Conquer Club

I'm agnostic, i belive in some sort of god but not in any religion (altough Bhuddism and moderate forms of christianity come closest to my beliefs) however, if he's the god that does the burning and plagues and floodslike in some of the older texts i dont want anything to do with him

I'm taking a chance on posting here, but seeing as how there is supposed to be no flaming I'll go ahead and take the chance.

I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known more commonly by the nickname "Mormon".

Let's see, some basic beliefs....

1. I believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (as three different personages, so that's where the difference comes in for most)

2. I believe that there are still prophets on earth today. Currently his name is Gordon B. Hinckley.

3. I believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ and that it contains teachings that provide another witness of his work.

4. I don't have multiple wives.

Guess that's good enough for now. It would take awhile to list a big list of basic beliefs because they vary just slightly from everyone else a lot of the time.

I like this thread. Good work.

I saw this thread on the first page and thought dariune came back

i miss him

I wonder how Buddhism is still around...

Secular Humanist.

static_ice wrote:I saw this thread on the first page and thought dariune came back

i miss him

Where is he?

I am a feckanist. I do not believe in Feckan the god of atheism.

I do not support organised religion for the same reasons as have been listed a thousand times before.
I do not fear atheism, however if it is the truth then excuse me while I Carpe Diem!
I do not see how creationism contradicts science for evolution is the study of how it was done. (big bang, the original cell etc...)

If anything I am a vast form of agnostic uniterian that would combine all religions as true while removing human natures from the written word, and eliminating contradictions through morality. The religions I feel that are closer to the truth and have the greatest influence in my life are;

Tantrica- A hindu bhuddist Taoist combination of male and female energy
Taoist- positive and negative
Bhuddist- Aum
Mormon- beliefs in the terrestial kingdom,exaltation,prophets,and a human christ
Wiccan- Mother Earth,spirits,and majick
Hindu- never to return again!
greek- the gods and goddesses

this ofcouse is a very quick highlight, but all these religions and others have more in common then they dont, its the human element that says it is the way it is written in MY book. I am curious to the Luciferian beliefs mentioned before mine because there are several different sects based on;

Good and Evil
The arguement of Satan(the accuser) and God
And the Christian version ofcourse

I believe that we should eliminate our attachment to the material world, however indulging in it is also a form of spiritual embrace.
Nirvana meets Euphoria

Secular Humanist / Atheist.

I used to be a devout Christian as well, but hard thinking on my part and my curiosity showed me that religion wasn't answering any of the questions I had, while science could aid me with my search for answers.

For those who say that they hate religious ignorance, most atheists I've found used to go to church and have read the bible. They just became disillusioned or went looking for answers elsewhere.

I also personally feel that the idea of religion is insanity. For those who have read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins or "The End Of Faith" by Sam Harris will know this quote.

"We have names for people who have many beliefs which for which there is no rational justification. When theif beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or 'delusional'...Clearly there is sanity in numbers."

Religion to me isn't needed in the world to have good morals, to live a full life, or to answer any of life's problems.

This is all IMO. Discuss if you like.

P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

paranoid-android wrote:Religion to me isn't needed in the world to have good morals, to live a full life, or to answer any of life's problems.

I completely agree with that, its unfortunate that it is often used as an excuse to prevent those things.

My beliefs are my own creation, they did not answer anything for me, only agreed with what I already considered to be true. I embrace my beliefs because I enjoy them, and encourage my evolution in a positive light.

paranoid-android wrote:P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

Dawkins is an awful representation of Atheism in this day and age. His old work, the selfish gene for example, was pretty brilliant and ground-breaking (and helped me form some areas of my personal philosophical leanings) but his current 'crusade' against religion is pretty fucking ridiculous and only leads to the claims of 'Christian Bashing' voiced by Jay in every religious thread. To an extent, he eschews genuine philosophical argument in favour of sensationalist verbal bludgeoning.

If we were to make a graph of his life as a philosopher and scholar the scholarly value would gradually go down and the sensationalism would gradually go up.

Read some proper Atheist philosophy, Bertrand Russel for example, rather than the current fashion for religious pulp bestsellers.

Guiscard wrote:

paranoid-android wrote:P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

Dawkins is an awful representation of Atheism in this day and age. His old work, the selfish gene for example, was pretty brilliant and ground-breaking (and helped me form some areas of my personal philosophical leanings) but his current 'crusade' against religion is pretty fucking ridiculous and only leads to the claims of 'Christian Bashing' voiced by Jay in every religious thread. To an extent, he eschews genuine philosophical argument in favour of sensationalist verbal bludgeoning.

I think I've moaned about Dawkins on this forum before in a similar manner. I'm gonna admit something here. Just five days ago, I was in WH Smith looking for a book, when I chanced upon a copy of "The God Delusion". I, er, bought it on the spur of the moment, and am currently reading it.

So far, the book's not that bad, for what it is - it's pretty raucous at times, but it has made me laugh out loud once or twice. But so far, I haven't actually learned anything new, so if I'm honest, it's just sheer laziness on my part that I'm actually reading this book - it's an easy read, basically.

If I can make another defence of Dawkins, I would say his books on religious belief are written primarily for laymen - religious or otherwise - and he pitches himself pretty well at that level.

His main problem are his public appearances and his short articles - I would argue that it is these that he doesn't do very well. When you want to condense forceful arguments for atheism and against creationism into a very short space/time, it's difficult not to come across as sneering and loftily dismissive of people.

Having said that, he could try harder, and stop coming across like the one-note autist he sometimes seems to be.

Stopper wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

paranoid-android wrote:P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

Dawkins is an awful representation of Atheism in this day and age. His old work, the selfish gene for example, was pretty brilliant and ground-breaking (and helped me form some areas of my personal philosophical leanings) but his current 'crusade' against religion is pretty fucking ridiculous and only leads to the claims of 'Christian Bashing' voiced by Jay in every religious thread. To an extent, he eschews genuine philosophical argument in favour of sensationalist verbal bludgeoning.

I think I've moaned about Dawkins on this forum before in a similar manner. I'm gonna admit something here. Just five days ago, I was in WH Smith looking for a book, when I chanced upon a copy of "The God Delusion". I, er, bought it on the spur of the moment, and am currently reading it.

So far, the book's not that bad, for what it is - it's pretty raucous at times, but it has made me laugh out loud once or twice. But so far, I haven't actually learned anything new, so if I'm honest, it's just sheer laziness on my part that I'm actually reading this book - it's an easy read, basically.

If I can make another defence of Dawkins, I would say his books on religious belief are written primarily for laymen - religious or otherwise - and he pitches himself pretty well at that level.

His main problem are his public appearances and his short articles - I would argue that it is these that he doesn't do very well. When you want to condense forceful arguments for atheism and against creationism into a very short space/time, it's difficult not to come across as sneering and loftily dismissive of people.

Having said that, he could try harder, and stop coming across like the one-note autist he sometimes seems to be.

YOU Stopper? I'd never have thought it...

I'm Luthren (started the Reformation oh yeah )

Guiscard wrote:

paranoid-android wrote:P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

Dawkins is an awful representation of Atheism in this day and age. His old work, the selfish gene for example, was pretty brilliant and ground-breaking (and helped me form some areas of my personal philosophical leanings) but his current 'crusade' against religion is pretty fucking ridiculous and only leads to the claims of 'Christian Bashing' voiced by Jay in every religious thread. To an extent, he eschews genuine philosophical argument in favour of sensationalist verbal bludgeoning.

If we were to make a graph of his life as a philosopher and scholar the scholarly value would gradually go down and the sensationalism would gradually go up.

Read some proper Atheist philosophy, Bertrand Russel for example, rather than the current fashion for religious pulp bestsellers.

I have thought about reading some Russel. I had borrowed Why I Am Not A Christian from the library before, but due to my workload in school, it got put on the back burner. Maybe I'll try reading it another time.

Frankly though, I've found The God Delusion to be a pretty good book so far. I'm only just about to go into university, and i want to take some philosophy classes, and this book is helping me think, it is really stimulating me. I've learned quite a bit about this book, and I think it is good.

I also, however, respect your opinion highly, and will stop here .

Do you suggest The Selfish Gene as a book to read as well? As well, if anyone has read God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, could they tell me what that was like as well??

Sorry to get off-topic, but just to mention, Dawkins mentions owning a hollowed-out Einstein face in The God Delusion. I'd seen this thing on the internet (but not in real life) before, but it wasn't available to buy or anything (we're probably talking 5 or 6 years ago.)

Well, on his recommendation (in the book), I've actually found they're available now, and bought one. £50. It better be as good as he says. I'll report back about it when I receive it, if anyone cares. It appears to be quite a remarkable illusion.

Skittles! wrote:

static_ice wrote:I saw this thread on the first page and thought dariune came back

i miss him

Where is he?

he said a long time ago that he was having arm surgury or something, and couldn't log on for a while...

Does anyone know where i can get a hollowed out Tammy Faye Baker head?

Having just searched on Google images to find out who Tammy Faye Baker is, all I can say is, Jesus Christ.

Stopper wrote:Having just searched on Google images to find out who Tammy Faye Baker is, all I can say is, Jesus Christ.

Hmm, shes pretty damned hypocritical. Air conditioned doghouse? Gold plated toilet bowls? Pray for the sick my ass...

Aint she beeyootiful? If they ever do a remake of "Eraserhead", she has to be the singer.

Guiscard wrote:

paranoid-android wrote:P.S: who here has read the god delusion, and what have you thought about it?

Dawkins is an awful representation of Atheism in this day and age. His old work, the selfish gene for example, was pretty brilliant and ground-breaking (and helped me form some areas of my personal philosophical leanings) but his current 'crusade' against religion is pretty fucking ridiculous and only leads to the claims of 'Christian Bashing' voiced by Jay in every religious thread. To an extent, he eschews genuine philosophical argument in favour of sensationalist verbal bludgeoning.

If we were to make a graph of his life as a philosopher and scholar the scholarly value would gradually go down and the sensationalism would gradually go up.

Read some proper Atheist philosophy, Bertrand Russel for example, rather than the current fashion for religious pulp bestsellers.

Dawkins' tone might not be particularly helpful and i found him insufferable in parts of the God Delusion; that said, he makes plenty of good, solid arguments, too. And the truth is most people aren't going to go and read Bertrand Russell. I'm sure most of his work is regurgitated by Dawkins anyway.

A good midway point is Breaking The Spell by Daniel C. Dennett, by the way. He gives the topic a more scientific treatment and looks at religion from an evolutionary and anthropological standpoint. And i wouldn't bother with christopher hitchens, the man makes dawkins look like a fence-sitter. Sensationalist guff.

I'm half Christian (in which I believe in Christ, but have no religion) and half Discordian.

Since my Christian half doesn't follow any religion, there's no rule there saying I can't be Discordian, and since Discordianism says each member may make his or her own dogma, I say I can be a Christian. So I don't end up schizophrenic.

Backglass wrote:

RenegadePaddy wrote:Moderate catholic

Others:
*a list of oxymorons*

Whoa... that makes me confused. Here in Brazil, once you remove old churchgoing ladies, priests and nuns, you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic that is not moderate... I was officially a Catholic for about 16 years and I went to the church no more than ten times during that period.

The Random One wrote:I'm half Christian (in which I believe in Christ, but have no religion) and half Discordian.

Since my Christian half doesn't follow any religion, there's no rule there saying I can't be Discordian, and since Discordianism says each member may make his or her own dogma, I say I can be a Christian. So I don't end up schizophrenic.

Backglass wrote:

RenegadePaddy wrote:Moderate catholic

Others:
*a list of oxymorons*

Whoa... that makes me confused. Here in Brazil, once you remove old churchgoing ladies, priests and nuns, you'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic that is not moderate... I was officially a Catholic for about 16 years and I went to the church no more than ten times during that period.

Wait, I'm pretty sure Christianity is when you believe in Christ. Wouldn't that instantly make you Christian?

if anyone cares, i'm humanist-agnostic

that is, it doesn't matter what the f*ck you believe in

having said that, i do enjoy arguing with jay