What religion does Sputnik follow?

[Kucinichism]

So, I'm interested in seeing where you all fall. We all know that most of the site is moderate to liberal, judging from the abundance of political compass threads which exemplify this, but I'm not so sure about spirituality.

Also, for a cool little experiment, post what you follow first, then take this quiz and post results. I'd like to see how the two differ, if at all.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx

Mine: I'm spiritual, but not really religious. However, I was interested that the quiz results had the top five as they are, because those choices would be my first picks if I had to choose.

edit: Give me a second...



Unitarian Universalism
Theravada Buddhism
Liberal Quakers
Mahayana Buddhism
Taoism
Hinduism
Secular Humanism
Jainism
Neo-Pagan
Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants
New Age
Scientology
Orthodox Quaker
Sikhism
New Thought
Nontheist
Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist)
Baha’i Faith
Reform Judaism
Seventh Day Adventist
Orthodox Judaism
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)
Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant
Eastern Orthodox
Islam
Roman Catholic
Jehovah’s Witness

[Mekkalayakay]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (78%)
4. Liberal Quakers (76%)
5. Nontheist (73%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (61%)
7. Neo-Pagan (60%)
8. Taoism (51%)
9. New Age (46%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (45%)
11. Reform Judaism (40%)
12. Sikhism (39%)
13. Scientology (34%)
14. New Thought (32%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (32%)
16. Jainism (28%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (26%)
18. Hinduism (24%)
19. Baha'i Faith (20%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (13%)
22. Jehovah's Witness (12%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (12%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (10%)
25. Islam (10%)
26. Orthodox Judaism (10%)
27. Roman Catholic (10%)

[McP3000]

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
3. Hinduism (93%)
4. Liberal Quakers (87%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (86%)
6. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (84%)
7. Unitarian Universalism (80%)
8. Eastern Orthodox (80%)
9. Roman Catholic (80%)
10. Theravada Buddhism (74%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (73%)
12. Jainism (69%)
13. Reform Judaism (58%)
14. Baha'i Faith (56%)
15. Orthodox Judaism (54%)
16. Sikhism (54%)
17. Islam (50%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (48%)
19. New Thought (46%)
20. Neo-Pagan (45%)
21. Taoism (45%)
22. Scientology (44%)
23. New Age (40%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (37%)
25. Jehovah's Witness (37%)
26. Secular Humanism (32%)
27. Nontheist (21%)

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. Hinduism (99%)
3. Orthodox Judaism (90%)
4. Mahayana Buddhism (85%)
5. Baha'i Faith (81%)
6. Jainism (79%)
7. Unitarian Universalism (78%)
8. Liberal Quakers (74%)
9. Islam (69%)
10. Reform Judaism (68%)
11. New Age (67%)
12. Sikhism (65%)
13. Theravada Buddhism (57%)
14. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (57%)
15. Seventh Day Adventist (51%)
16. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (50%)
17. Eastern Orthodox (48%)
18. Roman Catholic (48%)
19. Jehovah's Witness (47%)
20. Secular Humanism (46%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (45%)
22. Orthodox Quaker (45%)
23. New Thought (40%)
24. Nontheist (38%)
25. Scientology (37%)
26. Taoism (37%)
27. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (26%)

[Iskandar]

Apparently I'm 100% Unitarian except I'm not really.

[mph4ever]

i think i am spiritual. the only question i thought i answered meaningfully was about blokes sticking their dicks in others and i got these results. i never realised i was so compatible with religion!

1. Nontheist (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (87%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (63%)
4. Liberal Quakers (39%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (33%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (30%)
7. Baha'i Faith (24%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)
9. Eastern Orthodox (24%)
10. Hinduism (24%)
11. Islam (24%)
12. Jainism (24%)
13. Jehovah's Witness (24%)
14. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (24%)
15. Orthodox Judaism (24%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (24%)
17. Roman Catholic (24%)
18. Seventh Day Adventist (24%)
19. Sikhism (24%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (12%)
21. Neo-Pagan (12%)
22. Mahayana Buddhism (9%)
23. New Age (0%)
24. New Thought (0%)
25. Reform Judaism (0%)
26. Scientology (0%)
27. Taoism (0%)

[Light Flantastic]

this test is stupid

so

stupid

[Aaron]

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Orthodox Quaker (99%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (95%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (80%)
5. Roman Catholic (80%)
6. Seventh Day Adventist (68%)
7. Liberal Quakers (66%)
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (64%)
9. Unitarian Universalism (58%)
10. Reform Judaism (52%)
11. Islam (50%)
12. Orthodox Judaism (50%)
13. Baha'i Faith (43%)
14. Hinduism (41%)
15. Sikhism (39%)
16. Jehovah's Witness (38%)
17. Neo-Pagan (37%)
18. Taoism (35%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (33%)
20. Mahayana Buddhism (31%)
21. New Thought (31%)
22. Theravada Buddhism (31%)
23. Jainism (31%)
24. New Age (30%)
25. Secular Humanism (28%)
26. Scientology (27%)
27. Nontheist (25%)

[Light Flantastic]

what a terrible result

[Aaron]

I'm sure that's what your parents say to each other quite a lot.

[Pop music sucks]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (89%)
3. Nontheist (82%)
4. Liberal Quakers (71%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (62%)
7. Neo-Pagan (59%)
8. New Age (47%)
9. Reform Judaism (46%)
10. Taoism (42%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (35%)
12. Sikhism (35%)
13. Mahayana Buddhism (30%)
14. Scientology (27%)
15. New Thought (26%)
16. Baha'i Faith (24%)
17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (24%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (21%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (19%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (14%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (12%)
22. Islam (12%)
23. Jainism (12%)
24. Orthodox Judaism (12%)
25. Roman Catholic (12%)
26. Hinduism (10%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

[mph4ever]

this test is propaganda from the fascist theist underground recruitment agency. all of a sudden i have a % of beliefs that agree with them. its a slippery slope

and wtf is a liberal quaker?

[Aaron]

An easy chick who shakes.

[Txus]

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (89%)
3. New Age (84%)
4. Secular Humanism (83%)
5. Neo-Pagan (82%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (80%)
7. Mahayana Buddhism (75%)
8. New Thought (70%)
9. Theravada Buddhism (70%)
10. Scientology (68%)
11. Taoism (66%)
12. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (58%)
13. Reform Judaism (58%)
14. Nontheist (52%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (52%)
16. Baha'i Faith (45%)
17. Hinduism (37%)
18. Jainism (36%)
19. Sikhism (29%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (29%)
21. Islam (22%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (22%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (17%)
25. Jehovah's Witness (13%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (11%)
27. Roman Catholic (11%)

[Ceminon]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Nontheist (84%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (80%)
5. Liberal Quakers (70%)
6. Neo-Pagan (70%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (53%)
8. Taoism (52%)
9. New Age (49%)
10. Reform Judaism (40%)
11. Baha'i Faith (36%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (35%)
13. New Thought (31%)
14. Scientology (31%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (27%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (22%)
17. Sikhism (22%)
18. Jainism (18%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (13%)
20. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
21. Islam (13%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (13%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (13%)
24. Roman Catholic (13%)
25. Hinduism (4%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (4%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

My ideology is simple: we don't know where **** came from and it doesn't matter. There is no goal in life and there probaby is no afterlife. What we do in life is simple: we're filling up the time between our birth and death.

Also, this test is gay.

[beso negro]

horrible test

1. Nontheist (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (100%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (86%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (65%)
5. Liberal Quakers (49%)
6. Neo-Pagan (29%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (26%)
8. Taoism (16%)
9. New Age (8%)
10. Baha'i Faith (0%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (0%)
12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (0%)
13. Eastern Orthodox (0%)
14. Hinduism (0%)
15. Islam (0%)
16. Jainism (0%)
17. Jehovah's Witness (0%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (0%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (0%)
20. New Thought (0%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (0%)
22. Orthodox Quaker (0%)
23. Reform Judaism (0%)
24. Roman Catholic (0%)
25. Scientology (0%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (0%)
27. Sikhism (0%)

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm Neoplatonist I guess, but I believe ethics is fictional abstraction and answered Not Applicable for a number of ethical questions, also I have a stronger materialist streak than I used to

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (92%)
3. Liberal Quakers (85%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (79%)
5. Taoism (78%)
6. Hinduism (70%)
7. Neo-Pagan (69%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (68%)
9. Nontheist (68%)
10. New Age (59%)
11. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (57%)
12. Scientology (55%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (52%)
14. New Thought (52%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (52%)
16. Jainism (50%)
17. Baha'i Faith (45%)
18. Reform Judaism (31%)
19. Seventh Day Adventist (31%)
20. Sikhism (31%)
21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (15%)
22. Eastern Orthodox (12%)
23. Islam (12%)
24. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (12%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (12%)
26. Roman Catholic (12%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (7%)

[Kucinichism]

I agree, the test is stupid; however, just because you get 100% doesn't mean you are 100% that. I hope you all realize it, but 100% is just for what you are most similar with; the test doesn't give you the crude results, so we don't know if one person is 100% or in reality 25%.

However, as the point of the thread was not meant to be about the test, I'm kind of pissed we have to talk about this, but whatever...


tl;dr **** the test, just discuss religion

edit: My belief - we are all of one consciousness, yet we function as fragments of the whole. Kind of like the theory of nothingness (look it up).

[Jude]

pretty dumb but

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
3. Liberal Quakers (82%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (82%)
5. Nontheist (80%)
6. Taoism (67%)
7. Neo-Pagan (60%)
8. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (58%)
9. Orthodox Quaker (54%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (48%)
11. New Age (43%)
12. Reform Judaism (39%)
13. Jainism (38%)
14. Seventh Day Adventist (33%)
15. Baha'i Faith (31%)
16. Sikhism (30%)
17. Hinduism (29%)
18. Scientology (26%)
19. New Thought (24%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (21%)
21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (19%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (16%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (12%)
24. Islam (12%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (12%)
26. Roman Catholic (12%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (9%)

I suppose all those % agreements with different sects represent stances they have that I agree with, but the fact that I'm agnostic kind of rules that out.

[gregulus]

100% badass, tbh.

[McP3000]

I'm sure that's what your parents say to each other quite a lot.
hahaha rep+

[YDtoad]

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Baha'i Faith (94%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (92%)
4. Eastern Orthodox (77%)
5. Roman Catholic (77%)
6. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (74%)
7. Orthodox Quaker (74%)
8. Islam (74%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (74%)
10. Seventh Day Adventist (70%)
11. Liberal Quakers (64%)
12. Jehovah's Witness (62%)
13. Sikhism (53%)
14. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (52%)
15. Reform Judaism (50%)
16. Unitarian Universalism (47%)
17. Jainism (42%)
18. Hinduism (33%)
19. Mahayana Buddhism (33%)
20. New Thought (33%)
21. Theravada Buddhism (33%)
22. Nontheist (25%)
23. New Age (24%)
24. Neo-Pagan (23%)
25. Scientology (23%)
26. Taoism (17%)
27. Secular Humanism (14%)

duh

[easylee]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)
3. Nontheist (87%)
4. Liberal Quakers (70%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (67%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)
7. Neo-Pagan (58%)
8. Reform Judaism (48%)
9. Taoism (45%)
10. New Age (41%)
11. Sikhism (36%)
12. Scientology (35%)
13. New Thought (33%)
14. Mahayana Buddhism (28%)
15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (28%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (28%)
17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (27%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (23%)
19. Baha'i Faith (20%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (18%)
22. Islam (18%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (18%)
24. Roman Catholic (18%)
25. Hinduism (15%)
26. Jainism (10%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (7%)

[Light Flantastic]

I'm sure that's what your parents say to each other quite a lot.that dent even make sense man

unless they are looking at my algebra tests or something

[misterfitch]

i'm agnostic.

test is stupid, etc

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (92%)
3. Liberal Quakers (81%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (78%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (69%)
6. Nontheist (69%)
7. Neo-Pagan (66%)
8. Taoism (64%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (60%)
10. New Age (58%)
11. Sikhism (52%)
12. Scientology (51%)
13. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (49%)
14. Hinduism (47%)
15. Jainism (47%)
16. New Thought (47%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (45%)
18. Reform Judaism (45%)
19. Baha'i Faith (41%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (27%)
21. Islam (26%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (26%)
23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (25%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (23%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (20%)
26. Roman Catholic (20%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (11%)

that seems sort of right except i wouldn't want to be a quaker.

unitarian universalists have no beliefs basically so why is it even on there

[mph4ever]

An easy chick who shakes.

yeah, well most of us seem to be getting in the higher percentages, friend

[Mr. Ron]

100% sexi

[Kucinichism]

unitarian universalists have no beliefs basically so why is it even on there

They have the belief that all beliefs are pretty much right, right? That's technically a belief.

100% sexi

I wholeheartedly agree ;)

[cobert]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
3. Nontheist (82%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (78%)
5. Liberal Quakers (77%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (65%)
8. Taoism (64%)
9. Reform Judaism (47%)
10. New Age (47%)
11. Sikhism (45%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (44%)
13. Baha'i Faith (34%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (34%)
15. Scientology (33%)
16. New Thought (30%)
17. Jainism (29%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (27%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (23%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (22%)
21. Eastern Orthodox (17%)
22. Hinduism (17%)
23. Islam (17%)
24. Orthodox Judaism (17%)
25. Roman Catholic (17%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (13%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

[Veljo]

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Baha'i Faith (97%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (95%)
5. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (90%)
6. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (87%)
7. New Thought (85%)
8. Jehovah's Witness (84%)
9. Orthodox Quaker (79%)
10. New Age (77%)
11. Reform Judaism (76%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (76%)
13. Sikhism (73%)
14. Orthodox Judaism (73%)
15. Neo-Pagan (72%)
16. Scientology (68%)
17. Theravada Buddhism (67%)
18. Hinduism (64%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (64%)
20. Islam (63%)
21. Jainism (57%)
22. Taoism (55%)
23. Secular Humanism (55%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (48%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (42%)
26. Roman Catholic (42%)
27. Nontheist (27%)

[misterfitch]

They have the belief that all beliefs are pretty much right, right? That's technically a belief.



well yeah in general they do but you don't have to believe that. you could be a completely intolerant asshole and correctly identify yourself as a unitarian universalist if you say you are, because there's not necessarily a spiritual incentive to believe the general UU beliefs. like i don't know if you can accurately say you are christian if you openly believe that jesus never existed... or a buddhist if you openly believe that there is a self and it should be revered and satisfied in all instances... you could be a raging anti-theist homophobic unitarian universalist and you wouldn't fit in at all but you would still be a unitarian universalist.

[spitfirejunky]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
3. Liberal Quakers (79%)
4. Nontheist (72%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
6. Neo-Pagan (65%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (63%)
8. New Age (51%)
9. Taoism (47%)
10. Reform Judaism (45%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (41%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (40%)
13. Sikhism (32%)
14. Scientology (31%)
15. New Thought (29%)
16. Baha'i Faith (28%)
17. Jainism (26%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (26%)
19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (22%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (21%)
21. Hinduism (19%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (19%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (17%)
24. Islam (17%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (17%)
26. Roman Catholic (17%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

wut

[misterfitch]

i don't understand what's so confusing about liberal quakers? there are orthodox quakers and liberal quakers just like in a lot of/most religions.

there are lots of liberal quakers where i live.

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

How about Neo-Pagan orthodox hindu-jews? Hehhhhhh?

[Kucinichism]

i don't understand what's so confusing about liberal quakers? there are orthodox quakers and liberal quakers just like in a lot of/most religions.

there are lots of liberal quakers where i live.

Tons of liberal quakers here where I live; a few of them are my bros, and they say that you don't even have to believe to go to quaker mass. One of my bros even said that there are atheists that go to mass all the time.

[mph4ever]

i don't understand what's so confusing about liberal quakers? there are orthodox quakers and liberal quakers just like in a lot of/most religions.

there are lots of liberal quakers where i live.

so explain wtf a liberal quaker is comapred to an quaker because we all seem to be one based on this test

[spitfirejunky]

i don't understand what's so confusing about liberal quakers? there are orthodox quakers and liberal quakers just like in a lot of/most religions.

there are lots of liberal quakers where i live.

What's confusing is that I'm not one. At all.

[mph4ever]

How about Neo-Pagan orthodox hindu-jews? Hehhhhhh?

you mean zionists, right?

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Yeah, that's where I'm from.

[misterfitch]

yeah most of the ones i know are at least lightly into drugs and like to walk around barefoot.

from what i've seen they are similar to mennonites politically and in the intensity of their religious beliefs, especially among young people, except mennonites are more innocent.

[misterfitch]

so explain wtf a liberal quaker is comapred to an quaker because we all seem to be one based on this test

well one of the specific things i can tell you about quakers is that some use preachers in their services and some just sit there in silence and people in the congregation speak up when they feel moved to do so. maybe the liberal ones don't have the preachers, or maybe they don't, i can't recall which is considered "liberal" and which isn't.

also more orthodox quakers are the ones commonly thought of as wearing all the old-timey get up and living in isolated communities; liberal quakers don't do this at all.

i guess the reason it's calling you a liberal quaker is because of a general liberalness, humanitarianism and perhaps vagueness in your answers... quakers believe strongly in the "inner light" in every human being so if you rated compassion highly in your responses then that could have something to do with it.

[Kucinichism]

yeah most of the ones i know are at least lightly into drugs and like to walk around barefoot.

Once again, just like my bros

And to the above comment, that's pretty spot on. I think the liberal quakers are the ones without a preacher.

[mph4ever]

so since we have no preacher then we are liberal quakers by default?

[misterfitch]

what?

[FattyKnee]

agnostic

[mph4ever]

what?

we're getting scores that indicate that if we were quakers then we would be liberal and liberal quakers seem to be the ones without preachers

[misterfitch]

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Liberal-Quakers-Believe.aspx - basically, beliefs differ among liberal quakers and they are more universalist and more focused on the good in everyone
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Orthodox-Quakers-Believe.aspx - basically orthodox quakers have more set beliefs and conservative views of retribution/morality/etc

[mph4ever]

so as an anarchist then i am more of a liberal quaker

[misterfitch]

as an anarchist you are more of a liberal quaker

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

This thread makes me crave rolled oats, Quaker brand.

[mph4ever]

as an anarchist you are more of a liberal quaker


so does this mean i can have more than one wife?

[McP3000]

no wrong

[mph4ever]

no wrong


thats not very liberal

[Iskandar]

and wtf is a liberal quaker?I thought the point of Quakers was that they're nonviolent and **** but who knows.

[mph4ever]

I thought the point of Quakers was that they're nonviolent and **** but who knows.

exactly. who knows. lets put it down to propaganda

[burtonbassist_101]

for the poll i selected atheist/agnostic.

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)
3. Liberal Quakers (83%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (81%)
5. Nontheist (75%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (69%)
7. Neo-Pagan (65%)
8. Taoism (60%)
9. Reform Judaism (58%)
10. New Age (55%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (53%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
13. Scientology (46%)
14. New Thought (44%)
15. Jainism (43%)
16. Baha'i Faith (40%)
17. Sikhism (40%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
19. Hinduism (34%)
20. Seventh Day Adventist (32%)
21. Islam (28%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (28%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (28%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (27%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (19%)
26. Roman Catholic (19%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (16%)

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Pretty much what I expected. First the no-god groups, then the more spiritual religions, then the whacked-out old dude in the sky religions.

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (94%)
3. Nontheist (80%)
4. Liberal Quakers (76%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%)
7. Neo-Pagan (65%)
8. Reform Judaism (59%)
9. New Age (52%)
10. Taoism (49%)
11. Scientology (45%)
12. New Thought (43%)
13. Mahayana Buddhism (42%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (40%)
15. Sikhism (39%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (36%)
17. Baha'i Faith (35%)
18. Islam (33%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (33%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (32%)
22. Jainism (28%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (24%)
24. Roman Catholic (24%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (24%)
26. Hinduism (21%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

[Anglachel]

1. Hinduism (100%)
2. Theravada Buddhism (97%)
3. Mahayana Buddhism (92%)
4. Unitarian Universalism (81%)
5. Jainism (74%)
6. Sikhism (67%)
7. Neo-Pagan (62%)
8. Liberal Quakers (55%)
9. Orthodox Quaker (55%)
10. New Age (52%)
11. New Thought (52%)
12. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (51%)
13. Seventh Day Adventist (51%)
14. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (44%)
15. Scientology (44%)
16. Reform Judaism (41%)
17. Taoism (41%)
18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (37%)
19. Eastern Orthodox (37%)
20. Jehovah's Witness (37%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (37%)
22. Roman Catholic (37%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (35%)
24. Baha'i Faith (34%)
25. Nontheist (30%)
26. Secular Humanism (30%)
27. Islam (25%)

i answered everything N/A or selected everything on multiple answers

[Shell]

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (96%)
3. Eastern Orthodox (90%)
4. Roman Catholic (90%)
5. Seventh Day Adventist (83%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (77%)
7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (73%)
8. Jehovah's Witness (69%)
9. Orthodox Judaism (61%)
10. Hinduism (59%)
11. Islam (54%)
12. Liberal Quakers (53%)
13. Baha'i Faith (49%)
14. Sikhism (44%)
15. Jainism (43%)
16. Unitarian Universalism (42%)
17. Reform Judaism (35%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (34%)
19. Neo-Pagan (33%)
20. Theravada Buddhism (33%)
21. New Age (26%)
22. Secular Humanism (26%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (25%)
24. Scientology (20%)
25. Taoism (20%)
26. Nontheist (19%)
27. New Thought (14%)

[misterfitch]

lol shell way to **** everything up by being an orthodox quaker

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

I am not a Discordian.

[Aaron]

I am in a minor key.

[Nosferatu]

so who's the Jew?

edit: here's my results...

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
3. Liberal Quakers (91%)
4. Neo-Pagan (83%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%)
6. Nontheist (72%)
7. New Age (70%)
8. Taoism (69%)
9. Mahayana Buddhism (66%)
10. Theravada Buddhism (62%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (52%)
12. Reform Judaism (52%)
13. Scientology (43%)
14. New Thought (40%)
15. Sikhism (40%)
16. Jainism (35%)
17. Baha'i Faith (33%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (33%)
19. Hinduism (33%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (24%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (22%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (15%)
24. Islam (15%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (15%)
26. Roman Catholic (15%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (7%)

[Iskandar]

Me, of course.

[Jude]

I thought you were an atheist

[Iskandar]

I am. I'm just an honorary member of the tribe.

[Against Miik!]

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Theravada Buddhism (93%)
3. Secular Humanism (87%)
4. Neo-Pagan (83%)
5. Liberal Quakers (82%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (73%)
7. Mahayana Buddhism (73%)
8. New Age (71%)
9. Nontheist (68%)
10. Taoism (67%)
11. Sikhism (66%)
12. Jainism (63%)
13. New Thought (61%)
14. Reform Judaism (60%)
15. Baha'i Faith (57%)
16. Scientology (57%)
17. Hinduism (55%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (52%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (51%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (41%)
21. Islam (38%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (38%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (37%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (26%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (24%)
26. Roman Catholic (24%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (16%)

Results may be skewed because I believe a lot of the same things religious people believe, like that we should confess our sins and such, and I answered accordingly, but I don't believe in these things for religious purposes. After looking at the description for Unitarian Universalism, it doesn't look so bad. It's very diverse, and basically if you wanted to, you could believe in God, but still take a very humanistic approach to everything, like saying God exists but has nothing to do with our existence. I think its cool to be that inclusive.

[Tillius]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (95%)
3. Liberal Quakers (80%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (75%)
5. Nontheist (73%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (69%)
7. Neo-Pagan (68%)
8. New Age (60%)
9. Reform Judaism (56%)
10. Scientology (56%)
11. New Thought (54%)
12. Mahayana Buddhism (53%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (50%)
14. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (49%)
15. Taoism (45%)
16. Sikhism (33%)
17. Baha'i Faith (32%)
18. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
19. Jainism (30%)
20. Islam (30%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (30%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (29%)
23. Jehovah's Witness (26%)
24. Hinduism (20%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (20%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (14%)
27. Roman Catholic (14%)

[mothergoose]

I'm of course the other Jew. I'm going to go take that lame quiz thing now just to be trendy.

[mothergoose]

Yikes, Sikhism beat out my actual religion. Oh well, they have the coolest religious symbol, and coolest beards of all religious men tbh. Honestly this quiz was pretty decent based on the results. Sikhism is actually remarkably similar to Kabbalistic Judaism (and ultra-Orthodox Judaism in general) in more ways than I ever knew. I understand why it ranked #1 due to some of the importance I weighted the answers with. Pretty cool.

1. Sikhism (100%)
2. Orthodox Judaism (94%)
3. Hinduism (89%)
4. Jainism (87%)
5. Islam (79%)
6. Mahayana Buddhism (77%)
7. Reform Judaism (77%)
8. Baha'i Faith (75%)
9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (72%)
10. Jehovah's Witness (67%)
11. Liberal Quakers (62%)
12. Neo-Pagan (61%)
13. Theravada Buddhism (60%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (60%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (55%)
16. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (52%)
17. New Age (51%)
18. Eastern Orthodox (46%)
19. Roman Catholic (46%)
20. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (45%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (42%)
22. Scientology (40%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (38%)
24. New Thought (38%)
25. Taoism (34%)
26. Secular Humanism (23%)
27. Nontheist (12%)

[Iskandar]

Wait, you're Orthodox? Modern Orthodox?

I don't see what similarities Sikhism has in common with Kabbalah but then I think Kabbalah is bullpoop to begin with.

[Ando!]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (77%)
4. Nontheist (77%)
5. Liberal Quakers (75%)
6. Neo-Pagan (64%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)
8. Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
9. New Age (51%)
10. Taoism (49%)
11. Scientology (48%)
12. New Thought (46%)
13. Orthodox Quaker (42%)
14. Reform Judaism (42%)
15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (40%)
16. Jainism (38%)
17. Baha'i Faith (36%)
18. Hinduism (36%)
19. Islam (25%)
20. Orthodox Judaism (25%)
21. Sikhism (23%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (21%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (21%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (17%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (15%)
26. Roman Catholic (15%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (11%)

[Smokey D]

Wait, you're Orthodox? Modern Orthodox?

How did you not catch on to this until now.


I don't see what similarities Sikhism has in common with Kabbalah but then I think Kabbalah is bullpoop to begin with.

Well, given that you don't actually believe in God, that kinda makes sense.

[Kucinichism]

Yikes, Sikhism beat out my actual religion. Oh well, they have the coolest religious symbol, and coolest beards of all religious men tbh. Honestly this quiz was pretty decent based on the results. Sikhism is actually remarkably similar to Kabbalistic Judaism (and ultra-Orthodox Judaism in general) in more ways than I ever knew. I understand why it ranked #1 due to some of the importance I weighted the answers with. Pretty cool.

I'm not familiar with either of them enough to find any similarities between the two; care to explain?

[Iskandar]

How did you not catch on to this until now.You never know, he could have been Conservative.
Well, given that you don't actually believe in God, that kinda makes sense.Lots of Jews believe in God and think Kabbalah is bullpoop.

Lots of Jews though Hasidism in general was bullpoop too and many still do.

[Smokey D]

You never know, he could have been Conservative.

Pretty sure he's mentioned it a few times.


Lots of Jews believe in God and think Kabbalah is bullpoop.

Lots of Jews though Hasidism in general was bullpoop too and many still do.

Yeah okay but if you think God is bullpoop then you pretty much rule out Kabbalah from the get go, don't you?

[Iskandar]

Pretty sure he's mentioned it a few times.Pretty sure he's mentioned being "an ordinary Jew" and not necessarily Orthodox but he may drift that way in the future.
Yeah okay but if you think God is bullpoop then you pretty much rule out Kabbalah from the get go, don't you?I could be like Madonna and pretend it's meaningful.

But that'd be dumb cause it's not.

Besides I never said God was bullpoop.

[Smokey D]

Besides I never said God was bullpoop.

Well, you have said you don't believe in him as an ontological entity.

[Iskandar]

Well, you have said you don't believe in him as an ontological entity.That doesn't equate to bullpoop. I don't believe in Hinduism but I don't think it doesn't have anything useful to contribute, morally, philosophically and ethically. I think that of Kabbalah, however.

[Smokey D]

That doesn't equate to bullpoop. I don't believe in Hinduism but I don't think it doesn't have anything useful to contribute, morally, philosophically and ethically. I think that of Kabbalah, however.

Um. okay that's pretty inconsistent.

[Mr. Ron]

idk Kabbalah is just as crazy as Hinduism

[Iskandar]

Um. okay that's pretty inconsistent.No.

Kabbalah is an mystical tradition in an established religion.

Hinduism is a religion with its own ethics and philosophy, things which Kabbalah lacks. Kabbalah is not Judaism. Kabbalah is crap like numerology applied to Judaism.

[Smokey D]

No.

Kabbalah is an mystical tradition in an established religion.

Hinduism is a religion with its own ethics and philosophy, things which Kabbalah lacks. Kabbalah is not Judaism. Kabbalah is crap like numerology applied to Judaism.

So you've arbitrarily decided some portions of the religion are more legitimate than others and then decided to evaluate the worthiness of the various parts of the religion by reference to how closely they approximate your arbitrary definitions.

Nice.

I thought kabbalah was an established mystical tradition in Judaism that some New Agers stole and sold to Madonna.

[fingers mccoy]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Liberal Quakers (84%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (79%)
5. Nontheist (71%)
6. Neo-Pagan (70%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (65%)
8. Taoism (62%)
9. Orthodox Quaker (58%)
10. New Age (57%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (54%)
12. Reform Judaism (46%)
13. Jainism (41%)
14. Baha'i Faith (37%)
15. Sikhism (35%)
16. Scientology (32%)
17. New Thought (30%)
18. Seventh Day Adventist (29%)
19. Hinduism (28%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (27%)
21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (24%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (21%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (17%)
24. Islam (17%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (17%)
26. Roman Catholic (17%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (13%)

[Iskandar]

So you've arbitrarily decided some portions of the religion are more legitimate than others and then decided to evaluate the worthiness of the various parts of the religion by reference to how closely they approximate your arbitrary definitions.

Nice.The parts that are legitimate are those which carry social and philosophical value, not manipulation of amulets and letter sums.
I thought kabbalah was an established mystical tradition in Judaism that some New Agers stole and sold to Madonna.It was never without controversy, as was Hasidism in general. There's a reason people are hesitant to be associated with them under the umbrella term "ultra-Orthodox".

[Smokey D]

The parts that are legitimate are those which carry social and philosophical value, not manipulation of amulets and letter sums.

Arbitrary.


It was never without controversy, as was Hasidism in general. There's a reason people are hesitant to be associated with them under the umbrella term "ultra-Orthodox".

Okay but do you agree that Kabbalah is in fact an established mystical tradition?

PS what do you think of Sufism.

[Iskandar]

Arbitrary.As arbitrary as any values are. I don't see how Kabbalah can benefit anyone any more than astrology can.
Okay but do you agree that Kabbalah is in fact an established mystical tradition?

PS what do you think of Sufism.Yeah it's established in the sense that it's like 200 years old but its age doesn't matter that much.

They're both natural outgrowths of organized religion. Doesn't every religion have an esoteric tradition, in some cases many of them.

[Smokey D]

As arbitrary as any values are. I don't see how Kabbalah can benefit anyone any more than astrology can.

My understanding of Kabbalah was that it was a little more in depth than numerology and astrology.

Yeah it's established in the sense that it's like 200 years old but its age doesn't matter that much.

They're both natural outgrowths of organized religion. Doesn't every religion have an esoteric tradition, in some cases many of them.

Is Sufism a legitimate part of Islam?

[Iskandar]

My understanding of Kabbalah was that it was a little more in depth than numerology and astrology.Those are the methods it uses to divine its conclusions and as they're fundamentally bullpoop, I'm forced to conclude the entire system is based on wishful thinking.

It's not at all comparable to the rabbinical tradition of textual analysis, debate and commentary,
Is Sufism a legitimate part of Islam?Yes. Kabbalah is a legitimate part of Judaism. I just think it's a load of hooey, personally.

[Smokey D]

Those are the methods it uses to divine its conclusions and as they're fundamentally bullpoop, I'm forced to conclude the entire system is based on wishful thinking.

It's not at all comparable to the rabbinical tradition of textual analysis, debate and commentary,

Well, I see no objective reason to distinguish between Kabbalistic methods and other methods. You've just randomly decided that rabbinical tradition is better.


Yes. Kabbalah is a legitimate part of Judaism. I just think it's a load of hooey, personally.

Well, all religion is.

[Iskandar]

Well, I see no objective reason to distinguish between Kabbalistic methods and other methods. You've just randomly decided that rabbinical tradition is better.You may disagree with my opinion but I hardly think it's random. Mysticism draws fantastical conclusions from shaky foundations. Reasoned debate is anything but that.
Well, all religion is.Strong words. I fail to see how religion is inherently useless just because people believe Krishna was blue/Muhammad rode a flying donkey/the JC walked on water.

[Smokey D]

You may disagree with my opinion but I hardly think it's random. Mysticism draws fantastical conclusions from shaky foundations. Reasoned debate is anything but that.

Okay. Why can't the same be said for all religion?


Strong words. I fail to see how religion is inherently useless just because people believe Krishna was blue/Muhammad rode a flying donkey/the JC walked on water.

Um, believing in a zombie carpenter as the risen lord and saviour of all mankind is not obviously less crazy than numerology.

[Iskandar]

Okay. Why can't the same be said for all religion?Cause religion uses reasoned debate too.
Um, believing in a zombie carpenter as the risen lord and saviour of all mankind is not obviously less crazy than numerology.That's only part of Christianity though just like Kabbalah is only part of Judaism.

[Smokey D]

Cause religion uses reasoned debate too.

So does kabbalah. The only difference is you've said that the premises from which kabbalah proceeds are too far out.


That's only part of Christianity though just like Kabbalah is only part of Judaism

No it's not. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in Christianity.

[Iskandar]

So does kabbalah. The only difference is you've said that the premises from which kabbalah proceeds are too far out.I don't see how though.
No it's not. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in Christianity.Tell that to liberal theology.

But besides that my point is there's more to religions than their attendant mythology.

[Smokey D]

I don't see how though.

Zombie carpenter vs numerology. You tell me.

Tell that to liberal theology.

If they don't believe in God or Jesus they are heretics.


But besides that my point is there's more to religions than their attendant mythology.

Not really. Well, there's no reason to pick one religion over another unless you buy into the mythology at any rate.

[1338 h4x0r]

What about religions that don't have mythology?

There are a few, not many, but a few.

[Smokey D]

I don't really consider them religions.

Secular humanism isn't a religion, even though it has a philosophy and a ethical requirements. I imagine Confucianism or whatever your example is would be the same.

[1338 h4x0r]

No, I was thinking of Neoplatonism, or maybe Pythagoreanism

[Smokey D]

Forms and stuff are at least as hypothetical as the zombie jesus.

[1338 h4x0r]

It's not a mythology per se

[pedro durruti]

but it might infer some sort of teleological mythology or something. i'd say it's myth though cause it's not true
ha
ha
ha

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah I have considered myself a Neoplatonist for a while, still kind of on the fence

[Iskandar]

Zombie carpenter vs numerology. You tell me.Both are pretty stupid but then I don't believe in the supernatural.
If they don't believe in God or Jesus they are heretics.You have funny ideas about that. If people self-identify as Christians I take their word for it even when they do stuff I see as blatantly un-Christian such as smoking, drinking and premarital sex.
Not really. Well, there's no reason to pick one religion over another unless you buy into the mythology at any rate.Maybe they like it.

[Meatplow]

I see no reason to contemplate such matters anymore.

I have my mind made up that religion is not for me, at the very least if there is a God the concept of Pascal's Wager has made me quite blasé to the potential fire and brimstone outcome of the afterlife. If there is a theist God and I am expected to believe in him or suffer a heavy handed punishment despite a staggering lack of evidence well, **** him. Not for me.

I went through an atheist period, and whilst a lot of it has stuck with me I realised I didn't like the cold, clinical sterility of the overwrought logic conjured up by some of its more fanatical adherents. It would seem they had a habit of painting themselves into a corner, smugly proclaiming they don't need to look at the other side of the room because their objective view already covered it with logic on their side when in reality they were perpetuating a cycle of their own bullshit by getting their mind wound up into a loop of being correct on a few fundamentally insignificant points. The negative socio-political implications of religious groups is something entirely separate to me, and is something that needs to be watched but I don't see a reason to make a legion of anti-religious types who need their own brand of generally pseudo-intellectual discourse to feel better about themselves.

I prefer to think in terms of life being little more then sensory illusions, there is a subjective nature to how we receive what is laid before us in terms of information. I deal in terms of the abstract, I believe the more we try and use science or religious ideas to try and logically explain our personal reality and put concepts in neat little boxes we constantly get pushed away from actually striking an all-encompassing truth. Although we can catch profound, unexplainable glimpses of it which shade us towards a probable belief there is no way we can comprehend having full knowledge on the matter.

I would say this matter is pointless but ruling out what is obviously bullshit is always going to be a good thing. Until then, I just live my life without fear of punishment from God not really caring "what's up". I am incredibly happy in this manner.

[1338 h4x0r]

This response is excellent.

I have my mind made up that religion is not for me, at the very least if there is a God the concept of Pascal's Wager has made me quite blasé to the potential fire and brimstone outcome of the afterlife.

Pascal's wager was very ahead of its time in terms of decision theory, but philosophically shallow, since there are zillions of possible states of nature (that is, lots of different religions which could be true or not) and zillions of behaviors you could pick (that is, acts of prayer, just being a good person, penances, ignoring the gods, etc.)

So it's not a little 2x2 matrix

If there is a theist God and I am expected to believe in him or suffer a heavy handed punishment despite a staggering lack of evidence well, **** him. Not for me.

Yes, many have said that they would not want to be in Heaven with a terrible god.

I went through an atheist period, and whilst a lot of it has stuck with me I realised I didn't like the cold, clinical sterility of the overwrought logic conjured up by some of its more fanatical adherents. It would seem they had a habit of painting themselves into a corner, smugly proclaiming they don't need to look at the other side of the room because their objective view already covered it with logic on their side when in reality they were perpetuating a cycle of their own bullshit by getting their mind wound up into a loop of being correct on a few fundamentally insignificant points. The negative socio-political implications of religious groups is something entirely separate to me, and is something that needs to be watched but I don't see a reason to make a legion of anti-religious types who need their own brand of generally pseudo-intellectual discourse to feel better about themselves.

In some sense this is true, though in speaking with freethinkers, I can understand why they have such a reactionary attitude sometimes.

[Light Flantastic]

pascals wager assumes you can force yourself to believe in a theology or that you can somehow trick god into thinking you do

which is the bigger problem since statistically it would still be preferable to choose at least one of the many religions based on the premise of the wager

[Jude]

You have funny ideas about that. If people self-identify as Christians I take their word for it even when they do stuff I see as blatantly un-Christian such as smoking, drinking and premarital sex.


God dammit Christianity isn't just about being a boring person I'm pretty sure Jesus liked to kick it and have a good time now and then

[Light Flantastic]

pretty sure he was god and didnt have such desires

[Jude]

he was also human and liked to get his freak on

[Light Flantastic]

whats the point in living by what he preached if hes a fallible human

[DBoons Ghost]

I was raised Roman Catholic. I attend church every Sunday with my wife and daughter. My daughter attends Catholic private school. I guess I am a big phony hypocrit.

My results:

1. Nontheist (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (100%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (83%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (65%)
5. Liberal Quakers (47%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (28%)
7. Neo-Pagan (20%)
8. Taoism (14%)
9. New Age (10%)
10. Baha'i Faith (0%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (0%)
12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (0%)
13. Eastern Orthodox (0%)
14. Hinduism (0%)
15. Islam (0%)
16. Jainism (0%)
17. Jehovah's Witness (0%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (0%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (0%)
20. New Thought (0%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (0%)
22. Orthodox Quaker (0%)
23. Reform Judaism (0%)
24. Roman Catholic (0%)
25. Scientology (0%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (0%)
27. Sikhism (0%)

[Jude]

Catholics offer a good education and lots of anal rape, but only to little boys so your daughter should be safe

[Mr. Ron]

1. eliminator (100%)
2. Secular Humanism (100%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (83%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (65%)
5. Liberal Quakers (47%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (28%)
7. Neo-Pagan (20%)
8. Taoism (14%)
9. New Age (10%)
10. Baha'i Faith (0%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (0%)
12. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (0%)
13. Eastern Orthodox (0%)
14. Hinduism (0%)
15. Islam (0%)
16. Jainism (0%)
17. Jehovah's Witness (0%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (0%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (0%)
20. New Thought (0%)
21. Orthodox Judaism (0%)
22. Orthodox Quaker (0%)
23. Reform Judaism (0%)
24. Roman Catholic (0%)
25. Scientology (0%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (0%)
27. Sikhism (0%)

[DBoons Ghost]

Catholics offer a good education and lots of anal rape, but only to little boys so your daughter should be safe

Lol, I was never anally raped. I very much like the Pastor at our church, Our Lady of Fatima. Down to earth for a Catholic priest.

There are no more nuns though. Nuns were the best.

[Light Flantastic]

I guess I am a big phony hypocrit. ya pretty much

[DBoons Ghost]

ya pretty much

Then again, aren't all Catholics? Hey lemme sin! All I have to do is go to confession and attend church, throw my money in the basket and I am absolved. :thumb:

Kind of like those young girls who forget all about their God when they spread their legs but suddenly find God when they want to keep their baby.

[TheDarkHorse]

I have my mind made up that religion is not for me

Me too. Thats why I have a relationship with Him w/out religion.
I would say this matter is pointless but ruling out what is obviously bullshit is always going to be a good thing. Until then, I just live my life without fear of punishment from God not really caring "what's up". I am incredibly happy in this manner.
This may not be directly in response to you, but It still astounds me that after 2,000 years, "Christians" and unbelievers alike still yield to the Old Covenant.

Its no longer "Believe or be punished!" The Gospel (Literally meaning "the good news") is that someone has taken our punishment and freed us from a life of slavish religion. Belief in Him will allow us to be called sons, not slaves.

[McP3000]

Kind of like those young girls who forget all about their God when they spread their legs but suddenly find God when they want to keep their baby.
yeah women suck

[mothergoose]

Wait, you're Orthodox? Modern Orthodox?

I don't see what similarities Sikhism has in common with Kabbalah but then I think Kabbalah is bullpoop to begin with.

Much like the ancient vedics, the Sikhs were in communication with the mekabbulim and shared ideas with them. Hence why both are very similar. The fact that you don't get the similarity is directly related to you not knowing anything about Kabbalah. Not meant to be an insult, it's just obvious.

[mothergoose]

No.

Kabbalah is an mystical tradition in an established religion.

Hinduism is a religion with its own ethics and philosophy, things which Kabbalah lacks. Kabbalah is not Judaism. Kabbalah is crap like numerology applied to Judaism.

Why continue generalizing? You don't APPLY Kabbalah to Judaism... and numerology is utilized in non-mystical Judaism too.

[1338 h4x0r]

lol

numerology

How can you flub a religion belief based on numbers

[Mr. Ron]

the history channel special on numerology was so hilarious and painful to watch.

[Iskandar]

Much like the ancient vedics, the Sikhs were in communication with the mekabbulim and shared ideas with them. Hence why both are very similar. The fact that you don't get the similarity is directly related to you not knowing anything about Kabbalah. Not meant to be an insult, it's just obvious.Wait are you serious. Do you mean Jews in Europe or like Babylon.

[Smokey D]

You have funny ideas about that. If people self-identify as Christians I take their word for it even when they do stuff I see as blatantly un-Christian such as smoking, drinking and premarital sex.

Smoking and drinking aren't unchristian.

Being a Christian means believing in Jesus Christ. Whatever you self-identify as doesn't change the meaning of the word.

You can act like a Christian without being a Christian though.

Maybe they like it.

That's a dumb reason.

whats the point in living by what he preached if hes a fallible human

100% human 100% God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

[Moon Flavor]

ugh i HATE when atheism and agnosticism are lumped together

i am agnostic and i certainly am NOT atheist. one is logical and one is completely illogical

grrr

/didn't read thread

[TheDarkHorse]

To be fair, agnosticism has to do with knowledge, not belief. Saying "I don't know" is not to say you aren't inclined to a certain belief.

[Against Miik!]

Agnosticism always seemed like a cop out to me, like hedging your bets. I used to be one, for a short period of time. Then I discovered Christopher Hitchens, and found that I prefer being sarcastic and blunt to being ignorant any day.

[Smokey D]

Nah. It's just admitting that the question can't really be answered. for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist, although if I'm being honest I have to say I'm an agnostic.

Actually, I'd say you can be an atheist while being agnostic.

[Against Miik!]

I've always considered atheism to be a positive non belief in a deity. It semantics, really, but I would describe someone like you to be an open minded atheist, who currently doesn't believe, but if presented with good evidence (like Christian ETs), would change their mind. Atheists aren't atheists because they don't know. They are atheists because they believe in non belief. I think their is a difference, although as I said, its basically semantics. People believe what they do, and what they call it should make no difference.

[The_Malcontent]

I think everyone is agnostic somewhere in their thinking.
it's likely for a person to construct new ideals based on certain religeons that were shown to them at a young age by their parents, and still call themselves by that same religeon, but in reality it's not the same and is therefor catagorized as agnostic because they have just admited that they don't know by altering their former religeon.
or would that just be deemed as Unitatian?

[The_Malcontent]

im too OCD to be religeous, i HAVE to know.

[gregulus]

Agnosticism always seemed like a cop out to me, like hedging your bets. I used to be one, for a short period of time. Then I discovered Christopher Hitchens, and found that I prefer being sarcastic and blunt to being ignorant any day.

I never understood the "agnosticism is a cop out" argument, especially in regards to matters like religion. To use the existence of God as an example, if someone is 99.9999% sure that God is or is not real, that still leaves a 0.0001% chance that their position is wrong. Because of this, it makes sense for that person to refer to him/herself as an agnostic. This is just being philosophically precise. It wouldn't be surprising if this person behaved in a way that portrayed a certain belief, however.

[Raayl]

ugh i HATE when atheism and agnosticism are lumped together

i am agnostic and i certainly am NOT atheist. one is logical and one is completely illogical

grrr

/didn't read thread

atheism is not illogical agnosticism is

atheism is probably the most misunderstood term in the religious debate it literally means no-theism

to say you're an atheist says "I do not encourage, participate in, or facilitate any organized theistic belief." this of course is translated by the illiterate majority as "OMG U SAY WIF 100% CERTAINTY THERE IS NO GOD" when in fact that isn't what its saying at all

I, as an atheist, do not believe in a god, or any god for that matter. Can I say so with 100% certainly that no god(s) exist? Well, most certainly not. I can however say I do not believe in one nor am I really open to the idea of ever believing in one. There is a massive difference.

Agnosticism is the real fallacy. Nothing irritates me more in this debate than skepticism-obsessed agnostics who scream and yelp about their own personal existential metaphor for what god is. Not everything needs to be made into a god. Sometimes, there just isn't one.

That said, about 99% of agnostics I know are actually atheists and are simply too scared to admit it due to the massive misunderstanding of what the term means.

[Against Miik!]

I think everyone is agnostic somewhere in their thinking.
it's likely for a person to construct new ideals based on certain religeons that were shown to them at a young age by their parents, and still call themselves by that same religeon, but in reality it's not the same and is therefor catagorized as agnostic because they have just admited that they don't know by altering their former religeon.
or would that just be deemed as Unitatian?

More Unitarian, if you just find yourself changing the form of christianity. It doesn't change your core beliefs, just the little **** that doesn't really matter anyways.

[Raayl]

I never understood the "agnosticism is a cop out" argument, especially in regards to matters like religion. To use the existence of God as an example, if someone is 99.9999% sure that God is or is not real, that still leaves a 0.0001% chance that their position is wrong. Because of this, it makes sense for that person to refer to him/herself as an agnostic. This is just being philosophically precise. It wouldn't be surprising if this person behaved in a way that portrayed a certain belief, however.

Agnosticism is a cop out. It's intentional neutrality and, in the end, it makes absolutely no difference. Atheists and agnostics go to the same place if god exists.

[TheDarkHorse]

Actually, I'd say you can be an atheist while being agnostic.
You can believe while being agnostic

I think everyone is agnostic somewhere in their thinking.

True.

I don't know all the answers to everything, but I know the answers to those questions which are central. The other questions are peripheral, but nothing to shake my foundation.

[Raayl]

I would consider most contemporary christians agnostics and most contemporary agnostics as atheists

[Against Miik!]

^^^This. Most people in the US for example call themselves christians. But very few live a christian life, or even go to church on a regular basis.

I never understood the "agnosticism is a cop out" argument, especially in regards to matters like religion. To use the existence of God as an example, if someone is 99.9999% sure that God is or is not real, that still leaves a 0.0001% chance that their position is wrong. Because of this, it makes sense for that person to refer to him/herself as an agnostic. This is just being philosophically precise. It wouldn't be surprising if this person behaved in a way that portrayed a certain belief, however.

In this case the person is not truly Christian (for example, or any other religion). They are using it as a cop out. Like, according to core Christian beliefs, in order to get into heaven you must be a believer. You also believe in an omnipotent deity. So if you hold those two things to be true, then you have to know that this omnipotent deity can see through your intentions, assuming you only believe on the off chance that there is a God.

Ask any of those Kirk Cameron type fags, and they will you that they probably have HAD their doubts, but they believe wholeheartedly in the existence of God, heaven, hell, etc...

[gregulus]

Agnosticism is a cop out. It's intentional neutrality and, in the end, it makes absolutely no difference. Atheists and agnostics go to the same place if god exists.

Judging by this explanation of agnosticism, I'd say that your definition of agnosticism is not the same as mine:
Agnosticism is the real fallacy. Nothing irritates me more in this debate than skepticism-obsessed agnostics who scream and yelp about their own personal existential metaphor for what god is. Not everything needs to be made into a god. Sometimes, there just isn't one.

That said, about 99% of agnostics I know are actually atheists and are simply too scared to admit it due to the massive misunderstanding of what the term means.

To be an agnostic is not to say that you can't, for all practical purposes, take one position or another. Fundamentally, however, unless you're prepared to claim that you know something to be true (I use "know" in a strict epistemological sense), agnosticism is the most philosophically sound position to take. I've never met an "agnostic" who defines God with arbitrary parameters.

Philosophically speaking, I would have to say that I am an agnostic. I say this because I do not know whether or not there is or is not a god. However, in a debate concerning the existence of a god, I will certainly argue against that existence.

[misterfitch]

atheism is not illogical agnosticism is

atheism is probably the most misunderstood term in the religious debate it literally means no-theism

to say you're an atheist says "I do not encourage, participate in, or facilitate any organized theistic belief." this of course is translated by the illiterate majority as "OMG U SAY WIF 100% CERTAINTY THERE IS NO GOD" when in fact that isn't what its saying at all

I, as an atheist, do not believe in a god, or any god for that matter. Can I say so with 100% certainly that no god(s) exist? Well, most certainly not. I can however say I do not believe in one nor am I really open to the idea of ever believing in one. There is a massive difference.

Agnosticism is the real fallacy. Nothing irritates me more in this debate than skepticism-obsessed agnostics who scream and yelp about their own personal existential metaphor for what god is. Not everything needs to be made into a god. Sometimes, there just isn't one.

That said, about 99% of agnostics I know are actually atheists and are simply too scared to admit it due to the massive misunderstanding of what the term means.

see the problem is that atheism can either mean non-theism or the actual assertion that there definitely is no god. as an agnostic, i am an atheist in the sense that you defined it but am not willing to believe for certain that there is no god. is it a cop out? kind of. but it's not like we have a responsibility to choose one or the other. it would be intellectually painful for me to force myself to believe that there is or isn't a god because i am genuinely unsure, and i don't think that's inherently negative

[Raayl]

Atheism makes no claim that there is certainly no god. Atheists make that claim. Please learn the difference.

[The_Malcontent]

I agree most certainly with Raayl.
Agnosticism is definintley more illogical than atheism.
being agnostic entails you know there is something but are not sure what, and consequensly put faith in neither scripture or faith itself, faith being the LACK of rational in general.
in essence,agnostics have faith there is something but have no faith as to what that something is?

[Raayl]

Judging by this explanation of agnosticism, I'd say that your definition of agnosticism is not the same as mine:


To be an agnostic is not to say that you can't, for all practical purposes, take one position or another. Fundamentally, however, unless you're prepared to claim that you know something to be true (I use "know" in a strict epistemological sense), agnosticism is the most philosophically sound position to take. I've never met an "agnostic" who defines God with arbitrary parameters.

Philosophically speaking, I would have to say that I am an agnostic. I say this because I do not know whether or not there is or is not a god. However, in a debate concerning the existence of a god, I will certainly argue against that existence.

I really don't know why you're dwelling on the existence of a god or gods - that has nothing to do with either atheism or agnosticism.

It has to do with a matter of accepting or being open to accepting a god or gods. If you're not open and dont believe, you're an atheist. If you're open and might believe, you're an agnostic.

[Against Miik!]

Thats not it at all. No intelligent human being, atheist or otherwise, if presented with substantial evidence for existence, would continue to be an atheist. In general, atheists aren't atheists because they don't want to believe in God. They are atheists because the evidence isn't there. Flat out refusal to believe, regardless of evidence, is just dumb.

see the problem is that atheism can either mean non-theism or the actual assertion that there definitely is no god. as an agnostic, i am an atheist in the sense that you defined it but am not willing to believe for certain that there is no god. is it a cop out? kind of. but it's not like we have a responsibility to choose one or the other. it would be intellectually painful for me to force myself to believe that there is or isn't a god because i am genuinely unsure, and i don't think that's inherently negative

You don't have to no for certain one way or the other because its irrelevant. Either God exists or he doesn't, pick your side.

[misterfitch]

Atheism makes no claim that there is certainly no god. Atheists make that claim. Please learn the difference.

like a lot of words, it's hard to find a consensus on the definition of atheism, but a lot of people would disagree with that one

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:atheism

[Raayl]

You don't have to no for certain one way or the other because its irrelevant. Either God exists or he doesn't, pick your side.

^Exactly.

And like I said, if there is a god - agnostics go to the same place as atheists who make such claims as god doesn't exist. So really, what's the ****ing point.

[Raayl]

like a lot of words, it's hard to find a consensus on the definition of atheism, but a lot of people would disagree with that one

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:atheism

A lot of people think 9/11 was an inside job as well.

Translation: I don't care what the popular opinion is. I care what the truth is.

[Against Miik!]

^Exactly.

And like I said, if there is a god - agnostics go to the same place as atheists who make such claims as god doesn't exist. So really, what's the ****ing point.

We agree but disagree on semantics, it seems.

(see edit)

[Raayl]

Thats not it at all. No intelligent human being, atheist or otherwise, if presented with substantial evidence for existence, would continue to be an atheist. In general, atheists are atheists because they don't want to believe in God. They are atheists because the evidence isn't there. Flat out refusal to believe, regardless of evidence, is just dumb.



You don't have to no for certain one way or the other because its irrelevant. Either God exists or he doesn't, pick your side.

Let's be realistic. There never will be any evidence for the existence of god. Can we please agree on that?

[Raayl]

Historically speaking (sorry, im a history major) we can see a clear transition from magical, religious thinking to scientific thinking.

Around the time of the industrial revolution and the later enlightenment, a major shift occurred. The civilized world stopped relying on religious explanation and guidance and turned to science. As time progresses this exchange becomes more and more radical. The more our technology grows the more religion shrinks. It is perfectly logical to assume that evidence for the existence of god positively correlates to the shrinking of religious emphasis.

[TheDarkHorse]

^^^This. Most people in the US for example call themselves christians. But very few live a christian life, or even go to church on a regular basis.
Going to church was not a prerequisite listed by Christ.

I'd say most people call themselves Christian, however they negate the relevance of Christ by yielding to the old Covenant
Thats not it at all. No intelligent human being, atheist or otherwise, if presented with substantial evidence for existence, would continue to be an atheist. In general, atheists are atheists because they don't want to believe in God. They are atheists because the evidence isn't there. Flat out refusal to believe, regardless of evidence, is just dumb.


That depends on what one calls evidence. But your absolutely right in saying one's refusal to belief is the biggest hindrance to any revelation.
Let's be realistic. There never will be any evidence for the existence of god. Can we please agree on that?
How certain of that are you?

Historically speaking (sorry, im a history major) we can see a clear transition from magical, religious thinking to scientific thinking.

Around the time of the industrial revolution and the later enlightenment, a major shift occurred. The civilized world stopped relying on religious explanation and guidance and turned to science. As time progresses this exchange becomes more and more radical. The more our technology grows the more religion shrinks. It is perfectly logical to assume that evidence for the existence of god positively correlates to the shrinking of religious emphasis.

You do realize that the pioneers of science (Newton, Descartes, Copernicus, Boyle, Mendel, to name a few) were all believers in God, more specifically believers in Christ?

[Raayl]

Revelation from atheism is bad.

Even if it was proven that the christian god DOES exist, who is to say I still wouldn't refuse to believe in him? I certainly would never follow such a malevolent, hate-monger.

[misterfitch]

^Exactly.

And like I said, if there is a god - agnostics go to the same place as atheists who make such claims as god doesn't exist. So really, what's the ****ing point.

yeah exactly, what is the point... why do people choose theism, atheism, or agnosticism? for theism it's generally to enrich their lives, or to receive a reward, etc. for the latter two it's the conclusion of a philosophical train of thought, and for me that conclusion was agnosticism

A lot of people think 9/11 was an inside job as well.

Translation: I don't care what the popular opinion is. I care what the truth is.

you can't really use that argument for definitions because definitions depend on popular and academic consensus.

[Against Miik!]

Let's be realistic. There never will be any evidence for the existence of god. Can we please agree on that?

Never with 100% certainty, but there are certainly some things that would point in that direction.

For example, if a religious text were to predict some event, specifics and all (non of this Nostradamus shi), I would think twice.

As I said in an earlier post, if we ever made contact with ETs, and found that they believe in the same God we do, then I would think twice.

The only reason to be an atheist is because that is in fact the natural position. The burden of proof is on the theists, to present this proof where there otherwise is none. That is where they fail. No theist has ever given me an argument for existence that does not involve some sort of faith.

[Raayl]

yeah exactly, what is the point... why do people choose theism, atheism, or agnosticism? for theism it's generally to enrich their lives, or to receive a reward, etc. for the latter two it's the conclusion of a philosophical train of thought, and for me that conclusion was agnosticism



you can't really use that argument for definitions because definitions depend on popular and academic consensus.

I completely disagree with you about why people chose theism. People chose theism because they have a subservience fetish. They need to be totalitarianistically controlled and monitored. Culturally this is why dictatorships are even allowed to flourish, because this is a documented psychological disorder.

[Gattsu347]

As I said in an earlier post, if we ever made contact with ETs, and found that they believe in the same God we do, then I would think twice.

:lol: we cant even agree on different parts of the earth.

[Smokey D]

Conversation got dumb.

[misterfitch]

I completely disagree with you about why people chose theism. People chose theism because they have a subservience fetish. They need to be totalitarianistically controlled and monitored. Culturally this is why dictatorships are even allowed to flourish, because this is a documented psychological disorder.

actually i agree with that too. there are a lot of reasons people choose theism, but my point was that generally becoming an atheist or an agnostic is more of an intellectual process than becoming a theist

Conversation got dumb.

yeah well i wanted to defend myself okay

[Raayl]

K guys, I'm going to pull the badass card here.

Let's say the islamic god Allah was proven to exist. He came to earth and did some magic **** and bam, proved he was real.

Would you believe and follow him? Would you be controlled simply because you're too afraid of the wrath of something you think to be more powerful than yourself?

Islam is an evil religion and muhammad the prophet and essentially founder was a warlike, mysigionistic brute. I can't say with any certainty, but I know damn sure I wouldn't just fall in line and start praying.

I'm curious to hear opinions on that scenario because it's seldom talked about...and lets face it, its the end result when we die anyways.

[Against Miik!]

I propose we collectively watch a atheism/theism debate (via youtube, theres hundreds), and dissect the arguments given rather than trying to defend our own. I think it would be a better way of going about things, rather than arguing over semantics and such. They are generally pretty standard (teleological argument por ejemplo), so the arguments aren't likely to be specific to that debate.

[Moon Flavor]

sade

atheism is the belief that there is no god
agnosticism is the belief that we don't know anything about higher powers

your definition of atheism is wrong please stop being stubborn

js

[Raayl]

Miik respond to my scenario.

[Smokey D]

If the God of Abraham was proven to exist as he is described in the various Abrahamic faiths, it would a) be impossible not to believe in him and b) ridiculous not to follow him.

[Raayl]

sade

atheism is the belief that there is no god
agnosticism is the belief that we don't know anything about higher powers

your definition of atheism is wrong please stop being stubborn

js

Your perspective is extremely limited, your logic is fallacious and your attitude is irritating. You consistently merely offer idiotic peanut-gallery like critiques of others instead of forwarding your own actual opinions and thoughts, to assume a sort of detachment and superiority. This doesn't impress me and tbqh I find you incredibly uninteresting.

Also, you are incorrect. It's not debatable nor can you persuade me with such idiocy as proclaiming atheism is the accusation of a godless universe.

[Against Miik!]

K guys, I'm going to pull the badass card here.

Let's say the islamic god Allah was proven to exist. He came to earth and did some magic **** and bam, proved he was real.

Would you believe and follow him? Would you be controlled simply because you're too afraid of the wrath of something you think to be more powerful than yourself?

Islam is an evil religion and muhammad the prophet and essentially founder was a warlike, mysigionistic brute. I can't say with any certainty, but I know damn sure I wouldn't just fall in line and start praying.

I'm curious to hear opinions on that scenario because it's seldom talked about...and lets face it, its the end result when we die anyways.

I would acknowledge existence, absolutely, and certainly respect those who without question chose to follow him, which I currently don't.

Whether or not I would choose to follow, well that is a different question. The existence of Allah would most certainly mean the existence of the afterlife portrayed in the Koran, or something similar, and thus I would have to come to the realization that eternal life does in fact exist, and following a tyrannical leader for my short time here is certainly worth paradise.

[Raayl]

If the God of Abraham was proven to exist as he is described in the various Abrahamic faiths, it would a) be impossible not to believe in him and b) ridiculous not to follow him.

Not saying I don't disagree with you but why?

If the GoA (as we'll call him now) did exist wouldn't free-will still technically also exist? Further - I think this is a lot more complex and allegorical than simply saying it's ridiculous. This now deals with the idea of fighting and dying against hopeless and, as you say, ridiculous odds for the sake of morality. It's deontological.

[gregulus]

This thread is an epistemological nightmare.

I really don't know why you're dwelling on the existence of a god or gods - that has nothing to do with either atheism or agnosticism.

It has to do with a matter of accepting or being open to accepting a god or gods. If you're not open and dont believe, you're an atheist. If you're open and might believe, you're an agnostic.
Your definition of agnosticism does not coincide with the standard epistemological definition of the word. Given an inability to know something, it doesn't make philosophical sense to claim to. It doesn't matter what the fate of agnostics or atheists actually is. There are some definitions of atheism that include agnosticism as falling under its proverbial umbrella. Using the strong definition of the word atheism, though, agnosticism and atheism are distinctly different.

"Whereof one cannot know, one must pass over in silence."

[misterfitch]

If the God of Abraham was proven to exist as he is described in the various Abrahamic faiths, it would a) be impossible not to believe in him and b) ridiculous not to follow him.

yeah pretty much

you are not badass enough to rebel against even the most annoying vindictive god if it means you will suffer for eternity because of it.

[Raayl]

I would acknowledge existence, absolutely, and certainly respect those who without question chose to follow him, which I currently don't.

Whether or not I would choose to follow, well that is a different question. The existence of Allah would most certainly mean the existence of the afterlife portrayed in the Koran, or something similar, and thus I would have to come to the realization that eternal life does in fact exist, and following a tyrannical leader for my short time here is certainly worth paradise.

Really though how is paradise paradise if you had to forsake all your core values to get there?

[Smokey D]

If God was proved to exist as he is described in Islam, then it would similarly prove that everything God demands is right and just and that any of our inconsistent beliefs in goodness and justice were wrong.



If the GoA (as we'll call him now) did exist wouldn't free-will still technically also exist? Further - I think this is a lot more complex and allegorical than simply saying it's ridiculous. This now deals with the idea of fighting and dying against hopeless and, as you say, ridiculous odds for the sake of morality. It's deontological.

I don't know if free will would exist or not. I don't think it's relevant. If GoA is true, then all his commands and requirements and actions are good. That is pretty much what it means to be the GoA. Our own moral intuitions are irrelevant.

[Moon Flavor]

Your perspective is extremely limited, your logic is fallacious and your attitude is irritating. You consistently merely offer idiotic peanut-gallery like critiques of others instead of forwarding your own actual opinions and thoughts, to assume a sort of detachment and superiority. This doesn't impress me and tbqh I find you incredibly uninteresting.

Also, you are incorrect. It's not debatable nor can you persuade me with such idiocy as proclaiming atheism is the accusation of a godless universe.

As far as the first paragraph goes, I only offer peanut gallery critiques of you because you always spout your opinion as fact and it's pretty dumb. I will not forward my own actual opinions and thoughts in this thread because that would be pointless. As an agnostic I feel it's pretty obvious that I don't care about this topic very much at all. I merely posted to tell you to stop being so stubborn. Your definition of atheism is wrong. Check a dictionary.

Peace!

[Against Miik!]

Really though how is paradise paradise if you had to forsake all your core values to get there?

My values would change.

[TheDarkHorse]

This thread went from 0 to terrible in 2 pages.

[Raayl]

yeah pretty much

you are not badass enough to rebel against even the most annoying vindictive god if it means you will suffer for eternity because of it.

Well now we can talk about the parable of sisyphus. In that even he could defy the god's punishment by ultimately enjoying his torture.

[The_Malcontent]

not to be a crazy iconoclast,but why is it that god must be refered to as a man, a he?
you cant say it's a he because that would be admitting you KNOW god, wich is an impossibility.It would't be a supernatural being if you knew its traits.
or are you simply leveling the playing feild, making reference easier?

[Raayl]

My values would change.

Not saying mine wouldn't either but I've never had this discussion I find it incredible interesting to ponder.

[Raayl]

not to be a crazy iconoclast,but why is it that god must be refered to as a man, a he?
you cant say it's a he because that would be admitting you KNOW god, wich is an impossibility.It would't be a supernatural being if you knew its traits.
or are you simply leveling the playing feild, making reference easier?

Yeah. I'm fully aware of the thousands of matriarchal gods that have been worshiped, but this conversation always tends to focus on the more dominant, patriarchal themes so I just say he cause it's easy.

[Raayl]

As far as the first paragraph goes, I only offer peanut gallery critiques of you because you always spout your opinion as fact and it's pretty dumb. I will not forward my own actual opinions and thoughts in this thread because that would be pointless. As an agnostic I feel it's pretty obvious that I don't care about this topic very much at all. I merely posted to tell you to stop being so stubborn. Your definition of atheism is wrong. Check a dictionary.

Peace!

yeah, pointless like the majority of your posts

[Raayl]

If God was proved to exist as he is described in Islam, then it would similarly prove that everything God demands is right and just and that any of our inconsistent beliefs in goodness and justice were wrong.



I don't know if free will would exist or not. I don't think it's relevant. If GoA is true, then all his commands and requirements and actions are good. That is pretty much what it means to be the GoA. Our own moral intuitions are irrelevant.

I suppose you're correct in assuming that if god exists and his values were war and death that our institutions of morality would be null-in-void but then why were they ever allowed to develop in the first place?

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Sputnik definitely follows a religion soon to be known as eTheism, a church Sputnik eChurch will be started.

[Smokey D]

I dunno. Maybe that's how GoA gets his kicks. It doesn't matter. However twisted we might think it, it would still be good.

[The_Malcontent]

because the situation arose that let us develop our own veiws and morality.
chance, man.

[Against Miik!]

Not saying mine wouldn't either but I've never had this discussion I find it incredible interesting to ponder.

I haven't either. But lets assume.

As a current skeptic, I realize that my time here is all I have, and thus, create my own value system, based generally on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. For me, that partially follows quite nicely the golden rule, do unto others and such. I have come to the realization not only that there are penalties for my actions, but considering I am not inherently superior to any other being, if I were to commit an action towards someone else, that gives them the complete right to commit that action towards me. In general, that is how laws were created, even before the bible and koran, so I choose to generally follow those laws.

If the existence of Allah were to be indisputable (I see him with my own eyes), then that would all go out the window. I would have to come to terms with the fact that there is something larger than humanity, and thus, myself. I would have to come to terms with the fact that my values are pretty much irrelevant, given that my time on Earth becomes irrelevant. My true goal in life becomes not simply to make the most of the time I have here, but to make the most of time in the eternal world, which I would certainly prefer to be heaven over hell.

The hardcore atheists say that they would rather go to hell, given how horrible they believe this theoretical God to be. I wholeheartedly disagree, as the indisputable existence of God completely changes the dynamic of good and evil that we currently understand.

[The_Malcontent]

hardcore atheist say that when you die, you decompose in your coffin.PERIOD.
and i can't stress this enough, you cannot know this supposed supernatural being.
if you have the able ability to know this being, he is no longer bigger than you.
you have identified the unknowable.

[Against Miik!]

hardcore atheist say that when you die, you decompose in your coffin.PERIOD.
and i can't stress this enough, you cannot know this supposed supernatural being.
if you have the able ability to know this being, he is no longer bigger than you.
you have identified the unknowable.

No I am saying that is the argument hardcore atheist put forth under our proposed scenario. Because like I said, no intelligent atheist would still be an atheist if a God presented themselves on Earth. So under this scenario, they generally say they would still prefer hell.

[Smokey D]

hardcore atheist say that when you die, you decompose in your coffin.PERIOD.
and i can't stress this enough, you cannot know this supposed supernatural being.
if you have the able ability to know this being, he is no longer bigger than you.
you have identified the unknowable.

But you might be able to know a bit of him. Enough at least to settle the question.

[Raayl]

I've never heard any atheist say they'd deny god were they to, somehow, know him. I simply think its an interesting, yet equally terrifying, position to consider.

I'm not sure if my entire world view would be shattered by the knowledge of a god. If god is like human beings, which GoA proclaims he is, then that means each of us can be considered a god of something.

And I say that to put myself into the position of god to try to understand the rationale. Let's take an ant-hill, with...sentient ants. These ants are relatively powerless over me and I can control everything in their world. BUT I never reveal myself to them. I secretly alter the farm without them knowing. I can snuff them out or give them life. Now, one day lets say I open the ant farm and prove that I actually exist to them and proclaim the day of judgement and they must now succumb to my destructive ways.

Let's say one of them chooses to deny me. What do I do? Do I really, honestly want to torture this ant for the rest of eternity because it disagrees with me? Do I kill it out of spite? I mean, the analogy is kind of stupid and somewhat fallacious but the core principles I think remain in tact.

Realistically speaking, its a dangerous proposition to deny a god based on mortal institutions. Ethically, however? I'm still unconvinced.

[The_Malcontent]

but will that bit poison the world?
fuel MORE wars of who is "right"?
nobody has experienced this bit of him but you.
the hundreds of other sects would simply carry on, promoting people to become saviors of the world.there isn't a worse martyr than a holy one.

[Raayl]

No I am saying that is the argument hardcore atheist put forth under our proposed scenario. Because like I said, no intelligent atheist would still be an atheist if a God presented themselves on Earth. So under this scenario, they generally say they would still prefer hell.

If hell were to exist in the context of the GoA, how do you imagine it being? A personalized hell, based on psychological damage to show you the true error of your ways? Or a visceral, writhing in pain and flames typa thing

[Smokey D]

Realistically speaking, its a dangerous proposition to deny a god based on mortal institutions. Ethically, however? I'm still unconvinced.

the difference is you aren't defined as good, whereas GoA is.

[Raayl]

the difference is you aren't defined as good, whereas GoA is.

And this is inevitably where the conversation becomes pointless. Oh well, it was fun to think about while it lasted.

[Against Miik!]

Let's say one of them chooses to deny me. What do I do? Do I really, honestly want to torture this ant for the rest of eternity because it disagrees with me? Do I kill it out of spite? I mean, the analogy is kind of stupid and somewhat fallacious but the core principles I think remain in tact.

Humans are different though, because we have self awareness and consciousness or whatever word you want to use that kind of makes above all other animals. Some would say that that in itself is prove of existence, the fact that we live for something more than procreation.

If hell were to exist in the context of the GoA, how do you imagine it being? A personalized hell, based on psychological damage to show you the true error of your ways? Or a visceral, writhing in pain and flames typa thing

If God were to present himself to us, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that it would be in a physical form. However, there is no reason to believe that his true form is physical. I would never believe in a man with a white beard sitting in a throne up in the clouds. I'm at least open to the existence of God, but I'm not a child. So therefore I don't believe heaven and hell would be physical places, but rather the would personal heavens and personal hells, different for each individual. Thats not to say that we would be alone in these places, but the other beings that we see would be illusions, just like the place we think we are in.

[The_Malcontent]

little late, but can anyone define good?
just curious.

[Smokey D]

little late, but can anyone define good?
just curious.

is that a rhetorical question or do you want an actual answer.

[The_Malcontent]

well im sure it varies, i would like to hear yours.

[Smokey D]

Um, people have written books on what it means to be good. I'm not qualified to give you an answer. the best I can give you is examples of good or bad action but even then I'm not really prepared to provide an exhaustive list.

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Knowing what good is directly parallels what food is.

[Against Miik!]

little late, but can anyone define good?
just curious.

Sup SOcrates.

Ideas of goodness are to an extent personal, changing from person to person, but mostly social constructs. They can change.

That is a problem most theists have with the atheists. They say that if you don't believe in an ultimate divine notion of good and evil, then things like rape would be ok if society decided it was. I think that is utterly insane, as well as false, because reality is that isn't the case, and we have decided that rape is bad because we don't want people going around raping other people, which would most certainly result in a lower quality of life for everybody.

Now I know what somebody will say, that crimes like rape aren't necessarily endorsed, but are most certainly rampant in some cultures, like in Africa and such. But that has nothing to do with theism, as these are generally very religious societies (thanks imperialism).

[The_Malcontent]

now that we have established there is no real good,no standardization, we should pack em up and move em out.

[Against Miik!]

I don't think thats what I said.

[The_Malcontent]

but it is.
you said that it is a construct of the society, or something along those lines.
an interpretation based on the societies given beleifs.
or an indefinable, amourphous impossible to generalize.

[Against Miik!]

There are some constants though, that go back to Hammurabi's Code, and these generally have nothing to do with religion. The 10 commandments, for example, were built around these generally accepted rules, not the other way around.

The goes back to the theoretical state of nature, in which there was not law. At some point, people got together and basically said I won't kill you if you don't kill me. We realized that was the best way for everyone to live, and have in one way or another lived that way ever since.

People who talk about Stalin and Hitler and Mao kind of miss the point.

But even still, that doesn't mean we should pack it in. Just because laws aren't divine doesn't mean we haven't defined them here and now and shouldn't follow them.

[The_Malcontent]

that is your definition of right.
not "good"
but before you go on, i would like to point out that i can't define good either.

[Against Miik!]

Same premise though. Just because the concept is written in stone doesn't mean we shouldn't try to promote the notions of goodness we have here and now.

[The_Malcontent]

but we have counter promotions happening in the here and now causing problems...
y'know,im being stupid,it doesn't matter.
im just dragging this out longer than it needs to be.
im atheist your not,end of story.
but i did like talking to you,
your ideas were pretty solid.
im going to bed.

[Against Miik!]

Not that it matters, but I was raised Catholic and am no longer a theist. So i am caught in that strange limbo where every rational part of me leans atheist, but the best I can do, and the "religion" I voted for is non-religious.

All my talking about God is theoretical.

laters