Religion Comparison Chart

User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by tabby »

If you ever want a quick & brief overview of many of the world's religions, this chart might come in handy. It runs the gamut from the most commonly known to the relatively obscure on the world stage! Many of them were new to me and I found it an interesting read.



The Big Religion Comparison Chart: Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts
User avatar
jones jones
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by jones jones »

Thanx for this Tabs cos its rather interesting ... Although I am an Atheist, I have and continue to study religion per se. One of the interesting facts that I have "uncovered" is that in ancient times, the countries where many, many gods were worshipped were the ones who were the most advanced .... such as Egypt, Rome & Greece. Israel on the other hand, where as far as I know a single deity was worshipped, was pretty backward.

Food for thought ... for me anyway.
"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
User avatar
tabby
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:41 pm
Location: Virginia

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by tabby »

Interesting observation, JJ! Semi on topic ... there's an interesting book titled "Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" that was written by a former American missionary/anthropologist/linguistics expert who spent several years living among some of the remote Amazonian tribes. In the end, he was the one converted to their way of thinking & beliefs. You never know!

"Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" is their version of our goodnight expression "Sleep tight & don't let the bedbugs bite!". In their jungle environment, it pays to be a light sleeper.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

Interesting chart but what on earth are they doing listing atheism as a religion? All it means is that you don't believe there is a god/ all powerful being or beings. Atheism is not a religion, there is no super being, there is no a set of beliefs or doctrines you have to believe in to be an atheist. The problem with religious people is they just cannot get theiir heads round the simple fact that you don;t need to have religious faith. I suppose if they could they might be able to question their own a bit more.
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by flopstock »

gmc;1410622 wrote: Interesting chart but what on earth are they doing listing atheism as a religion? All it means is that you don't believe there is a god/ all powerful being or beings. Atheism is not a religion, there is no super being, there is no a set of beliefs or doctrines you have to believe in to be an atheist. The problem with religious people is they just cannot get their heads round the simple fact that you don;t need to have religious faith. I suppose if they could they might be able to question their own a bit more.


I have to disagree with you on this. I have seen it practiced as a religion, just as I know christians who do not practice a religion. They simply are. But we have atheist that post right here in the garden who feel they need to argue their position rather than just being atheist. they feel some need to show you the light rather than just accepting your belief is your own.



I don't think that agnostics should be grouped in with atheists however. Nor others who just don't bother to consider it either way. Atheists have a real religious passion about their position sometimes. Just like any other religion.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

flopstock;1410633 wrote: I have to disagree with you on this. I have seen it practiced as a religion, just as I know christians who do not practice a religion. They simply are. But we have atheist that post right here in the garden who feel they need to argue their position rather than just being atheist. they feel some need to show you the light rather than just accepting your belief is your own.



I don't think that agnostics should be grouped in with atheists however. Nor others who just don't bother to consider it either way. Atheists have a real religious passion about their position sometimes. Just like any other religion.


eligion

Definition of religion

noun

[mass noun]

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion

[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions

[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion




Someone who claims to be a christian is someone who believes in a supreme being, god made everything etc etc, without us getting in to the arguments about the holy trinity and all that jazz. There are many other "christians" who would argue that they cannot be Christian because they do not follow the correct rules or believe in the correct creed. By their definition they are not christians and cannot ever be. Religious conflict is always over the absurdities of how to worship between sects or forcing conformity to their own particular absurd beliefs.

Consumerism, as per the example, may be an abiding interest for some individuals it might be like a religion or similar to one for some but hardly a religion with a set of beliefs that must be followed , you could perhaps readily claim the self help movement in the states as a secular religion but there is no belief in a supreme being that must be worshipped so i would argue it is not a religion either.

It's a use of the word that annoys me intensely, although I recognise I am in a minority who find it so. it's the means by which the religious dismiss to their own satisfaction non-believers as simply followers of another religion. I've even seen preachers talk about science as merely a different set of beliefs that have no basis in reality. You don't need secular society and social justice when you have religion - their religion that is with them as the head due to their direct link to god.

Having said that I do know what you mean about some atheists who would ban religion on the grounds that it is wrong and they are right and who would browbeat

rather than discuss. I'm right you are wrong is offensive coming from either side of the debate. Basically the two viewpoints are so at odds that the best you can do is agree not to kill each other over it. I have on many occasions met many who think one only has to read the bible and listen to the preachers to see the light, the concept that one might actually have spent a lot of time doing just that before deciding it is a load of bollocks is one they struggle to grasp. Much better to dismiss it all as just another, wrong, religion. Saves thinking about it you see.

By the same token many atheists cannot explain why they are atheists so in a way they have made a leap of faith.

In summary I do kind of agree with what you say - but I don't like it.:D
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by K.Snyder »

gmc;1410622 wrote: The problem with religious people is they just cannot get theiir heads round the simple fact that you don;t need to have religious faith. I suppose if they could they might be able to question their own a bit more.


According to E.M. Adam's human beings possess skills that inherently and continuously seek to render themselves and their world intelligible. Human beings intrinsically ask questions to make sense of themselves and their world through such skills which serves to embody their lives with meaning and purpose. People are not complacent with being confused about something so they inquire into such questions until they render an answer they can make sense of. In order to render something intelligible they must rely on the perspectives they've gained throughout their lives.

This highlights the disparity between one's belief and reality. For one to continuously ask a question suggests that there’s a desire to render their question intelligible, which defines the inherent meaning within it (lest they assume they’re answering their own question by asking it, which is absurd), and the disparity between one’s belief and reality serves to automatically render their questions (with regard to the divine figures) “forever meaningful”.

As far as I'm concerned, the perversion of modern western civilization is of much greater concern than the subjectivism that leads to religious beliefs because the former entails of no desire at all to render their lives meaningful whereas the latter conversely shows their desire for meaning and purpose rather as a matter of misguided faith ("faith" in the context of realistic humanism for those without the belief in a divine figure) throughout their attempt to render themselves and their world intelligible.

The naturalist view of the world implies that we as human beings have no meaning or purpose within the realm of our physical description of the universe. This is a far greater perplexity than misguided religions. It leads to moral relativism that is incapable of rendering judgements in a way that fails to reconstruct our culture in our obvious quest for peace and harmony throughout the universe.

Humanistic realism is not a utopian claim that everyone lives inside a cloudy picturesque world but rather a claim that is backed by a logical explanation for the one answer we all seek. The crucial way we can achieve this reality is allowing everyone the chance to ask the questions vital to discovering it.

I, among the others that has led to your post, like to think that everyone has questions that seek to answer everyone's curiosity, and judging by your enthusiasm within such discussions I, among others, know your concerns are for the better interests of humanity. The problem is our ability to contextualize the conversation in a way that highlights all of our inherent desire to seek such an answer, and I think Realistic Humanism does it extraordinarily well.

Read his book gmc, "A Society Fit for Human Beings", you'll like it I think.
Richard Bell
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Richard Bell »

gmc;1410622 wrote: Interesting chart but what on earth are they doing listing atheism as a religion? All it means is that you don't believe there is a god/ all powerful being or beings. Atheism is not a religion, there is no super being, there is no a set of beliefs or doctrines you have to believe in to be an atheist. The problem with religious people is they just cannot get theiir heads round the simple fact that you don;t need to have religious faith. I suppose if they could they might be able to question their own a bit more.


Somebody once said that if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. :D
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by mikeinie »

Which only goes to prove it does not matter what you believe in, it is how you live you life that you will be judged on. How can one religion be more 'right' than another one???
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by flopstock »

Richard Bell;1410946 wrote: Somebody once said that if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. :D


That's one of those things that sounds cute, but isn't really a valid comparison. When practiced as a religion(which I've witnessed here in the garden from time to time over the years) it is not passive.



It might be more accurate to compare it someone who seeks out to destroy other folks enjoyment of their stamp collection. More of an anti- stamp collector. I'd consider that a hobby.

Hobby | Define Hobby at Dictionary.com

ride a hobby, to concern oneself excessively with a favorite notion or activity
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Ahso! »

flopstock;1410633 wrote: I have to disagree with you on this. I have seen it practiced as a religion, just as I know christians who do not practice a religion. They simply are. But we have atheist that post right here in the garden who feel they need to argue their position rather than just being atheist. they feel some need to show you the light rather than just accepting your belief is your own.



I don't think that agnostics should be grouped in with atheists however. Nor others who just don't bother to consider it either way. Atheists have a real religious passion about their position sometimes. Just like any other religion.Correct me if I'm misinterpreting this post, but it appears to me that in it, religion is being defined as passion. Is that an accurate reading? If not, agreeing on a definition of religion would probably be helpful.

Here's what Wikipedia says religion is:

Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe.Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So my question would be: how does atheism fit that definition?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
jones jones
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by jones jones »

As Anaïs Nin wrote in her correspondence with Henry Miller, “I spell ‘god’ with a small ‘g’ because I do not believe in him, but I love to swear by him.”
"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
User avatar
jones jones
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by jones jones »

"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

K.Snyder;1410911 wrote: According to E.M. Adam's human beings possess skills that inherently and continuously seek to render themselves and their world intelligible. Human beings intrinsically ask questions to make sense of themselves and their world through such skills which serves to embody their lives with meaning and purpose. People are not complacent with being confused about something so they inquire into such questions until they render an answer they can make sense of. In order to render something intelligible they must rely on the perspectives they've gained throughout their lives.

This highlights the disparity between one's belief and reality. For one to continuously ask a question suggests that there’s a desire to render their question intelligible, which defines the inherent meaning within it (lest they assume they’re answering their own question by asking it, which is absurd), and the disparity between one’s belief and reality serves to automatically render their questions (with regard to the divine figures) “forever meaningful”.

As far as I'm concerned, the perversion of modern western civilization is of much greater concern than the subjectivism that leads to religious beliefs because the former entails of no desire at all to render their lives meaningful whereas the latter conversely shows their desire for meaning and purpose rather as a matter of misguided faith ("faith" in the context of realistic humanism for those without the belief in a divine figure) throughout their attempt to render themselves and their world intelligible.

The naturalist view of the world implies that we as human beings have no meaning or purpose within the realm of our physical description of the universe. This is a far greater perplexity than misguided religions. It leads to moral relativism that is incapable of rendering judgements in a way that fails to reconstruct our culture in our obvious quest for peace and harmony throughout the universe.

Humanistic realism is not a utopian claim that everyone lives inside a cloudy picturesque world but rather a claim that is backed by a logical explanation for the one answer we all seek. The crucial way we can achieve this reality is allowing everyone the chance to ask the questions vital to discovering it.

I, among the others that has led to your post, like to think that everyone has questions that seek to answer everyone's curiosity, and judging by your enthusiasm within such discussions I, among others, know your concerns are for the better interests of humanity. The problem is our ability to contextualize the conversation in a way that highlights all of our inherent desire to seek such an answer, and I think Realistic Humanism does it extraordinarily well.

Read his book gmc, "A Society Fit for Human Beings", you'll like it I think.


Not read his book will do so if I get a chance. Forgive me if I wander off on a tangent. I would say though you need to read a lot more than one point of view to help decide on your own.

According to E.M. Adam's human beings possess skills that inherently and continuously seek to render themselves and their world intelligible. Human beings intrinsically ask questions to make sense of themselves and their world through such skills which serves to embody their lives with meaning and purpose. People are not complacent with being confused about something so they inquire into such questions until they render an answer they can make sense of. In order to render something intelligible they must rely on the perspectives they've gained throughout their lives.




He's hardly the first to point that out, There is also for some a compulsion to find an answer and someone or thing to follow - we all take comfort in ritual and share a common need for it at times. It doesn't mean that someone who finds an answer is actually right. I have no problem with religion per se just those who think their belief somehow makes them better than everyone else. Those who have such a need have difficulty understanding those who do not share it

As far as I'm concerned, the perversion of modern western civilization is of much greater concern than the subjectivism that leads to religious beliefs because the former entails of no desire at all to render their lives meaningful whereas the latter conversely shows their desire for meaning and purpose rather as a matter of misguided faith ("faith" in the context of realistic humanism for those without the belief in a divine figure) throughout their attempt to render themselves and their world intelligible.






What perversion are you talking about? Western civilisation is a moving feast and tyranny and hatred are as much a part of it as liberty and freedom. We live in enlightened times compared to much of the past not least we don't have to put up with people telling us what makes life meaningful or who is worthy and who is not. To get that freedom we all value so much the power of the church had first to be broken and secularism triumph. Those who lament the decline of civilisation almost invariable mean those sectors of society they don't approve of have the temerity to think they have a right to live their own lives as they see fit.

posted by ahso

So my question would be: how does atheism fit that definition?


It doesn't IMO but the religious cannot get their heads round the concept of living without religious belief. It gives them comfort to dismiss an atheist as merely followers of a different set of beliefs - they can't tell you what they are but are sure you must have them. .
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by K.Snyder »

gmc;1411033 wrote:

What perversion are you talking about?

The same perversion that suggests our moral judgments are relative, which fails to accept an objective moral reality. This means that humanity eventually leads to a doctrine of principals without a grounding in the context that renders the meaning of our lives intelligible.

A belief in an external figure is equivalent to it because it fails to obligate people in contributing to cultural change that inevitably helps humanity progress. The very same progress you as a human being desire, among others, which is the primary focus of why atheism tends to be viewed with similar regard as religions.

The perversion is secularism run rampant as much as the belief in an external being. They're both subjective claims that perpetuate a failure to live peacefully among otherwise civilized human beings. The lack of peace stems from our inability to share the fundamental values necessary in bringing about civic unity. The failure to agree on the terms used to ensure peace is commensurate with the trivial generalizations that both subjective claims use in their refusal to accept the objective moral reality.

The context of the discussion needs to be stripped of the generalizations used to frame it.

Buddhism is a nice start...
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

K.Snyder;1411472 wrote: The same perversion that suggests our moral judgments are relative, which fails to accept an objective moral reality. This means that humanity eventually leads to a doctrine of principals without a grounding in the context that renders the meaning of our lives intelligible.

A belief in an external figure is equivalent to it because it fails to obligate people in contributing to cultural change that inevitably helps humanity progress. The very same progress you as a human being desire, among others, which is the primary focus of why atheism tends to be viewed with similar regard as religions.

The perversion is secularism run rampant as much as the belief in an external being. They're both subjective claims that perpetuate a failure to live peacefully among otherwise civilized human beings. The lack of peace stems from our inability to share the fundamental values necessary in bringing about civic unity. The failure to agree on the terms used to ensure peace is commensurate with the trivial generalizations that both subjective claims use in their refusal to accept the objective moral reality.

The context of the discussion needs to be stripped of the generalizations used to frame it.

Buddhism is a nice start...


What is this objective moral reality to which you refer?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by K.Snyder »

gmc;1411542 wrote: What is this objective moral reality to which you refer?Adam's claim is that much like our desire to be correct in our understanding of "things" we too come to understand how a human being ought to live, which gives this view, which he defines as our "normative self-concept", a meaning dimension. When we express ourselves through our semantic culture, we take it that what is expressed is not just merely the aesthetic qualities that such a work requires, rather we take it to have an inherent meaning because it implicitly judges how our society ought to be. This normative self-concept is the foundation of our inner self-hood, or our human nature, which is the constitution by which all of us as human beings live. All of us make moral appraisals that render judgements on ourselves and others, which he defines as our inherent normative constitution.

We can also become thwarted in our understanding of how a human being ought to live. As mentioned, with a naturalist and subjectivist world view, we view ourselves in terms of these concepts which reduces our humanity to the very randomness of the scientific concepts that gave rise to it. We have redefined our perceptions in terms of this which has undercut our ability to give meaning to our lives and ultimately any grounds for moral consensus. When we suggest that morality is relative we further isolate ourselves in to power structures that fail to share common values, which presuppose common interests and eventually world peace. This leads to isolated power struggles that fails to reconstruct their world views through the shared experiences of others. As I've said, not an ounce different than the religious extremism that threatens our freedom from the very same isolation and reluctance to reconstruct their beliefs. Indeed, both of them are the epitome of meaningless dereliction.

We are who we are because of our semantic culture. If we further isolate ourselves we stagnate the possibility to enhance it and ensure the freedom of all to pursue higher values. We shouldn't view morality as fulfilling some grand plan, we should view it as our creation without a limit to its meaning dimension.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

tabby;1410553 wrote: If you ever want a quick & brief overview of many of the world's religions, this chart might come in handy. It runs the gamut from the most commonly known to the relatively obscure on the world stage! Many of them were new to me and I found it an interesting read.



The Big Religion Comparison Chart: Compare World Religions - ReligionFacts




Interesting Chart, I think I save it.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Ahso! »

Honestly, I don't expect responses from PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE-FAT-MOUTHED-PUSSIES who talk out their ass.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1433994 wrote: Honestly, I don't expect responses from PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE-FAT-MOUTHED-PUSSIES who talk out their ass.


I condemn such language and speak out against it; its absolutely no call or reason to speak to anyone here in that manner;

In protest of your language, I will not post on this thread again, which I had planned on doing; its an interesting topic; but language such as yours perverts debate and insults communication. In further protest of such language, I won't even comment on any of your threads.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1434001 wrote: I condemn such language and speak out against it; its absolutely no call or reason to speak to anyone here in that manner;

In protest of your language, I will not post on this thread again, which I had planned on doing; its an interesting topic; but language such as yours perverts debate and insults communication. In further protest of such language, I won't even comment on any of your threads.You're right, Mickey. I apologize.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1410622 wrote: Interesting chart but what on earth are they doing listing atheism as a religion? All it means is that you don't believe there is a god/ all powerful being or beings. Atheism is not a religion, there is no super being, there is no a set of beliefs or doctrines you have to believe in to be an atheist. The problem with religious people is they just cannot get theiir heads round the simple fact that you don;t need to have religious faith. I suppose if they could they might be able to question their own a bit more.




Religion is just a way of life; explain to me how Atheism escapes that?
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

As I stated on a different thread, Religion can be best summarised as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things', and by this token, is an intrinsic trait of all humanity, with no category falling outside of this definition. Even the most adamant atheists' fierce opposition to the whole concept of sacred things, deities or spirituality of any kind still constitutes a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to them; and for even the most immovable agnostics, the mere notion of existence can be defined as a 'sacred thing', one which all must believe in to be truly sentient beings.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

Singh-Song;1445934 wrote: As I stated on a different thread, Religion can be best summarised as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things', and by this token, is an intrinsic trait of all humanity, with no category falling outside of this definition. Even the most adamant atheists' fierce opposition to the whole concept of sacred things, deities or spirituality of any kind still constitutes a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to them; and for even the most immovable agnostics, the mere notion of existence can be defined as a 'sacred thing', one which all must believe in to be truly sentient beings.


Exactly, and Atheism cannot hide from this definition; their a religion, hands down.

Just a religion that does not like religion.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1445928 wrote: Religion is just a way of life; explain to me how Atheism escapes that?


Because the only unifying factor is the non belief in a god. Even that daft chart has under practices, NONE. Practices NONE.

also

There is no God or divine being. Beliefs about the universe usually based on latest scientific findings.




Accepting a scientific theory as being the best explanation so far is a bit different from just believing something with no evidence - which is what is required by all the religious faiths. Prove god exists and atheists would probably be the first to say OK I'M a convert whereas the religious would ignore the evidence because it disagrees with their beliefs, or if past experience is anything to go by declare the proof heresy.

posted by singh-song

As I stated on a different thread, Religion can be best summarised as 'a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things', and by this token, is an intrinsic trait of all humanity, with no category falling outside of this definition. Even the most adamant atheists' fierce opposition to the whole concept of sacred things, deities or spirituality of any kind still constitutes a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to them; and for even the most immovable agnostics, the mere notion of existence can be defined as a 'sacred thing', one which all must believe in to be truly sentient beings.




Bollocks!! maybe you should start looking at some of the atheist arguments since you seem to know very little about it. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in god or the afterlife as featured in religion. Many will argue there is life after death personally I find the evidence a bit dubious although past and future regression is intriguing
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

gmc;1446033 wrote: Because the only unifying factor is the non belief in a god. Even that daft chart has under practices, NONE. Practices NONE.


Actually, it's the belief that nothing is sacred, and for vocal atheists such as yourself, this disbelief is clearly religiously practised and preached in the same manner as any other evangelical religion.

gmc;1446033 wrote: Accepting a scientific theory as being the best explanation so far is a bit different from just believing something with no evidence - which is what is required by all the religious faiths. Prove god exists and atheists would probably be the first to say OK I'M a convert whereas the religious would ignore the evidence because it disagrees with their beliefs, or if past experience is anything to go by declare the proof heresy.


Repeating my argument from a different thread; if you need proof of God's existence, all you need is to consider our own existence. Think of the infinitesimal chance of our coming into being. Of the big bang taking place, of a relatively stable yet dynamic universe forming from it, of our own Sun coming into being, of the infant Earth surviving in its perfect orbit instead of being flung out of the solar system or obliterated as so many of the other planetesimals were; of primitive life being born from the chemical soup, of the emergence of multicellular life, of the survival of all the stages along the evolutionary pathway which ultimately led to us. Taking all of these things into account, and looking at the minuscule probabilities involved for each of them to happen purely by chance, let alone all of them, the notion of intelligent design, and by extension God's existence, is perhaps the most scientifically sound theory possible. You'd have a higher probability of error, and hence more logical room for doubt, attempting to scientifically prove the existence of air, or making the assertion that the world is round. One would have to be a fool to discount the God theory outright without due consideration...

gmc;1446033 wrote: Bollocks!! maybe you should start looking at some of the atheist arguments since you seem to know very little about it. The only thing atheists have in common is they don't believe in god or the afterlife as featured in religion. Many will argue there is life after death personally I find the evidence a bit dubious although past and future regression is intriguing


I agree that Atheism in itself can't be defined as a religion, because as you say, many atheists have very little in common in their beliefs or practices. In general, atheists' beliefs are far too divided to be lumped together as a single cohesive faith- Atheism is as much of an umbrella term as Monotheism or Polytheism, and their inflated share of the population in any religious census serves as clear evidence of this fact. As such, for more vocal, evangelical Atheists such as yourself, I feel that the term 'Antitheism' would be far more appropriate- which is somewhat ironic, because this branch of Atheism is the most blatantly religious of all. But please, feel free to continue preaching it to us...
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

Actually, it's the belief that nothing is sacred, and for vocal atheists such as yourself, this disbelief is clearly religiously practised and preached in the same manner as any other evangelical religion.


That's what you like to think it is, some people don't believe there is a god others can't get their heads round the notion they might have believe something that is nonsensical and just don't want to think too deeply about it.

posted by singh-song

Repeating my argument from a different thread; if you need proof of God's existence, all you need is to consider our own existence. Think of the infinitesimal chance of our coming into being. Of the big bang taking place, of a relatively stable yet dynamic universe forming from it, of our own Sun coming into being, of the infant Earth surviving in its perfect orbit instead of being flung out of the solar system or obliterated as so many of the other planetesimals were; of primitive life being born from the chemical soup, of the emergence of multicellular life, of the survival of all the stages along the evolutionary pathway which ultimately led to us. Taking all of these things into account, and looking at the minuscule probabilities involved for each of them to happen purely by chance, let alone all of them, the notion of intelligent design, and by extension God's existence, is perhaps the most scientifically sound theory possible. You'd have a higher probability of error, and hence more logical room for doubt, attempting to scientifically prove the existence of air, or making the assertion that the world is round. One would have to be a fool to discount the God theory outright without due consideration...




That just proves you exist, how you came in to being you don't know for sure all you can do is look at the evidence and try and work it out. Giving the credit to god it was god just because you don't know the answer is not much of an argument.

Taking all of these things into account, and looking at the minuscule probabilities involved for each of them to happen purely by chance, let alone all of them, the notion of intelligent design, and by extension God's existence, is perhaps the most scientifically sound theory possible. You'd have a higher probability of error, and hence more logical room for doubt, attempting to scientifically prove the existence of air, or making the assertion that the world is round. One would have to be a fool to discount the God theory outright without due consideration...


No it's not, what it boils down to is I don't know therefore it must be god.

It would be a mistake on your part to assume I have not studied the "god theory" as you put it. How else would |I come to the conclusion there is no god? Faith requires unthinking belief for the simple reason you can't be religious without it. All the religious trappings of the various religions are irrelevant without that basic willingness to believe what you are told no matter how ludicrous. .

As to evangelical atheism - that seems to be a mainly American phenomenon perhaps as a response to the christian fundamentalists attempts to impose their brand of Christianity on everybody whether they like it or not.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Bruv »

Singh-Song;1446045 wrote:

Repeating my argument from a different thread; if you need proof of God's existence, all you need is to consider our own existence.
This should be good....... Think of the infinitesimal chance of our coming into being. Of the big bang taking place, of a relatively stable yet dynamic universe forming from it, of our own Sun coming into being, of the infant Earth surviving in its perfect orbit instead of being flung out of the solar system or obliterated as so many of the other planetesimals were; of primitive life being born from the chemical soup, of the emergence of multicellular life, of the survival of all the stages along the evolutionary pathway which ultimately led to us. Taking all of these things into account, and looking at the minuscule probabilities involved for each of them to happen purely by chance, let alone all of them, the notion of intelligent design, and by extension God's existence, is perhaps the most scientifically sound theory possible.




So...................rather than believe over a length of time incomprehensible to individuals that measures their existance in terms of minutes hours and years, that events coincided randomly but surely over millions and millions of years to bring about the world we have today.

Or.....................that a super being existed.......and formed such a complicated inter related system out of thin air for his own satisfaction or entertainment.

Can I go away and give this some serious thought?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Bruv »

So.......................God ....(with a big G)..... has always existed ?

Forever and always ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

gmc;1446063 wrote: That's what you like to think it is, some people don't believe there is a god others can't get their heads round the notion they might have believe something that is nonsensical and just don't want to think too deeply about it.


There are plenty of other religions which don't believe in a God either; Buddhism, several sects of Hinduism, Jainism, Paganism, Raelism and many other faiths either accept or actively preach the belief that there is no God. Presumably, you don't believe in the legitimacy of any of these faiths' religious beliefs and practices; therefore this is clearly an inadequate description of Atheism. (BTW, your spelling and grammar are atrocious. I presume you're trying to say 'the notion that they might have belief in something that is nonsensical)

gmc;1446063 wrote: That just proves you exist, how you came in to being you don't know for sure all you can do is look at the evidence and try and work it out. Giving the credit to god it was god just because you don't know the answer is not much of an argument.

No it's not, what it boils down to is I don't know therefore it must be god.


No, it takes the fact that we exist as a given, and proves that can be no other logical explanation for how we came to do so other than the existence of some higher power. It doesn't boil down to, 'I don't know=God'. I do know that the notion of all these things happening by chance is ludicrous, and that there must have been some guiding cause which ultimately led to our coming into being. You might choose to call it fate or destiny, I would call it God, but regardless of our differing interpretations of the higher power's nature, we would both be attempting to describe the same phenomenon.

How can it be dismissed as mere coincidence? Consider the likelihood of every single thing on the list coming to pass purely by chance, each with odds lower than any lottery, all piled up on top of one another as one giant accumulator bet. The chance of winning such a bet would be the margin of error in a purely scientific analysis of the God theory; and how many other scientific theories can you list which can be claimed to approach that margin of error today, let alone those which even came close to reaching that infinitesimal margin of error through testing before being acknowledged by the scientific community as 'proven'? The answer- NONE. As such, adopting a purely scientific approach, the notion of intelligent design, and hence a presence of a 'higher authority' of some shape or form, is impossible to reject outright without doing the same for every other scientific theory in existence.

gmc;1446063 wrote: It would be a mistake on your part to assume I have not studied the "god theory" as you put it. How else would |I come to the conclusion there is no god? Faith requires unthinking belief for the simple reason you can't be religious without it. All the religious trappings of the various religions are irrelevant without that basic willingness to believe what you are told no matter how ludicrous.


Faith requires thinking belief, not unthinking belief; if not, then surely religion would be a common feature to all forms of life, and one which we would share with any computer. Since this is clearly not the case, surely this is proof that your derisory statement is false? And Faith is not a trait exclusive to religion- faith is a trait which is required to accept any information. To accept a scientific theory, you must have faith in the scientists and those who teach it to you; to accept the social systems in which we live, we must have some measure of faith in our authorities and the rule of law. To follow any of these systems requires some element of faith, and as such some element of willing acceptance. In the most extreme, fanatical cases, this could be argued constitute unthinking belief- but for the formation of all of these systems, including the religious ones, intelligent thought had to be a prerequisite.
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

Bruv;1446064 wrote: This should be good.......

So...................rather than believe over a length of time incomprehensible to individuals that measures their existance in terms of minutes hours and years, that events coincided randomly but surely over millions and millions of years to bring about the world we have today.

Or.....................that a super being existed.......and formed such a complicated inter related system out of thin air for his own satisfaction or entertainment.

Can I go away and give this some serious thought?


Far from it. Based on the evidence, I would be inclined to believe that, over a length of time incomprehensible to humans, these events played slowly but surely over billions of years brought about the world we have today, life, and ultimately ourselves, not purely by random coincidence, but due to some underlying cause. Now, we could simply call this fate, or destiny; we could dismiss this, as so many including yourself seem to wish to do, as "We can't explain it, so there must be nothing there and we don't care", or you could take the third approach, as I do, and be of the opinion that the existence of a higher authority to serve as that underlying cause is currently the best theory that we have to fit the data.
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

Anyway, going back to the original post which kicked off this thread, and the criticism of Atheism's inclusion on the list which took things off on a tangent. Take a look at the other religious faiths on the list, and you'll see that plenty of them- Theraveda Buddhism, Confucianism, Satanism and Scientology- are atheistic religions. As such, surely we can come to the safe conclusion that, in itself, the lack of belief in a 'Super Being' does not discount one from being a religious participant?
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

posted by singh-song

There are plenty of other religions which don't believe in a God either; Buddhism, several sects of Hinduism, Jainism, Paganism, Raelism and many other faiths either accept or actively preach the belief that there is no God. Presumably, you don't believe in the legitimacy of any of these faiths' religious beliefs and practices; therefore this is clearly an inadequate description of Atheism. (BTW, your spelling and grammar are atrocious. I presume you're trying to say 'the notion that they might have belief in something that is nonsensical)


To be classed as a religion there has to be a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. and/or A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion usually entailing a system of principles or lifestyle with a spiritual leader offering guidance. Atheists have neither.

No, it takes the fact that we exist as a given, and proves that can be no other logical explanation for how we came to do so other than the existence of some higher power. It doesn't boil down to, 'I don't know=God'. I do know that the notion of all these things happening by chance is ludicrous, and that there must have been some guiding cause which ultimately led to our coming into being. You might choose to call it fate or destiny, I would call it God, but regardless of our differing interpretations of the higher power's nature, we would both be attempting to describe the same phenomenon.


No it doesn't. I think therefore I exist therefore god made me is not proof that god exists however much you like to repeat it.

To accept a scientific theory, you must have faith in the scientists and those who teach it to you; to accept the social systems in which we live, we must have some measure of faith in our authorities and the rule of law. To follow any of these systems requires some element of faith, and as such some element of willing acceptance. In the most extreme, fanatical cases, this could be argued constitute unthinking belief- but for the formation of all of these systems, including the religious ones, intelligent thought had to be a prerequisite.


No it doesn't I can check out the evidence for myself and decide whether the conclusions are ones I wish to accept or not. Tell me have you ever been on a plane? Do you believe it is only belief in the theory of flight that keeps the plane in the air or is there a bit of scientific theory behind what the designers are doing that gives you confidence?

we must have some measure of faith in our authorities and the rule of law.


No we don't, religion was designed as a way for those in authority to keep control of the population. Do you know anything about the protestant reformation and the age of enlightenment which was a direct result of that faith in religious and temporal authorities being seen for the sham it actually was - Why do think religion is seen as right wing and reactionary in those countries that went through it.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Bruv »

Bruv;1446065 wrote: So.......................God ....(with a big G)..... has always existed ?

Forever and always ?


Well?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

Religion is not so easy to be defined if you exclude Atheism from it. Atheism is just a religion that does not like organized religion; and it takes pride in its unorganized stance. Atheism is a collection of cultural systems that relate to humanity, and so is religion. You can define religion without placing God in the definition. But you cannot define the Atheist definition of Atheism without placing God in it; if it needs God in the definition, its a religion.

If it needs God out of it, its a religion that is running from God.

Mickiel...
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1446108 wrote: Religion is not so easy to be defined if you exclude Atheism from it. Atheism is just a religion that does not like organized religion; and it takes pride in its unorganized stance. Atheism is a collection of cultural systems that relate to humanity, and so is religion. You can define religion without placing God in the definition. But you cannot define the Atheist definition of Atheism without placing God in it; if it needs God in the definition, its a religion.

If it needs God out of it, its a religion that is running from God.

Mickiel...


Bollocks. Logic is not one of your string points is it. No matter how often you repeat yourself it still doesn't make it true. I love it when religious people try and argue an atheist is just following another religion, it means they have accepted they don't have any arguments against it si try and change the debate in to a pseudo pantomime it's a religion oh no it isn't type of debate and think they have won when those disagreeing get fed up.

You believe in god prove he exists. You can't therefore he doesn't exist.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1446121 wrote: Bollocks. Logic is not one of your string points is it. No matter how often you repeat yourself it still doesn't make it true.

God doesn't exist prove otherwise if you can.


Sure I can prove it, as long as you promise not to cry and have a hissy fit.

And I'll use you and your threads to prove it if you like.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1446123 wrote: Sure I can prove it, as long as you promise not to cry and have a hissy fit.

And I'll use you and your threads to prove it if you like.


Whether you agree to this or not, I am in the mood of using Atheist threads to prove many points during the coming week anyway.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by YZGI »

Mickiel;1446123 wrote: Sure I can prove it, as long as you promise not to cry and have a hissy fit.

And I'll use you and your threads to prove it if you like.


Mickiel;1446124 wrote: Whether you agree to this or not, I am in the mood of using Atheist threads to prove many points during the coming week anyway.


Won't you need an agnostic judge for this event?
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

YZGI;1446125 wrote: Won't you need an agnostic judge for this event?


Why not? Lets have at it, and have some fun while at it.

By the way, I have made an effort to remove most of my threads from the religion discussion front page, so I am not competing in your competition thread, you may as well remove my name from it, I am going to change the face of this page and try to stop certain people from crying.

And let the Atheist have their toy back.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by YZGI »

Mickiel;1446128 wrote: Why not? Lets have at it, and have some fun while at it.

By the way, I have made an effort to remove most of my threads from the religion discussion front page, so I am not competing in your competition thread, you may as well remove my name from it, I am going to change the face of this page and try to stop certain people from crying.

And let the Atheist have their toy back.


That was not the purpose. No offense was intended to any sides or parties, I was just having fun.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by YZGI »

Mickiel;1446128 wrote: Why not? Lets have at it, and have some fun while at it.

By the way, I have made an effort to remove most of my threads from the religion discussion front page, so I am not competing in your competition thread, you may as well remove my name from it, I am going to change the face of this page and try to stop certain people from crying.

And let the Atheist have their toy back.


Also, I am not an agnostic, I'm more of a believer with reservations.
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

gmc;1446101 wrote: posted by singh-song



To be classed as a religion there has to be a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. and/or A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion usually entailing a system of principles or lifestyle with a spiritual leader offering guidance. Atheists have neither.


Belief in something does not constitute reverence for it (examples- Hinduism, Jainism, Deism, Epicureanism). Also, plenty of faiths practice the worship of deities or sacred things other than those regarded as the creators and/or supreme authorities of their universes. As for your other proviso, 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion usually entailing a system of principles or lifestyle with a spiritual leader offering guidance'- how does Atheism fall outside of this definition? Don't prominent atheists such as Marx, Freud, Dawkins and Sagan count as spiritual leaders offering guidance?

gmc;1446101 wrote: No it doesn't. I think therefore I exist therefore god made me is not proof that god exists however much you like to repeat it.


Well, if you want to be pedantic, the first part of the argument, 'I think, therefore I am', is a bit flimsier, and a bit harder to find irrefutable proof for. Care to give it a try?

gmc;1446101 wrote: No it doesn't I can check out the evidence for myself and decide whether the conclusions are ones I wish to accept or not. Tell me have you ever been on a plane? Do you believe it is only belief in the theory of flight that keeps the plane in the air or is there a bit of scientific theory behind what the designers are doing that gives you confidence?


Good example, and one which I will now subject to the same ultra-sceptic views you adopt towards the theory of Theism. How many human beings have ever been on a plane? Most estimates suggest the the figure still only equates to less than 20% of the world's current population. Let's be generous (far more generous than you would ever be when dealing with the viability of religion) and double that number, for the number of people which would live directly underneath the flightpaths and be in a position to directly observe it for themselves (assuming that not a single one of these people comes up with their own theory to dismiss the notion of their existence- new species of giant birds, cloud formations, shooting stars, spirit lights, the build-up for an upcoming alien invasion etc). This still only equates to roughly two in five people can actually bear testament to what keeps a plane in the air, and as such, for someone who has never been on board an aircraft or seen an aircraft in flight with their naked eyes, choosing to believe that manned flight is possible should be a huge leap of faith. And as for the science behind it, how much knowledge do you actually have of the laws of aerodynamics? How many flight hours have been notched up by every aircraft to have ever flown since the Wright brothers took to the air? A fair few, true; but look at all of the aircraft which have crashed in that time. All of the designs which have refused to take to the air, in spite of their designers having made the calculations and taken aerodynamics into account.

Adopting your attitude thus far, nothing can be considered as a proven theory, or even as a viable theory, without complete and absolute proof; and if we consider each flight to be a scientific test of the theory's validity, given that manned powered flight has had far less than a 100% success rate over the course of human history, we could easily choose to take this as proof that the laws of aerodynamics are undoubtedly wrong. After all, in your words, 'only a fool' would choose to believe in a theory with such a high margin of error. And the most modern aircraft of all, the 5th-generation air superiority fighters coming into service today, are all aerodynamically unstable designs. Yet somehow they all fly. Surely this should, by your reasoning, be taken as irrefutable proof that the laws of aerodynamics are fundamentally flawed? "We can fly without them. There are all of these aircraft, the newest, most advanced aircraft in the world, which can clearly fly, in spite of these supposed 'laws' stating that they shouldn't be able to, that they should be crashing and burning the moment they get airborne. Only an idiot would still believe in the theory of 'aerodynamics', in this day and age. It's as dead as the dinosaurs- get over it!"

gmc;1446101 wrote: No we don't, religion was designed as a way for those in authority to keep control of the population. Do you know anything about the protestant reformation and the age of enlightenment which was a direct result of that faith in religious and temporal authorities being seen for the sham it actually was - Why do think religion is seen as right wing and reactionary in those countries that went through it.


Of course it was. (Not that the Protestant Reformation or the Age of Enlightenment are really relevant in any way if you're trying to substantiate this point. Also, the vast majority of the world's nations still have state religions- and you'd have thought that the reactionary political viewpoint's polar opposite, radicalism, would be a far better tag to assign to the popular view of fundamental religion, but there you go...) But the statement I made, that "we must have some measure of faith in our authorities and the rule of law", was about societies, not religions. And given that the vast majority of humanity does not live in a state of perpetual anarchy, but chooses to abide by, or at least pay attention to, the laws of the societies in which they live, it's pretty hard to contest this point.
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

gmc;1446121 wrote: Bollocks. Logic is not one of your string points is it. No matter how often you repeat yourself it still doesn't make it true. I love it when religious people try and argue an atheist is just following another religion, it means they have accepted they don't have any arguments against it si try and change the debate in to a pseudo pantomime it's a religion oh no it isn't type of debate and think they have one when those disagreeing get fed up.

You believe in god prove he exists. You can;t therefore he doesn't exist.


Thought experiment: You believe in your own existence, prove that you exist. You can't, therefore you don't exist. (Remind me, why am I talking to myself again...:-3)
User avatar
Singh-Song
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:49 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Singh-Song »

Bruv;1446104 wrote: Well?


Depends on how you define 'Always', doesn't it? We've already scientifically proven that time isn't a linear constant. And as for 'Forever', how do we speculate on this with the intrinsic limitations on our ability to make observations? Which reference point do we choose to adopt as the 'Dawn of Time'? If we take this to be 'The Big Bang', then yes, this would be a perfectly logical conclusion to arrive at. After all, if God is infinite, then God must be all that there is, and to our knowledge, all that there is came into being with the birth of our Universe.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Mickiel »

YZGI;1446130 wrote: That was not the purpose. No offense was intended to any sides or parties, I was just having fun.


Well thank you for the comparrison to ever ready batterys, that just keep going; again, I am honored.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by gmc »

Singh-Song;1446138 wrote: Thought experiment: You believe in your own existence, prove that you exist. You can't, therefore you don't exist. (Remind me, why am I talking to myself again...:-3)


cogito ergo sum. Attributed to descartes but he was hardly the first to posit the question how do i know I exist. I can prove it to my satisfaction not necessarily to yours. We could all be figments of your fevered imagination you never know. You imagine god exists why not forumgarden?:sneaky::D

How I view the world around me follows on from that and just because I don't know how I came in to existence or why I see no reason to assume god did it.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by YZGI »

Mickiel;1446143 wrote: Well thank you for the comparrison to ever ready batterys, that just keep going; again, I am honored.


I guess this means you didn't get a chuckle out of that? Well I did and I just got another. Life is serious enough, no reason to make it more serious.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by Bruv »

Singh-Song;1446139 wrote: Depends on how you define 'Always', doesn't it? We've already scientifically proven that time isn't a linear constant. And as for 'Forever', how do we speculate on this with the intrinsic limitations on our ability to make observations? Which reference point do we choose to adopt as the 'Dawn of Time'? If we take this to be 'The Big Bang', then yes, this would be a perfectly logical conclusion to arrive at. After all, if God is infinite, then God must be all that there is, and to our knowledge, all that there is came into being with the birth of our Universe.


Well......it all depends what you define as a linear constant...blah de blah de blah.

If I step back into this type of thread again damn me to a life in purgatory.......for that's all I will be worthy of.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Religion Comparison Chart

Post by YZGI »

YZGI;1446131 wrote: Also, I am not an agnostic, I'm more of a believer with reservations.


The double entendre on reservations was intentional.
Post Reply

Return to “General Religious Discussions”