realize you will have to say some hard things about my ideas, as I confess that I have some strong ideas as do many of you, but I promise that I will not slur you, call you names or try to embarrass you if you give me the same respect

Thank you HappyLlama for the hats off. Since you called me out by name, I think it is appropriate for you to tolerate my response. I have never been one to run from a fight but with your help, I will not fight.

Already after your acknowledgment insults have been cast at me. You can read these because they are already on this thread but because I sense that the members of this forum needs a better tone of discussion, I will ignore these jabs and poking until you judge who the trolls are. It is my hope that you will be as willing to give these people the same hats off as you have me.

 

[wmrs2]

It is good to see that this thread has settled down to a more amicable discussion.
Hats off to wmsr2 for responding civilly at last.

It is always interesting to read other peoples views/beliefs, even if I do not always concur with them. C'est la vie.

The folks here are friendly if you treat them with consideration and respect. They have their own world views brought about by their own life experiences. They will treat you with consideration and respect in return.

I do not understand why you have to use the pronoun 'we', though. Are you a hive intellect?

*does happy llama dance*

*trots off*

With all due respect, your assessment that everybody around here has their own world views brought about by their own life experiences seems to fall short of reality. Of course the same thing would be true of society at large. Most people, Christian and atheist alike, have no idea of what a world system is. It appears to me that it is a small percentage of any population, including this forum, that really know or care to know on what their beliefs are based.

I hope this does not blow your hat off and I hope to add to the civility of the conversation, but it seems that when people's values are challenged, that is the time that civility breaks down. There are several reasons for being here, one is that I have a Gadfly nature. But my greatest motivation is that I am looking to test my beliefs.

It has been my opinion for awhile that I have worked out a very solid and believable world view. At least it works for me. By the word test, I mean to throw out my ideas here a little and there a little and allow others to find fault with my ideas. It is my belief that it only helps a person if he discovers errors in his thinking process. It seems to me, that is the reason all of us should be here.

Now, I know the door is opened here with these statements for you to voice your anger but please, make this statement of this post true and honest:They will treat you with consideration and respect in return.


To be true and honest with yourself, I realize you will have to say some hard things about my ideas, as I confess that I have some strong ideas as do many of you, but I promise that I will not slur you, call you names or try to embarrass you, if you give me the same respect

Thank you HappyLlama for the hats off. Since you called me out by name, I think it is appropriate for you to tolerate my response. I have never been one to run from a fight but with your help, I will not fight.

Already after your acknowledgment, insults have been cast at me. You can read these because they are already on this thread; but, because I sense that the members of this forum needs a better tone of discussion, I will ignore these jabs and poking until you judge who the trolls are. It is my hope that you will be as willing to give these people the same hats off as you have me when they stop the poking.

As for the pronoun "we", my 3rd grade teacher said it was rude to always use the pronoun "I" and that it was appropriate to use "we" when referring to self. It was my opinion that there was too much usage of "I" in my post on this forum. When we or I discovered it bothered some people that I considered to be trolls, I continued to say "we" simply to irritate their soft skin. However, if you would like to educate me beyond the 3rg grade level, I or we will follow you good advice in this matter. See, I or we really are trying to please.

 

[slyc_willie]

This "higher order" routine-- I have my concept of what some people mean by this, but it's awfully vague catchall term. And it's often the case that when I ask, they can't really define it as easily as they thought. never hurts to exercise one's mind!

The term "higher order" is intentionally vague, as it is not something we can quantify. It's like trying to understand the full scope of a universe with a billion galaxies, each containing billions of stars. We simply cannot understand much more than the fact that there are 'a lot' of stars out there.

On the other side of the coin, I suspect that at least some of the atheists I've met hold to their belief because of this inability to accept something that can't be quantified. But then, that's the point of faith, and that's what a lot of people have a hard time accepting.

But hey, I'm not looking to convert anyone to the Ministry of Slyc, here. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my beliefs, especially since my belief system is still evolving the more I learn about life, history, and religion.

I figure, about three seconds before I die, I'll have it figured out.

 

[sr71plt]

I figure, about three seconds before I die, I'll have it figured out.

Or three seconds afterward it will be figured out for you.

 

[slyc_willie]

Or three seconds afterward it will be figured out for you.

Quite. Maybe in my next life, I'll come back and let you all know.

 

[radepor]

Forgive me

Can't believe you left out the Catholics in the "particularly" clause.

I didn't mean to omit anyone. I use the terms Catholicism and Protestantism pretty much synonymously.

 

[wmrs2]

In an attempt to add a little twist to our discussion, can either atheist of theist have an ontological theory without being religious or is ontology and religion one and the same? My opinion is that these are the same and I would make the argument that there is no difference between an atheist and theist who recognize being. My suggestion is that if you recognize being, even your own, you can not be an atheist. If one concludes that there are others beings besides self, then the most superior of these beings would be a god.

Most of us on this thread knows the meaning of ontology but just in case, it is the theory of being.

 

[Guest]

But hey, I'm not looking to convert anyone to the Ministry of Slyc, here.

No?

Damn.

'Cause, yannow, you'd probably have a few followers.