quote:

Originally posted by david.michael What was it that scared you? An eternal life of meaninglessness? No existence of "time", which is basically what determines who we are and what we do? Eternal boredom?

The idea of something without end.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I tend to reject blanket complaints about "organized religion" since they are usually more a loose collection of complaints against specific actions by specific religious groups or doctrines that don't apply to others. To me; most complaints about "organized religion" are a kin to stating all cars are terrible because the Pinto exploded, the Pony was too small, and the Fierro overheated all the time.

I understand (and agree with) your point, so let me try to clarify. It's the idea of the organization of religion that bothers me. Since it's been mentioned, let's take the Catholic church (I was raised Baptist, only went to a Catholic church once or twice). I never understood the whole "I recite, you recite" thing... or the expectation to kneel on the bar... or the holy water... or the hail Marys, and following this whole itinerary. Having everything so procedural. It just doesn't seem... I dunno... correct, to me.

Also, I was taught that the Bible was the undisputed and infallible Word of God. That was also a struggle for me, as everything I had been taught depended on that fact... yet I just couldn't understand how a document so translated and passed along and interpreted and not even available in some places could be the end-all documentation. But, I suppose I'm derailing from the topic at hand, here.

Sorry, not trying to take over your thread, JBJ

I settled at a comfortable medium. Whereas my background (family especially) leads me into belief, and rituals and traditions of the russian orthodox faith. It also "enforced" (though I don't think that's the proper term) a belief in God.
At the same time the logic in me dictates that in order for God to exist I must experience him or see undeniable proof of this God. None of which has happened.
Therefore I can really neither deny the existance, or disprove that of, God.

Sometimes I find myself a little confused in this "clusterfuck" middle ground I've chosen. But I believe that as long as I live my life as what my perception of "good" is, I should be ok. I guess I also accept the fact that what I percieve as good, may not be the case for a lot of others.

...But if you don't see the natural good that is hookers and blow, I don't know what's wrong with you, I really don't.

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael I understand (and agree with) your point, so let me try to clarify. It's the idea of the organization of religion that bothers me. Since it's been mentioned, let's take the Catholic church (I was raised Baptist, only went to a Catholic church once or twice). I never understood the whole "I recite, you recite" thing... or the expectation to kneel on the bar... or the holy water... or the hail Marys, and following this whole itinerary. Having everything so procedural. It just doesn't seem... I dunno... correct, to me.

Stand, sit, stand, sit, kneel, stand, kneel, take a shot, kneel, sit, stand, sit, stand, leave. It seemed very strange to me at first too. When I looked into it further I learned that the reason it is so regimented is because every mass on a given day at any RC church is the same as it is at every RC church across the globe. The same prayer, the same readings, same psalm... the only things that differ are the songs, the intercessions (the little prayer "for blah blah blah we pray... "lord hear our prayer"... "for yak yak yak, we pray"... "lord hear our prayer") and the homily (sermon). This is done because the church sees itself as universal and all should receive the same sacrament, blessings, and teachings. It is really all part of the inclusiveness that the RC church extends and in that sense it is very noble; however, universality can only exist with structure.

quote:

Also, I was taught that the Bible was the undisputed and infallible Word of God. That was also a struggle for me, as everything I had been taught depended on that fact... yet I just couldn't understand how a document so translated and passed along and interpreted and not even available in some places could be the end-all documentation.

Yeah, that's a rather recent and fairly limited view by a small number of churches. I would argue that anyone who tells someone that the Bible is the be all and end all and they should not look beyond it is really doing a disservice. There is nothing worse then blind faith; I tend to believe those that argue faith should be blind do so because they cannot reason through their faith or it is so weak that any challenge would destroy it. I believe that faith is like principles... unless it's challenged it really isn't worth very much.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Or you can step back and realize how ridiculous most of this religious stuff is. Even though I consider myself a fairly strong atheist I like how Denys Envy phrased his views. Very scientific. However their is also the teapot argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

___________________

ಠ_ಠ
<|>
/ω\

God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't get that response, as it's neither relevant nor funny.

me too

I'm pretty similar. Was raised into a system of beliefs, last couple years of high school and through college I really stopped attending and caring about church. Looking back now I can see that all the while through church I don't think I was "buying" a lot of it, I was just afraid of hell and the afterlife so I figured it would be best to just go with it.

I'm not sure of my beliefs now, I'm no atheist but I'm not fond of religion at all at this point in time.

Fairweather Christians and sinners, you lot are.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Sometimes I find myself frightened by the possibility that maybe I'm really wrong not to believe in God and that when I die I'll be sent to hell and suffer eternally for being a non-believer.

Well, don't worry about that. There are an infinite number of mutually exclusive possible "gods" (for example, an n-headed god that'll send you to hell if you don't believe that he has n heads.) Since no cognizable evidence exists to draw the conclusion that any one of them is more probable than any other, belief in any of them would give you--at best--an infinitesimal chance at avoiding hell if any of them existed, which is effectively the same as what you would have if you believed in none of them.

In any event, I'm not sure what you think "suffering" could possibly be describing in the absence of a nervous system... for that matter, I'm not sure what you think "you" could possibly be in the absence of your nervous system. Perhaps a helpful theist will come along and explain to me the details of the cognition of the soul. This is something I've yet to succeed in throttling out of believers with any particularity; they seem to be entirely satisfied with entirely magical explanations of how they're going to see without eyes and feel without a brain. We're all aware that time existed where we had no eyes and brains before (indeed, where there was no 'us')--and guess what, we weren't seeing or feeling anything. I see no reason to suspect that the after-life is any different than the before-life.

That sure does make a whole lot of sense...

But it's blasphemy nevertheless, so it can't possibly be right.

___________________

we are in hell right now. No need to fear it anymore.