Printable View
a religion that dosen't follow any religion. Basically a religion that pleads the fifth all the time.
because I don't believe in and higher diety, but i don't follow Scientology. Atheism seems to follow this somewhat but it seems to go about it in the wrong way, like it doesn't respect anyone else for their beliefs.
I need a religion that doesn't believe in any religions but at the same time respects others religions
1. Atheism is not a religion.
2. We can totally respect religions. Some don't, some do.
3. If you actively disbelieve in God, you are an atheist. Atheism is a label, not a religion - you don't subscribe to it, you simply are or aren't.
lol
you sir win the game
/thread
/10char
/notgonnahappenchar
/areyouseriouschar
/gonna/yourchar
scorpio
ahh, i see, the thing is when i first heard of atheism it was a bunch of people just to shoot other people down and destroy their beliefs. I didn't want to do any of that because i really do respect other religions as what others believe as the base of existenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Xenonight2
It's a label for a system of thought that rejects the existence of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
It can be for whatever reason you want.
You could be a conscientious objector of religion. (Nevermind...)
As takkun88 said, agnostic. It's a philosophy of seeing something as it is to you, with all due respect. Atheism and agnosticism can be defined many ways and all depend on the person holding the beliefs. It is not like a religion where you must fit into the certain, preset criteria. It is flexible and is molded for the person, not for an organization.
I study religion, so feel free to ask questions. It's one of my favorite topics.
Edit: And if you're wondering, my faith is best described as Agnostic Idealist. (An example of it's flexibility.)
That's just asking for a flame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orpheus
I personally don't care for religion.
Nah some people I know do it to seriously hook up with people they think are "wholesome" or can share a common "activity." And why not?
Religion was meant to build a sort of bonding and unity. Us against them. Minority against majority. We will overcome them with peace and love while they resort to violence with science. Not true in all cases. But you can't deny that a number of beliefs build on that "underdog" mentality.
I'm just saying that in most religions, you are not free to wonder. They tell you that this is the way it was and that's that. Deciding you do not believe in just one aspect of the belief is considered blasphemy. It's all or nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KniteOps
If you want a religion that doesn't care what other's think about it....try Buddhism.
But eh I am a pantheist. God is the universe. We where born from his womb and we have been growing ever since.
Please respond in detail. If you're going to reference a text, please tell me which text you are referencing. My experience with Christianity stems from reading the King James version of the Holy Bible. Also due to the many denominations and the difference between Protestant sects and Roman Catholic sects I would prefer if you also included that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pok
There is the book of Leviticus which states how people should worship, serve, and obey God. In this book it discusses how burn offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, trespass offering, restitution, and numerous other rituals and methods of conduct should be conducted. This was stated in the Old Testament of the Bible. Additionally if you didn't conduct it properly then it was a sin, but Jesus didn't come until the New Testament so popular belief is that the majority of the Hebrew people were sent to purgatory. To be honest, I'm not too of the the textual reference for this assumption.
Unsubstantiated. Have you read the Bible in it's entirety? There's a lot of things to keep radical fundamentalists in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pok
Most theology students see the Bible as being a contextual document that was gathered by merchants who had popular books on paper for sale. The version of the Bible that we have today are only the popular manuscripts that were able to be carried over into modern society leaving behind various sub-texts that could add into the Bible. Looking at this perspective does undermine the legitimacy of the Bible and have led certain scholars to look into the background of the authors. For example, in the book of Revelation the apostle John was exiled to the island of Patmos where he was forced to mine endlessly. Many students believe that John may have gone insane during his isolation due to the type of rocks he was mining which had hallucinogenic properties and inspired him to write Revelation. The Bible was written by people and not all people are perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pok
I have read this text on my own time for leisure. I have also read the Koran but that wasn't nearly as fresh in my mind. I just get pissed off when people attempt to define religion without any textual reference. It's disgusting. I'm not even a religious advocate for Christ's sake. I just hate people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. This thread is probably just going to piss me off and isn't a Christian thread per se. I regret attempting to put substance into my post. I forgot that such actions are not reciprocated on this forum board. Because everyone here just loves to be an asshole, myself included. If hell existed, I would probably be there. And if by unfortunate circumstances other people are there, then we could start a party. The more the merrier. I really don't care about the after life. I think it's a bunch of consequentalist b.s. that ruins the mood for Christianity and a lot of other religions. I believe what I believe in because it's the truth. Not because I want to get into some ritzy place high in the skies.
Atheism is mostly use by religions people who find out that person don't believe in there god so they call that person Atheist and Atheist is not religion is just label people who accept life without a god. I think it wrong religion judge people who don't believe in there god and calls a bad person. But religions is more a sin then not have one. Because god kill more people then atheism person would
Blaze I bet you didn't know that Jesus kills Dumbledore in the Half Blood Bible.
Sounds like you're...Neutral.
XD Couldn't help myself.
Also - why do you "NEED A RELIGION"? Thats like saying "I NEED to label myself". Just be man. Why do you need a category?
i dont have a religion
and im not athiest so call me one and ill show you what type of mans dick that can put holes through trees can do to you
He probably doesn't want to be defined by a label.
Regardless, there is a label for every possible position, I think.
I neither confirm nor deny any deity. I'm apathetic toward it all.
Look, I'm sorry that my existence is enough to prove wrong your very argument, but I can't change being born.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
For those watching at home, I'll explain why Irony is misusing application here.
He says: "You either believe in something or you don't.".
This is a trick statement that leads a lot of people to assume that it means: "You either believe in God or you believe he doesn't exist.".
It doesn't, no matter how much he loves to make people believe that and make his debate easier.
Not believing in God is not an act of believing in his non-existence, it's an act of not believing in his existence.
You can, like me, not believe in God and still not be sure if he exists or not. You can not believe in God and still feel that you can't be sure he doesn't exist.
IronyTaken likes to trick people, that's all. He doesn't like that you can, factually, sit on the fence.
So basically you are an atheist because you don't believe in god and an agnostic because you don't know if he exists or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Cool you are an atheist agnostic just like me.
switching negatives around will not change the outcome here.
Then everyone's an agnostic, if what you just said is what you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
That's what you just implied.
I'll leave you to figure out why.
Never speak based on what people "consider" fact.
You don't "consider" fact. Fact is or fact is not. There's no subjective fact.
Do they know God exists, or do they think they know...despite factually not knowing?Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
It does, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Simply because there's a bit of a drop-off between thinking something is true and knowing something is true.
It's not a difference that can be ignored.
Nobody knows God exists, this is an inarguable fact. People are only sure that their faith is placed correctly, they do not actually know.
No, you're labelling however best suits your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
I am not an atheistic anything. I am an agnostic. You do not have say in this matter. You believe I am somewhat atheist because of your odd version of atheism. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work.
You literally have the free will to label me, but you're factually wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
My word over me will always trump yours. If you say I'm atheistic anything, and I say: "No, I'm not.", you don't get a say. You do not have equal word on me. Nobody has higher word on any human but themselves.
Unconvinced is agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Atheists are totally convinced that there is no God.
Is Richard Dawkins unconvinced? Read The God Delusion. That's a hell of a lot of pages, and I didn't exactly get the feeling that he's sitting there saying: "Umm....God? No God? GOSH DARN IT I CANNOT CHOOSE!". It's called The God Delusion, he's one of the world's most famous atheists on top of that.
It's not called The God Maybe. It's a man clearly identifying himself as, and being identified as, atheist, telling everyone else why God doesn't exist and why he dislikes agnostics. Yet, even he admits that nobody is 100% atheist. So not only does HE prove you wrong also, but he proves me correct on two counts.
1) Nobody is sure and everyone is agnostic by logic.
2) Atheism is belief that there's no God.
No, you're plain and simply incorrect. It's there for all to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
You already missed the beginning hahahah!Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
Because walking to Mount Doom and back in order to have something to call yourself is a foolish endeavor. All titles do is give people a way to describe themselves, something that can easily be done without one.Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
And just for the record, I was helping him.
Well labels can easily lead to a misconception as it is doing so in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
Easiest way to end this argument would be to just address the main information and leave the label alone.
If you are not convinced there is a god then fine "you are not convinced there is a god".
I call that atheism you can call it firbalicious if you want, but it doesn't change the meaning,
but your pushing your view on him, thats not nice. :hmm: if he wants to label himself thats his problem...regardless of how you view it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacn
uh oh........Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
I don't care what people REALLY think.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Nobody factually knows for sure. Also, you did just equate religious people with the mentally ill.
Funny.
Various levels of atheism in the sense that not everyone is going to write a book about why God isn't real, like he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Not everyone is Richard Dawkins, but if you're an atheist...you're an atheist.
My example was used because you said "Atheism = Unconvinced". This is factually untrue, as I've proven. If an atheist is unsure, they're not atheist.
It's genuinely like talking to a brick wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronyTaken
Historically, it was used with negative connotations since the very beginning. If anything, its historical creation could be considered tongue-in-cheek. It was born because people sought to mock those who had come to believe in Gods, which they didn't believe in themselves.
They used the term atheos, which means "Without God", to mean that they are without God due to rejecting the beliefs of God or deities. It was, if anything, tongue-in-cheek.
You could say the exact same thing if I suggested a religion. If I said he should become a Catholic, you could say I shouldn't be pushing my religion on him. He wanted advice on the subject and I gave it to him. I did not force him to accept my views.Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
exactly...but if it doesnt agree with someone pov, its offensive...>_>Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacn
I've always said that if someone's intentions were not what the person being offended interpreted them as, which caused them to be offended in the first place, then they should simply accept that and not be offended.Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Opolis
ill read this in the morning and try to interpret it...that made no sense to me.O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
anywho, wheres my paper, i need to write Christianity on some paper and start shoving it down some throats.. make sure to chew.
I think oprah just came out with a religion something like this. But i think its more belieive what you want type religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutral
Though it would serve no purpose anyways.
I haven't seen Neutral post in a while. I wonder what he's thinking?
You've woken the wall of text beast!?!
/pats Norrie
OT (well kind of off)
Reminds me of: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Atheists do not follow scientology, what the hell would make you think that, we have our own beliefs, and none of them involve any form of god(s) or goddess(es).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutral
Oh, and if neowin.net ever gets their forums back up & running, they have a big discussion going on in the Official Religion Thread.
Read to page 8, time to use Irony's statements and reverse them.
Either you know a god exists or you dont.
That's the definition of Agonist, correct ? Does the word "Think" appear anywhere ?
Therefore your statements are incorrect