[QUOTE=Lay_Down_The_Groove]you talking to me?[/QUOTE]

What if I am?

Punk.

ok thankd wintermute

[QUOTE=Foxfire]*sigh* I have to write a report about a biologist that has died within the last 50 years...

Then I'm still pissed off about earlier.

I'm getting confirmed this year (church) and they presented to us today what we have to do in order to be a super l33t Catholic. It's an utterly excessive amount for something that my parents are making me do and I don't believe in. I have to:
*Make some report about Catholicism, as well as why I want to be confirmed.
*Get interviewed by the Priest and tell him myself.
*Write a letter to the Priest basically begging.
*Write a letter to the bishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
*Do 3 volunteer "group projects", each about 6 hours long. Oh, and if I don't do them I can get confirmed (yep, I know I said they were volunteer).
*10 hours of community service
*Go to a bunch of annoying meetings.

As well as a bunch of other things. I'm tempted to say "I dislike your God as well as your ideals," but my mom made me feel guilty.

-.-[/QUOTE]

Heh, I just had to say 'yes, I love god'

Lousy stinking familial pressure...

[QUOTE=super deluxe]It's been a while (5-6 years?) since I was confirmed, and the whole process was rather a production. However, your mum will sniffle into her hankie, your dad will clap you on the back, and it'll save you a lot of trauma if you just do it and get it over with. Been there, done that. (though I think being a Lutheran might be more fun!)[/QUOTE]
enjoying being a confirmed catholic/ atheist

[QUOTE=e p]What if I am?

Punk.[/QUOTE]
I don't care all i said was i don't attend church or anything

Tell the priest that you don't believe in god during the interview...

Just messing with you LDTG.


:cool:

Just because you are confirmed doesn't mean you have to believe in certain parts of Christianity, like me, I believe in bits and pieces.

[QUOTE=LowExpectations]Tell the priest that you don't believe in god during the interview...[/QUOTE]
better yet when your in there scream "stop touching me"

[QUOTE=ShelBel]I'm bored. *yawn* Its Sunday, I'm working, there's not much for me to do other than sit here... I did bring my bass and was dorking around with "Longview" and am back to cursing at my mutant pinkies.[/QUOTE]

On sundays I order hot & sour soup :cool:

[QUOTE=e p]Just messing with you LDTG.


:cool:

Just because you are confirmed doesn't mean you have to believe in certain parts of Christianity, like me, I believe in bits and pieces.[/QUOTE]

The only main parts I really believe are the moral-related ones. There are some good stories that explain morals in the Bible (no matter how true they are :p).

I'm going to end up doing it anyways. Oh well. In doing so, I'll hopefully get a decent amount of money from my relatives in the Philippines (Filipinos are religious and love to give money to people. :cool: ), and that money can go towards my tricked out GT-7. :cool:

[QUOTE=e p]Just messing with you LDTG.


:cool:
[/QUOTE]
I thought you were :thumb:

Anglican Church Confirmed atheist here.

Heh.

I wouldn't say I'm athiest, I just believe things that certain religions/philosophies aside from maybe buddhism offer.

A guy in the pit presented a rather interesting point. In being a full atheist (not belonging to a church at all) there are two possible outcomes: one, you are correct, and there is no heaven and hell, just nothingness. However, if there is a "God" or "Gods", you get to go to hell.

Now, if you belong to a church of some sort, but don't really believe in it, it's pretty much a "win"-win situation. The "win" is that there's no God and there's nothingness, like athiests believe; however, the "win" is that, if there is indeed a being of some sort, you won't be screwed...as bad.

well that would apply except in the catholic church , because if your a catholic and dont beleive everyhting they say on any topic , your considered a "cafeteria catholic" and thats a sin

BULL!

To quote Adams - People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)


I am in full agreement with this ex-genius. If God exists, he's all knowing. You aren't going to fool him that easily.

[QUOTE=Foxfire]A guy in the pit presented a rather interesting point. In being a full atheist (not belonging to a church at all) there are two possible outcomes: one, you are correct, and there is no heaven and hell, just nothingness. However, if there is a "God" or "Gods", you get to go to hell.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, that's obvious.

[QUOTE=Foxfire]
Now, if you belong to a church of some sort, but don't really believe in it, it's pretty much a "win"-win situation. The "win" is that there's no God and there's nothingness, like athiests believe; however, the "win" is that, if there is indeed a being of some sort, you won't be screwed...as bad.[/QUOTE]


You could still go to hell even if you are a Catholic. Provided you believe in it..

I said you wouldn't be screwed as bad. :p

I really don't much care for any religion; I prefer the more philosophical view on life.

Wintermute: I know, I just find that view on things interesting. Seems a tad greedy to me. ;)

Seems utterly foolish to me. Someone made a big thread about it in News, Politics and World issues - it lasted for ages.

Meh.

Seriously, live a good, full life. Try to be a good person and build others up. That's my religion. It won't matter what religion is true by living this way. I believe in some Catholic views, but then again I don't. Just be a good person and it'll all work out.

Agreed EP. Unless the hypothetical God happens to be a hardcore Catholic, in which case, according to the Catholic views, everyone is screwed.

Religion's an interesting topic. People end up going in circles either way.

Thought this might interest you.


THE INTERVIEW

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.



Doublas Adams(left) with David Silverman
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?

DNA: Well, it’s a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.

I’ve put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I’d spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I’d learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn’t seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?

Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

So, I was already familiar with and (I’m afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn’t apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of ‘truth’. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn’t really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn’t know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins’s books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans (“...that was one of the few times I actually believed in god”). Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?

DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There’s just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there’s no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I’d probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit “honorable exceptions,” but I don't really think that.)

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to “save” you from Atheism?

DNA: Absolutely never. We just don’t have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that’s not absolutely true. But (and I’m going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn’t bother.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Have you faced any obstacles in your professional life because of your Atheism (bigotry against Atheists), and how did you handle it? How often does this happen?

DNA: Not even remotely. It’s an inconceivable idea.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: There are quite a few lighthearted references to god and religion in your books (“...2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree”). How has your Atheism influenced your writing? Where (in which characters or situations) are your personal religious thoughts most accurately reflected.

DNA: I am fascinated by religion. (That’s a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I’ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing.

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: What message would you like to send to your Atheist fans?

DNA: Hello! How are you?

Rimtism = the beleif that your right middle toe is invicible
this religion is stackable with other religions.
thats my beleif right there :thumb:

I believe in religion, but mainly because scientists are too thickheaded. Not everything can be explained, nor should be explained.

And people take the Bible too seriosuly; it's not what happened, it's more of a guideline of what could have happened. I especially dislike when the church say that Dinosaurs aren't real because they aren't in the Bible... EXPLAIN FOSSILS!

Former Lutheran, current pagan here. And I have to point to my friend Carrie's most interesting take on what happens when you die: [url=http://www.livejournal.com/users/adelheide/45449.html]Carrie's Version of the Afterlife- Warning, May Offend, But I Think Its Hysterically Funny and Probably Truer Than We'd Like to Admit, But That's Me[/url]

Radiobass: I don't know, when they've been teaching stuff (I'm apparently Catholic *shrug*), they've always told us that the bible is hardcore proof that a God exists, and that it's really what's happened.

I tend not to argue. Easiest way to get out of the class fast.

Well, I don't mean the parts were God actually was in the Bible, I mean the Adam and Eve things and the other concepts; that is not what happened, that is a guideline. My music teacher has a good concept of what he thinks happened (with Adam and Eve); he thinks god put 2 people on different parts of the world, so the world could get populater or however you want to put it. The resit is history (literally).

You may disagree, because it an opinion and a thought, just that. But my point is, that part of the Bible is taken too seriosuly.

Well the Old Testament is more of stories that teach lessons. Like parables. That's my belief and it was also told to me by a priest.

My Grandfather is a vicar and he doesn't believe in Genesis. *Shrugs* The bible, like anything, is open to interpretation.

That's pretty funny, Shelbel

Exactly.

You take it with a pinch of salt.

Some add their own thoughts and beliefs and it goes on and on. Until some people decide to let their own personal beliefs affect their decisions. (Gay marriage, stem cell...)

[QUOTE=Wintermute]That's pretty funny, Shelbel[/QUOTE]

Whenever I need a giggle all I need to do is think "Hey, is that Shiva?" and for some reason it cracks me up everytime...

As far as I'm concerned, we all believe in roughly the same thing, its just that we all put our own "stamp" or "spin" on it, if you will.

hello all, just got back from two hockey games... tired as a dog.... Listening to Robert Randolph (thanks EP!)

Represent, Paul.


:cool:

Utterly random question - Paul, have you ever watched 'Yes, Minister'?

I don't believe I have, sorry Wintermute.

Fair enough. Has anyone?

Nope. Sorry.

What's it about?

It's the zenith of intelligent comedy. It's a depiction of political intrigue between the Government and the Civil Service, particularly between Minister Jim Hacker and the Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Put like that, it doesn't sound funny... but the writers got knighthoods and the two lead actors got CBEs.

Is it on DVD.