I am strting this new thread in response to the following very excellent suggestion by Misfit.

"OIC. You could change the thread title to Religious Beliefs. I clicked 'cuz I thought it was a "do you believe ET exists" type of thread."

My purpose is to exchange views on religion with WordWeaver, Rocky or any one who is interested.

I am not attacking any individual. I will admit that I have a strong hostility to religion which is already apparent to everyone I'm sure.

I am an Atheist. I have been an Atheist all my life though I was raised in a methodist family and attended Sunday school til I was 12. I don't recall that I ever thought that the stories I was told in Sunday school were anything but stories.

I believe there is no god but admit that I could be wrong. If, however, there is a god I know nothing of it. I have read the Bible (KJV) cover to cover three times. Some of the books many more times. I have also read the new testament in the NEB. I have both versions within reach and frequently look up verses that are cited. When I do this I usualy read the whole chapter rather than just the verse cited. Sometimes I read the whole book. I do not pretend that this makes me a Bible scholar. If you do not care for religious controversy you have my permission to ignore this thread.

---

Dave Nelson

I believe that humans were planted on this planet 200,000 years ago by a more advanced, and older, race of intelligent beings from somewhere else in the galaxy. To them 200,000 years is just the equivalent of one summer. The galactic fall is nearing, and it is almost harvest time. There are 6 billion of us now. Humans are a delicacy for them, they pick us up with one hand, bite the head off and drink the juices.

My beliefs are founded in the knowledge conveyed by an ancient and holy text of unsubstantiated claims by unknown authors.

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

> LMAO!
> Damn that was a good one.
> Your still going to hell but that was good ;)
> Will try to see if I can smuggle in some ice cubes for Ya!
Smuggle a snowball. I want to know the results of the cliche "a snowballs chance in hell".

>
> My purpose is to exchange views on religion with WordWeaver, Rocky or any one
> who is interested.
>
> I am not attacking any individual. I will admit that I have a strong
> hostility to religion which is already apparent to everyone I'm sure.
>
> I am an Atheist. I have been an Atheist all my life though I was raised in a
> methodist family and attended Sunday school til I was 12.

> I believe there is no god but admit that I could be wrong. If, however, there
> is a god I know nothing of it.


Wow Admiral,
I guess that covers all bases. You believe that there is no GOD, but admit you could be wrong. And if There is a GOD you know nothing of it, basically because you cannot see him right. But if you are so well established in your beliefs as "anti God" why would you even have the slightest idea that you could be wrong? Could it be that you might need him sometime, so you keep the idea close at hand just in case??

Regards,

Rocky


>

---

www.boincsynergy.com

Either Crick or Watson, I forget which (the discovers of DNA), had this to say when asked if he was concerned about playing god.

“If we don't play god, then who will.”

Meaning that, what he was planing, hoping, to do with DNA was to make a large quantitative improvement in the quality of human life that was measurable, verifiable, and visible to all, without any question, while working in the open, and reveling the details to everyone. So if that is what was meant by “playing god,” then that is what he was doing-- and that is something God has not done in the last 2000 years.

In making that statement above, I'm not even arguing (here) that god has not improved the quality of human life; just that if he has, he has done it, as they say “in mysterious ways.”

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

All kidding aside.

One related topic I find interesting is that of “tolerance.” Growing up we are all taught to be tolerant of other races, and people of other backgrounds or colors, those with different beliefs, etc. One realizes this is a good idea in general and benefits society as a whole. Without putting much thought into it we naturally assume that tolerating other races or ethnicities is the same as tolerating different religious beliefs.

While tolerance for people who are different for reasons beyond their control is always possible, no one should be absolutely tolerate of other peoples beliefs. In general. Let me qualify. Some Muslim extremists believe that they will gain a higher place in heaven if they, say, kill thousands of Americans. Now put yourself in their place for a moment, I know it is hard, but consider. This is what they absolutely, truly believe, with all of their heart. They are not just mad at America, they believe God is too. Who are we to say they are wrong? Tolerance is all about saying, to yourself, well, they are probably wrong, but I'll be tolerant and let them continue to believe in, and spread their message. So why not? Indeed why not tolerate their religious beliefs as they spread throughout the middle east. Why not tolerate such beliefs here in the U.S. -- perhaps they will start 'Kill Americans: children are easy targets' clubs in every large city. We must be tolerant. After all, God could be mad at Americans, stranger unworldly things have happened.

Perhaps you're thinking, well, sure then, we should not tolerate beliefs of others when they involve killing people-- those beliefs are surely wrong. “But they are directly from the word of God as expressed in the Koran,” counter the extremists, “and I believe them with all my heart.” Well then, you say, we cannot tolerate the religious beliefs of others, no matter how much they believe in them, when those beliefs are clearly wrong. We cannot when they clearly do so much harm.

But in these last statements, if one agree with them, we've used the logic:

these beliefs hurt or kill people, therefor they cannot be tolerated; or
these beliefs are wrong, there for they cannot be tolerated;

And so we have let ourself use criteria like 'people get hurt or killed' for deciding when to tolerate something or not. Where did that criteria come from? It might seem given at first, since dying is rather dramatic, but in fact it is arbitrary.

Who establishes this criteria for when beliefs should be tolerated and when they should not be. If you tell me you don't have to tolerate a Muslim extremists who would like to burn your wife and daughter alive-- then can I not say I don't have to tolerate my next door neighbor who believes that Hospitals are the work of Satan and that God will save his baby who has a deadly high fever. In this later case I might not tolerate him by debating with him fiercely, or even by taking his daughter to a hospital against his will—striking non-tolerance for his beliefs.

I tire now crunchers, and must get some sleep. The point is tolerance of someones beliefs is not inherent, it is not a given. We still live in a very superstitious world, and it is right to question some peoples ideas.

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

> > I believe there is no god but admit that I could be wrong. If, however,
> there
> > is a god I know nothing of it.

That sounds more of an agnostic POV instead of atheist.

agnostic: One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

agnosticism: 1. The doctrines of the agnostics, holding that certainty or first or absolute truths are unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. A theological theory that does not deny God but denies the possibility of knowing Him.

atheist: One who denies the existence of God.

atheism: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God. 2. The quality or state of being godless.

> agnostic: One who believes ...


Yep, and then there is (just making jokes again):

'apathetic' agnostic: One who doesn't know, or care.

For not caring though, they sure have a lot on their web site (lol): http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/

---

www.onlinetasklist.com

> > agnostic: One who believes ...
>
>
> Yep, and then there is:
>
> 'apathetic' agnostic: One who doesn't know, or care.
>
> For not caring though, they sure have a lot on their web site (lol):
>
> http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/
>
Well being agnostic believes there isnt proof either way, so theres no way to know. He neither believes or disbelieves, but definately doesnt have faith.

@word weaver
STOP this GOD loves you Thing
in a project that have peoples from allover the world
you must think different it can for you be allright this lifestyle
but PLEASE are Tolerant!!!
---i hate this funtamentalists-- from allover the world (god,allah,budda)

WordWeaver,
Thank you and I could not agree with you more. Guido...Get A Grip.!
I have studied and taught classes about many religions across the world from Tao to Hinduism, To The origin of Christianity, to Paganism, Wiccan, Muslim, Buddism and many others most people have never heard of. There are many cultures in the world, and we do not have to agree with their teachings and followings. Guido your posting of down right offensive pictures is just flat out wrong, and does absolutly nothing but to stir up negative emotions, but then again, that is what you are all about.
Admiral, make sure WHAT you Believe before you decide to try to impress others with how little you actually know. If you want to promote yourself..be precise. Don't mislead! You are what you are... but there is always room for CHANGE!If you have read the Bibles, over and over as you have said, there is a reason, you must be getting something out of them. I hope some of that knowledge finds it's way into your heart.
All I can say is that instaed of hiding behind the fact that you could be wrong, embrace Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and he will be there in YOUR HOUR OF NEED. IN FACT HE WILL BE WITH YOU ALWAYS!!


Regards,

Rocky

---

www.boincsynergy.com

I do not believe in God or an afterlife or heaven.I simply believe we are here, then we die.Game over.Enjoy life as it is short.When we die we simply return to the earth.There is nothing after we die.We just live on in people's memories we touched while alive.Enjoy life, be kind to others and try and understand other people.

Rach

---

......In Space No One Can Hear You Scream......

> My beliefs are founded in the knowledge conveyed by an ancient and holy text
> of unsubstantiated claims by unknown authors.

In other words, just like the all those texts used as "proof" by the religious majority?
Who can prove, empirically, that you are wrong and they are correct? No one. That's why it's a belief system, you can't prove any of it.

I gave up religion for Lent years ago. Never been happier. Did the whole indoctrination process with the Baptists and the Presbyterians.
Couldn't figure out why any of the rituals meant anything until I hit 13, then I had an epiphany ( :-) ): It's all about mind control and power.
The churches just want to be in charge. In charge of your mind, your body, your money and your life. Sorry, folks, it's my life and I'll live it my way. When I die, I'll be recycled.
You don't have to like my POV, but don't try to change it, you'll lose.

---

***********************************************
Beer, naked women & wanton destruction? I'm in.

Here's a piece of reasoning I came up with a few years ago.

Hypothesis: God does not exist.
Conclusions: Over 75% of the world's religions disappear instantly, taking with it the sense of morality and holiness that so many tout. Instead of blaming or praising the now-nonexistent God for good and bad (i.e.: No God, no "God's Will"), Humanity looks inwards for redemption. People will continue to do good, but will do so for one less reason since the excuse of appealing to God is now moot. Therefore, while "evil" still exists, the good in Man will fill in where Faith left off.

Counter-Hypothesis: God exists, but is on hiatus.
Conclusions: Similar to previous conclusion, but people still wait for Divine intervention to do the good that they themselves would have gotten done if God hadn't existed.

Alternate Hypothesis: God exists, but Man forfeits Him.
Conclusions: If good works by Man for his fellow Man is what truly matters, then God will recompense the secular Man for his works in an afterlife that the secular Man had forfeited on Earth. Otherwise, see the first hypothesis.

Status Quo: God exists. People kill each other over stupid differences within their shared religion (pre-Westphalia), or kill anyone who "isn't us" (Radically fundamentalist Islam, Cursading Christianity, yadda blah etc.). People cast off responsibility for their actions (or more often inaction) claiming that God wants it so, and are willing to suppress the right of an individual to praise their own God(s) using the excuse "I'm going to save his [the 2nd person's] soul and redeem him/her".

So all in all, I take the secular approach. Maybe there is a heaven and a hell, but any Man who does good for the sake of doing good, without denying or bolstering the faith of himself/herself or another, would be blessed even if Man wishes to turn down the offer. You don't need God for impetus - You just need yourself.

[NIXXED: Posted twice]

> While tolerance for people who are different for reasons beyond their control
> is always possible, no one should be absolutely tolerate of other peoples
> beliefs. In general. Let me qualify. Some Muslim extremists believe that
> they will gain a higher place in heaven if they, say, kill thousands of
> Americans. Now put yourself in their place for a moment, I know it is hard,
> but consider. This is what they absolutely, truly believe, with all of their
> heart.

Excuse me for not quoting your whole message, I don't want to get carried away. ;)

You're right. But at the same time, the whole problem stems from intolerance once again. In this case it is them that is intolerant of us, and it's because they have misread and twisted the teachings of their religion in order to suit their own purposes. They are the perfect example (although even more extreme than most)of religious "zealots".

Contrary to what someone else said somewhere (in the other thread I think), very few people who we would consider religious would qualify as zealots. Simply having a deep rooted belief in your religion and God does not make you a zealot. But rather, when it so overtakes your thinking that your life becomes a single faceted pursuit of that one and only ideal, and you are incapable of leading a well rounded and rewarding life enjoying the infinite multitude of experiences available to us.

When their intolerance infringes upon our rights to live a peaceful and rewarding life, then begins our intolerance of them. But what's the best way to handle it? If we really knew, we wouldn't be in so much trouble now. But I believe the best way is stem our own hatred - to fight each individual attack against us and it's perpetrator, rather than to attack the whole country/culture/religion indiscriminately. For such an indiscriminate attack of the whole body will only add fuel to their cause in the minds of others who may not yet be decided.

If we can fight the actions of these few without giving others a reason (in their own minds) to join their cause, then their cause will eventually die out. Just as the Catholics Inquisition would no longer be tolerated because their church has evolved and changed as the zealots who fueled that cause have died off and their ideals been replaced with more tolerant ones. (although I'm definitely not saying that zealots don't exist in the Catholic church anymore)

And in any case, it's not right to attack a whole group of people based on the intolerant views of a few deranged zealots - for it's not the religion that causes the intolerance, but the intolerance which is using and twisting the teachings of the religion to justify and further spread more intolerance.