Notice how the only ones with fast answers are the two ultra-religious people. Its as if they are recited.
Unfortunately regret, many of those areas have very low numbers of adherents and unfortunately due to a combination of poverty and regionalism...many of those sects are not as likely to be able to state their opinoins. cry
yeah, But I would like to see it. I assume many Christians believe for similar reasons to mine. It would be interesting to see any differences or similarities that may exist.
I think ultra religious have probably thought through their reasons for being religious. Makes sense that they would answer more quickly.
I think a major issue is that the western world is our main source of population, probably due to language constraint on the site.
Leaving the definition of "God" aside for the moment, and given my respect for the scientific method--including its theoretical potential for discovering nonempirical truths)--I "tend to believe" because...
1. ...arguments against the existence of God, IMO, are even less convincing than the arguments for; and...
2. ...keeping God in the picture offers me 2 distinct advantages: a) a larger explanatory map of reality, and b) an enormous source of comfort and healing in times of stress and loss.
For me, the final analysis is this (the kinder, gentler version of Pascal's Wager): if I am wrong and atheists are right (ie, there is no God), none of us will ever know it. Period.
For what it's worth, this conclusion was not arrived at overnight. We're talking years of study and personal exploration to come to, what I feel, is the most honest conclusion.
I feel the smae way about my conclusion.
1. There is no argument, imo, for the existance of any sort of spiritual being. If people need the moral code and stability of relgion to help them do whats right, thats fine by me.
2. Is keeping god on the map right if its just the easy way out? This is basically my main point. Is there any shame in being wrong? In saying we don't know? To me saying these things are a sign of strength and of personal respect. Its the real way, instead of taking the easy way out.
Originally posted by Mindship
Leaving the definition of "God" aside for the moment, and given my respect for the scientific method--including its theoretical potential for discovering nonempirical truths)--I "tend to believe" because...1. ...arguments against the existence of God, IMO, are even less convincing than the arguments for; and...
2. ...keeping God in the picture offers me 2 distinct advantages: a) a larger explanatory map of reality, and b) an enormous source of comfort and healing in times of stress and loss.
For me, the final analysis is this (the kinder, gentler version of Pascal's Wager): if I am wrong and atheists are right (ie, there is no God), none of us will ever know it. Period.
For what it's worth, this conclusion was not arrived at overnight. We're talking years of study and personal exploration to come to, what I feel, is the most honest conclusion.
Now this is nearly exactly the type of response I was looking for. Now, are you merely agnostic, or do you hold with a specific form of belief? If a specific form, what and why?
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats correct. Thats why new evidence should always support your theory. I hardly think I'm as bad as many strong-wingers.Your opinoin?
If I understand what you are saying. You consider things when you argue them. New evidence shapes your view.
I think this is the manner that people should approach everything. You should have a strong opinion that is open to reevaluation dependant on information gained through various experience. Religion is no different.
If I understood you, then yes, imo you are not as bad as many "strong-wingers"
Originally posted by Alliance
Is keeping god on the map right if its just the easy way out? This is basically my main point. Is there any shame in being wrong? In saying we don't know? To me saying these things are a sign of strength and of personal respect. Its the real way, instead of taking the easy way out.
There is no shame in being wrong, or in saying one doesn't know--indeed, often these are the first true steps toward knowing. And I agree that the "Practical Agnostic's" POV would be an easy way out IF one did not take the time and effort to explore all possibilities.
I can also understand a person being satisfied with "I don't know." But for me, personally, it's not enough. I mean, I Still Don't Know: I can't escape that. Sometimes I feel like I've walked out half-way through a movie that I'd love to know the end to. So I seek other criteria for my map, a kind of "consolation prize," ready to be dropped, if necessary, should I ever get to see the end of that "movie."
Originally posted by Regret
Now this is nearly exactly the type of response I was looking for. Now, are you merely agnostic, or do you hold with a specific form of belief? If a specific form, what and why?
"Pragmatic Agnosticism," I would call it (see my response to Alliance), nurtured through meditation, lucid dreaming, and a study of quantum mechanics, cosmology and Transpersonal Psychology.
Since I do "tend to believe," and accepting that God is beyond all word, symbol or thought, the best I can offer is my Dream Metaphor. But this is not the only way I look at God; this metaphor serves one purpose (say, a "grand overview"😉, while other metaphors help me to be in touch with other aspects of God (eg, God the Father, God as Love, is very comforting).
But ultimately, for me, God is an experience, whether emanating from an act of kindness one person shows another, or caught in the whisper of the wind through the leaves of a tree, or glimpsed, ever, Ever so fleetingly, via meditation.
I like the idea of God. I figure that if it is possible, it would be best to stick with the ones that include bad things happening if you do not do things. This way you are covered on the non-Bad front. You then choose the one that is the most demanding, this will cover requirements of less demanding beliefs. You also make sure that the "Heaven" of that belief is acceptable to you. I personally don't care if I go to hell it heaven is not any better as far as my opinion goes. Probably due to my upbringing, I am a follower of the Bible.
I am Mormon because I like the God presented there. I believe in the personal view of God that is held. I believe that God is a caring father. Mormons believe this. As a father he wants his children to become like him, just like any father would. From a Mormon stance God wants his children to become as he is. He did not create us just to have someone to say "Way to go God!!!!"
I also like the LDS (Mormon) Church because it, imo, tends to agree with science more frequently than most religions. Not always 100% of the time, but more frequently than most.
I think I answered the questions I posed.
I used to not like onions. I would not eat anything with onions in it or on it. However, I always felt that I was somehow missing out on a part of life. I would look around me and see people eating food with onions, and they seemed to be enjoying the food. I was told by many of my friends that onions were good, but when I tried eating one, I got sick. The problem was me; you can’t just sit down and eat an onion if you have never eaten any food with onions in it before. So, I started slowly, I would get a burger with onions and take most of them off and leave only a couple of rings on. I tried onion rings and I loved them, but I did not pig out. Now, I can eat onions in my food with no problem, I even like onions in my food. Yes, I was missing out on something in life, but now I’m not.
So, why am I taking about onions on this thread? This is really my story about religion. When I was younger, I was indoctrinated in religion, and it made me sick, just like trying to eat a row onion. So, I stayed clear of religion, but I felt like I was missing out on life somehow. All I needed to do was find the right religion for me; one that would not make me sick. Regret, I think that is what you are saying, and if that is true, then I am happy for you.
Originally posted by Mindship
There is no shame in being wrong, or in saying one doesn't know--indeed, often these are the first true steps toward knowing. And I agree that the "Practical Agnostic's" POV would be an easy way out IF one did not take the time and effort to explore all possibilities.I can also understand a person being satisfied with "I don't know." But for me, personally, it's not enough. I mean, I Still Don't Know: I can't escape that. Sometimes I feel like I've walked out half-way through a movie that I'd love to know the end to. So I seek other criteria for my map, a kind of "consolation prize," ready to be dropped, if necessary, should I ever get to see the end of that "movie."
I guess my final point would be, is it worth having a facade of a conclusion, just to have one.
Personally, I feel quality.
Originally posted by Regret
While I believe that I understand your view here, I don't believe that everyone in this thread will understand what you mean by this. Why do you believe that he did sacrifice himself? How is this important to you, what does this mean to you? If you believe something that may be different from the views of other Christians could you explain this? What are the things about your particular stance on Christianity that make your belief what it is?What has he done? How has he done it? More elaboration is what I am looking for.
What has he promised in scripture? Explain.
In many ways I think that religion and practice of a religion are very frequently due to selfish reasons. I think that is a major difference between us and Christ, I think his motives were entirely altruistic with no selfishness in them.
These answers are good, but I am looking for more elaboration in responses. I want to understand why you are the religious person you are. I hope that a productive discussion of these reasons will help all of us come to have a better level of respect for each others views. I also hope that those of differing faiths can come to understand each others reasons for believing how we believe.
Thanks for your post marcu. If you feel that, after reading my questions of Justbyfaith, that you could provide a more in depth response feel free. I do not have any comments on your post at this time, if others do I hope they will post them.
I hope that other beliefs will be presented as well. While I am interested in Christian beliefs, I am more curious about other beliefs than I am about Christians. Why is a person Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Confucionist (sorry if I butchered that one), Jew (besides birth), Shinto, Jain, Zoroastrian, and any other that may present as well as atheist and agnostic.
I am also interested in the sub-sect of your religion, if you are Methodist Christian, Catholic, a sub-sect of Islam, a particular area in Hindu, are you a Mahayana Buddhist or Theravada, etc.
Your questions are relevant. I can only answer with scripture. Will answers with scripture meet the requests of your questions?
Originally posted by Alliance
Notice how the only ones with fast answers are the two ultra-religious people. Its as if they are recited.Unfortunately regret, many of those areas have very low numbers of adherents and unfortunately due to a combination of poverty and regionalism...many of those sects are not as likely to be able to state their opinoins. cry
What I noticed was the previous 15 or so posts before our answers that had nothing to do with the question posed by the Thread starter?