Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Are you Christian,Atheist,Muslim,Satanist,Shamanism or maybe you just believe in yourself?
There are many believ's,which one did you chose?

Originally posted by Arel
Are you Christian,Atheist,Muslim,Satanist,Shamanism or maybe you just believe in yourself?
There are many believ's,which one did you chose?

I am a Buddhist.

I'm a christian-The theacings of Jesus Christ
But i think im becoming more and more of a Ietsist

Originally posted by Arel
I'm a christian-The theacings of Jesus Christ
But i think im becoming more and more of a Ietsist

But an Ietsist would not believe in Jesus divinity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But an Ietsist would not believe in Jesus divinity.
Well i'm starting more to believe that there is something ''above'' but it's not the God that i've been taught about.

Originally posted by Arel
Well i'm starting more to believe that there is something ''above'' but it's not the God that i've been taught about.

I know what you mean. I personally believe that the universe is a living being.

Yeah,i remember there is even such a belief that theaches that a spirit or divinity resides within every object,animist or smth like that

Originally posted by Arel
Yeah,i remember there is even such a belief that theaches that a spirit or divinity resides within every object,animist or smth like that

Take it one step further, everything is part of a living being, and there is no divinity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Take it one step further, everything is part of a living being, and there is no divinity.

Indeed...

Pantheism's overrated.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Pantheism's overrated.



It lacks substance.

Neon Genesis Evangelion?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It lacks substance.

Yeah, pretty much. Pantheism essentially amounts to "all is sacred." Or "all is God/holy/happiness/nirvana/etc." But if everything is, nothing is. It becomes so vague and diluted that it loses meaningful purpose. I have no problem admitting that subjective interpretation of existence means that we can find meaning, purpose, happiness, etc. in any aspect of existence. But that's a rational analysis of the state of our consciousness. To grant it a mystical import beyond that is needless.

Now, shakya's comment that the universe is a living, sentient entity is a bit different, but would need some sort of evidence to support it. There is none. That's decidedly different than traditional pantheism, though no less outlandish. The only way we could support such a claim would be to define "life" in such a way that it is equivalent to "energy" or "matter." It loses meaning, and again just becomes a needless spiritualizing of empirical facts. Unified consciousness fields abound in mystical thought, and are appropriately poetic and comforting to many, though they all lack a credible basis of evidence to build off of.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, pretty much. Pantheism essentially amounts to "all is sacred." Or "all is God/holy/happiness/nirvana/etc." But if everything is, nothing is. It becomes so vague and diluted that it loses meaningful purpose. I have no problem admitting that subjective interpretation of existence means that we can find meaning, purpose, happiness, etc. in any aspect of existence. But that's a rational analysis of the state of our consciousness. To grant it a mystical import beyond that is needless.

Now, shakya's comment that the universe is a living, sentient entity is a bit different, but would need some sort of evidence to support it. There is none. That's decidedly different than traditional pantheism, though no less outlandish. The only way we could support such a claim would be to define "life" in such a way that it is equivalent to "energy" or "matter." It loses meaning, and again just becomes a needless spiritualizing of empirical facts. Unified consciousness fields abound in mystical thought, and are appropriately poetic and comforting to many, though they all lack a credible basis of evidence to build off of.

However, I don't go that far. I realize that beyond our understanding is a true reality. I simply choose to believe that all things are alive, because the alternative is there is no such thing as life. However I think that reality is somewhat different then those two choices, but it is beyond me to ever understand. So, to see all things as life is more beneficial. It is a leap of faith, but it is not blind faith.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I don't go that far. I realize that beyond our understanding is a true reality.

Speculation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I simply choose to believe that all things are alive, because the alternative is there is no such thing as life.

You're setting it up as a zero-sum game, or more colloquially as a duality. Either everything is alive or nothing is? That's a bit absurd to me. Let's say we use "sentience" as a stand-in for life. I don't think anyone would argue that each cell, or any particle of matter, has life or sentience, but organisms certainly do. A larger body, for example a community, similarly doesn't have a collective consciousness. It's individual ones interacting to produce various results.

But you're trying to use a reductionist formula, at which point, if we go to maybe the atomic level, nothing is "alive." That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist. It's kind of like Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics. People who use quantum mechanics to try to push their own agendas often try to discredit Einsteinian models, saying it's not compatable with QM. It isn't. But the reverse is true too. Quantum mechanics become meaningless once you reach anything larger than the atomic level. Both are incomplete but true. But looking at life as either all or nothing is similar incomplete. Viewing it as different organisms and clusters is equally valid, and much more practical when defining life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However I think that reality is somewhat different then those two choices, but it is beyond me to ever understand. So, to see all things as life is more beneficial. It is a leap of faith, but it is not blind faith.

I don't see how it isn't blind. You're admitting you can't understand it, then arbitrarily making a decision based off of which one "seems" more right, or which is more beneficial to your worldview. It's every bit as blind as any other belief. Which isn't to say it's certainly false, but that nothing exists to support the theory as of right now. It's also not harmful in any way, so it's more bening than some beliefs, but that doesn't make it any more suspect....and still lends credence to the idea of faith itself, which I think is a poison in many situations.

Originally posted by chithappens
Neon Genesis Evangelion?

I agree,

NOT SURE. yet I have a belief system that incommpases others...we sorta overlap others...and, I know what I certainly know..I don't have a name for it yet except deb..ism....sorry for that, but it is one for being true to ones own self and also treating others as you would like to be treated....seems there isn't a religion for that..it was supposed to be called christian but found it was not true..

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Speculation.

As if there was anything else other then speculation when it comes to the topic of what is life. After all, the idea of life is something we made up to describe something we observe in nature. We do not understand what is really going on.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're setting it up as a zero-sum game, or more colloquially as a duality. Either everything is alive or nothing is? That's a bit absurd to me. Let's say we use "sentience" as a stand-in for life. I don't think anyone would argue that each cell, or any particle of matter, has life or sentience, but organisms certainly do. A larger body, for example a community, similarly doesn't have a collective consciousness. It's individual ones interacting to produce various results.

I did say that I believe that the true nature of reality is different then this duality. However, after spending a lot of time going through this line of thought, I have come to the opinion that we really don’t know. Now, Buddhism takes it one step further with the idea of the Mystic Law. In the 3rd chapter of the Lotus Sutra, the multitude of followers ask Buddha to reveal the true nature of reality. Reluctantly, Buddha starts to tell the people, but then the next line is the crowd praising Buddha for his great wisdom. It’s like a part of the story is missing, but it’s not. The truth is that no one can understand the true nature of reality, therefore, no one can write it down, not even Buddha.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But you're trying to use a reductionist formula, at which point, if we go to maybe the atomic level, nothing is "alive." That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist. It's kind of like Einsteinian physics and quantum mechanics. People who use quantum mechanics to try to push their own agendas often try to discredit Einsteinian models, saying it's not compatable with QM. It isn't. But the reverse is true too. Quantum mechanics become meaningless once you reach anything larger than the atomic level. Both are incomplete but true. But looking at life as either all or nothing is similar incomplete. Viewing it as different organisms and clusters is equally valid, and much more practical when defining life.

I agree, and all this tells us is that Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian Physics are both wrong, at some point. The idea of life is also, wrong at some level. Now does this mean that the idea of life is wrong all together? No. But if you are going to talk about something as far out there as God, then you have to remind yourself that we made it all up.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't see how it isn't blind. You're admitting you can't understand it, then arbitrarily making a decision based off of which one "seems" more right, or which is more beneficial to your worldview. Its every bit as blind as any other belief. Which isn't to say it's certainly false, but that nothing exists to support the theory as of right now.

This could be a point of definition. I feel that a person with bland faith will not listen to other views because they refuse to see anything else but their own beliefs. A choice to believe something does not qualify as bland faith as long as the person is able to see other points of view.

i believe i dont believe in anything................

Originally posted by anaconda
i believe i dont believe in anything................

Then you believe in something that is not true.

Things are alive, ya know. I talk to them...

i dont believe i do

Originally posted by anaconda
i dont believe i do

I lost track three loops ago.

a belief is a belief no matter what it is. To have a belief in no belief is still a belief. Right?

Tell that to U.S. history textbooks when they talk about Native Americans.

They make their religions seem completely idiotic.

Actually it's more in tune with what many people believe today in some retrospect, but yes, you're right.

I believe in faith... faith in the Creator..There is something more out there than any of us...who and what the creator is none knows here on earth...except what you feel inside...somethin like that

I believe in faith also. Faith in the positive which brings about change.

Originally posted by chithappens
Tell that to U.S. history textbooks when they talk about Native Americans.

They make their religions seem completely idiotic.

Really? I'm sorry that was your experience. Maybe the schools I went to were just the other extreme. My 8th grade history teacher said that basically if any white person saw any beauty or value in a tree they had to have Native American blood in them and that the Native Americans in no way, shape, or form, were destructive to the planet.

All religions can sound stupid when 5 minutes are spent on them in a class where the teacher is convinced that memorizing dates gives students a better view of history than actually learning about the day to day lives and the culture of the people.

Were anyone's beliefs here actually influenced or inspired by school? I'm just curious to know. Much is made about how parents shape your religion and how people need to break out of that and find out what they believe on their own, but did anyone do that through something in their school system?

Atheist.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Really? I'm sorry that was your experience. Maybe the schools I went to were just the other extreme. My 8th grade history teacher said that basically if any white person saw any beauty or value in a tree they had to have Native American blood in them and that the Native Americans in no way, shape, or form, were destructive to the planet.

All religions can sound stupid when 5 minutes are spent on them in a class where the teacher is convinced that memorizing dates gives students a better view of history than actually learning about the day to day lives and the culture of the people.

Were anyone's beliefs here actually influenced or inspired by school? I'm just curious to know. Much is made about how parents shape your religion and how people need to break out of that and find out what they believe on their own, but did anyone do that through something in their school system?

Nah, I was never influenced by religion in school. The history books only give you a snapshot of a religion which really isn't enough to either believe or disbelive it. I'm with you though, my teachers or books never made the Indians out to be wierdos for their religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
a belief is a belief no matter what it is. To have a belief in no belief is still a belief. Right?

That is what you believe.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
a belief is a belief no matter what it is. To have a belief in no belief is still a belief. Right?

depends

is the absence of something the same as the presence of it?

obviously not

now you understand why there are words to describe the presence of something and the absence of something

Originally posted by inimalist
...now you understand why there are words to describe the presence of something and the absence of something

You are making a big assumption.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are making a big assumption.

lol

indeed, it was a little glib also

but its makes the point. A word cannot mean both the presence of absence of something, else it has no meaning at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

indeed, it was a little glib also

but its makes the point. A word cannot mean both the presence of absence of something, else it has no meaning at all.

What about the word god?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the word god?

what do you mean?

God doesn't mean its opposite...

There is a God is not the same as there is no God.

And whatever God is to you, it is not it's opposite.

if it is, your use of the term God, imho, is pointless.

Originally posted by inimalist
...if it is, your use of the term God, imho, is pointless.

the mere fact that it is a WORD doesnt have any relevance as long as it is not representative of a positive concept/meaningful content. similarly, the CONTENT of beleif is more important than it just being a general BELEIF .

e.g

"i beleive what i am typing right now is not true"

nonsensical statement since the sentence itself isnt referring to any factual, consistant phenomenon to which the statement applies. youll just go around in loops trying to make sense of it and itll turn into an infinite regress.

I don't know what to believe.

But I'm damned tired of all the bigotry anybody has to offer in the name of their belief.

Originally posted by Dataflux
I don't know what to believe.

But I'm damned tired of all the bigotry anybody has to offer in the name of their belief.

Please give examples.