Why? then they would just pick the one with colorful rainbows where nothing ever gets hurt..
They probably wouldn't pick any religion because they're all indistinguishable, apart from details. There is as much evidence for the other religions in existence. No child should be told that they'll burn in hell forever if they don't believe. Children should be raised to think critically & independently so they can come to their own choices. At least that way, if they pick something, like Buddhism, it will be their decision and not their parents'.
Speaking of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama once said: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism must change." That's something I can respect.
That is the downside, yes. I don't miss Christianity, but I do miss the prospect of seeing my dead relatives in heaven, or of criminals/victims receiving justice in the afterlife.
Speaking of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama once said: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism must change." That's something I can respect.
I'm sort of the same as Mozared, but if I had to choose a religion, it would probably be buddhism, that quote being one of the primary reasons. It just seems like a fairly reasonable religion compared to others.
Also, not all religions are so similar. You're probably just thinking of Islam, Christianity and Judaism here which afaik (And tbh, I dont know much) are relatively similar. Hinduism and Buddhism are quite a bit different I believe :p But yeah, not really that important.
I agree that forcing children into a religion instead of having them choose themselves is a bit of a problem. At the very least people would be far more tolerant towards other (non-)religious people if they would be presented with multiple choices instead of being forced into one by their parents. At least that's what I think.
And, as already said before, lets continue keeping it civil and nice like we are doing right now.
I agree that forcing children into a religion instead of having them choose themselves is a bit of a problem. At the very least people would be far more tolerant towards other (non-)religious people if they would be presented with multiple choices instead of being forced into one by their parents. At least that's what I think.
It really isn't that much of a problem, ever heard of the saying, the cobbler's son refuses to wear shoes? I probably got some words wrong, but believe me when I say you can't force kids to willfully do something/agree with something if they really don't want to, I have 3 living examples of that, lol. Some of the most atheist/agnostic people ever come from parents trying to force a religion on them.
I consider myself to be Christian, but not at all religious. Which is good as arguing with God seems frowned upon in most churches. If they read their Bibles more closely they'd know that he sees through us and our motives anyways, so I pray like it is, no flowery words in between. Anyways, I intend to present my kids with the option, but the only one who can really decide is them, it won't be forced.
Been through most of the other religions. Done enough research to come to the conclusion that the bible is factually and historically correct. As to the deity being the actual `God`, that is a personal conviction and belief.
`Religion` is often interpreted out of context. It is a moral code/way of life(bar any ceremonial practices and what not). The bible would describe true religion as :
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
To both those that are knowledgeable or ignorant of the God of the bible.
However, all major religions including christianity fall short of that, and thus become and are useless. It can be deduced that religious practices are nothing more than man-made rules and regulations, with no truth behind it(Like baptism at birth). As the bible would say: Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.
@TaintedWisp
Having the title `Christian` hardly qualifies us as being any more special or favored by God. Acts 10:34
Your presumption as to who inherits eternal life or not is also judgemental. I hope you understand that.
Atheist and strong believer in the ancient alien theory. Look it up on Youtube. It's just a theory but it makes a whole lot more sense. Just think. lol...
Atheist and strong believer in the ancient alien theory. Look it up on Youtube. It's just a theory but it makes a whole lot more sense. Just think. lol...
`Religion` is often interpreted out of context. It is a moral code/way of life(bar any ceremonial practices and what not). The bible would describe true religion as :
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
...
Sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine... it is detrimental to effective communication to replace a fairly well accepted definition for a word with your own definition. At least without first giving your own definition, which you obviously did. But to call an accepted definition "out of context" is factually untrue. In everyday discourse, it doesn't really matter what "the bible would describe" or what "God our Father accepts"; for effective communication, what matters is what everyone else thinks.
If you're wondering, (ty google)
religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
-
As anecdote, when talking with normal people I call myself an atheist, even though it would be more accurate to call myself agnostic.
Atheism actually means "an active belief that god is nonexistent".
But most people just go with "a lack of belief that god exists", which includes even more people.
You see, true atheism doesn't actually apply to me, because I don't actively believe that god doesn't exist. (I only think he probably doesn't).
I mean you can always have your own view of the word and explain it to whomever you get close to. You could even just let people have that word and have your own thing. But for effective communication it's generally best to go with the flow.
Agnosticism is when you believe there is a higher power but it is unknowable or hasn't revealed itself.
It'd be unscientific to state that "there is no god", in the same way it'd be unscientific to state "there are no invisible pink unicorns". You can't prove it, so it's reasonable to state that there might be a god. That's where atheism and agnosticism split.
Atheism states alright, current religions have had thousands of years to prove their claims and provided nothing. I reject their beliefs.
Agnosticism states that yeah, there probably is a higher power, but it doesn't write books, it doesn't sacrifice it's children and it generally has nothing to do with us. I don't reject their beliefs outright, but I know you're making shit up.
I guess this is why I said the definitions are vague, but I feel pretty safe in saying you are wrong here. Most people I've seen define agnosticism (including both the Dutch and English versions of wikipedia) have said that it doesn't neccessarily mean you believe a god does or does not exist, but rather simply that you think we cannot know (right now) if there is a higher power. This seems a logical general definition too, because if agnosticism meant that you had to believe in a higher power per se, it'd just be theïsm with a whiff of scepticism. The problem is that 'agnosticism' really is just a word that only gets meaning when we give it to it, but seeing as it is derived from ancient Greek and in its purest form means 'without knowledge' I think it's fair to say an agnost does not take a stance in the god-debate.
This in turn is why it's the 'belief' I feel closest too: it seems pretty obvious to me that, at least right now, we simply cannot possibly know whether a god exists or not. We are just as far away from proving it as we are from disproving it.
On another note, don't make the mistake of saying "X cannot be proven, so it is unscientific". Popper would like to have a word with you.
it basicly sums up to this... what came 1st, the chicken or the egg? lol. people that 'believe' say that the chicken was created from nothing and then made the egg. as for my views on it, there is eveidence to show things that defy the laws of phiscis (yes i can not spell, lol) that do happen. a person struck my lightning and walking away with a headache? WTF! you can take the data from what a person can sustain such as an electric chair and the data on how powerful a lightining bolt is and if you use the data a person struck by lightning should pretty much fry him like an egg easily. other stories like this show that there is more to it than what it seems. science can you how something works but not why it works.
Perhaps I am religious then based on me looking it up just now, I am vehemently against made up rituals/ceremonies though. However, onto more pressing matters. Tdhsst's use of characters has bothered me greatly, to the point of giving me a headache, so here is a slightly better version of what he was saying.... No I'm not a grammar nazi, but it shouldn't cause physical pain to your readers to understand what you were typing.
It basically sums up to this... What came first, the chicken or the egg? lol. Those that 'believe' say that the chicken was created from nothing and then made the egg. As for my views on it, there is eveidence to show things that defy the laws of physics that do happen.
A person struck by lightning and walking away with a headache? WTF! You can take the data from what a person can sustain such as an electric chair. Then, you can compare it to the data on how powerful a lightining bolt is. From this data, it appears that a person struck by lightning should pretty much be fried like an egg easily. There are other stories like this that show that there is more to get struck by lightning than you might think. Science can show you how something works but not why it works.
The egg came first. The chicken is the mutant offspring of whatever laid the egg (feathered dinosaur?).
The person walking away didn't actually get struck by lightning. The headache comes from the pressure shockwave produced by rapid heating and ionization of the surrounding air when the lightning struck very close to the person. While the nearby surrounding air is ionized, the ionized particles, instead of the person, became the path of least resistance for the lightning. In a properly operated electric chair, the electricity travels directly through the person, else the person still remains painfully alive.
Things work the way they do because the processes lower the total energy of the systems and increase the total entropy of the systems, at least in this universe until something contrary is discovered.
They do say that chickens are descendants of the T-Rex.
I see myself as an agnostic I was raised christian but in a world full of science it's hard to tell what's true. If God or some greater being is out there is there they probably live along the lines of If you do it right no one will know you did it at all.
My view on all this is that Religion has several purposes. Whether or not certain religions are real or fake or if I'm right or wrong who am I to know such things? However I believe that religion is more or less a way for humans to do a couple of things...
1. This dosen't totally relate but it makes sense. Religion has been used for manipulative purposes in the past a good example would be cults. I'm not saying all religions are bad but some people are saps and a "religion" is a great way to lure insecure people in. Religion can be a good way to feel secure that there is a greater being looking out for you among other things.
2. I believe religions serve the purpose of giving something to have after you die. I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time tieing my brain around what death is like. I mean is it just poof that's it... nothing just darkness? Could it be something like reincarnation or heaven? We can't ever truely know. (Until of course we die although we wouldn't really "know" cause we couldn't think) I feel that religion helps to ease the uncertainty of death.
The bible while parts of that may be true I would bet there are some exaggerated pieces in there. Like my father used to say "Every good lie is based on the hint of truth." You can't trust man to keep things accuarate over the course of 2000 years. But hey that's just me and my opinion.
Totally agree.
I am agnostic atheist, it would suck if there is God out there... and I hate all religion.
Why? This video explains nicely:
They probably wouldn't pick any religion because they're all indistinguishable, apart from details. There is as much evidence for the other religions in existence. No child should be told that they'll burn in hell forever if they don't believe. Children should be raised to think critically & independently so they can come to their own choices. At least that way, if they pick something, like Buddhism, it will be their decision and not their parents'.
Speaking of Buddhism, the Dalai Lama once said: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism must change." That's something I can respect.
That is the downside, yes. I don't miss Christianity, but I do miss the prospect of seeing my dead relatives in heaven, or of criminals/victims receiving justice in the afterlife.
I'm sort of the same as Mozared, but if I had to choose a religion, it would probably be buddhism, that quote being one of the primary reasons. It just seems like a fairly reasonable religion compared to others. Also, not all religions are so similar. You're probably just thinking of Islam, Christianity and Judaism here which afaik (And tbh, I dont know much) are relatively similar. Hinduism and Buddhism are quite a bit different I believe :p But yeah, not really that important.
I agree that forcing children into a religion instead of having them choose themselves is a bit of a problem. At the very least people would be far more tolerant towards other (non-)religious people if they would be presented with multiple choices instead of being forced into one by their parents. At least that's what I think.
And, as already said before, lets continue keeping it civil and nice like we are doing right now.
Buddhism involves no faith and no worship. Buddha doesn't grant prayers.
Google define
It really isn't that much of a problem, ever heard of the saying, the cobbler's son refuses to wear shoes? I probably got some words wrong, but believe me when I say you can't force kids to willfully do something/agree with something if they really don't want to, I have 3 living examples of that, lol. Some of the most atheist/agnostic people ever come from parents trying to force a religion on them.
I consider myself to be Christian, but not at all religious. Which is good as arguing with God seems frowned upon in most churches. If they read their Bibles more closely they'd know that he sees through us and our motives anyways, so I pray like it is, no flowery words in between. Anyways, I intend to present my kids with the option, but the only one who can really decide is them, it won't be forced.
@Bilxor: Go
Christian<-
Been through most of the other religions. Done enough research to come to the conclusion that the bible is factually and historically correct. As to the deity being the actual `God`, that is a personal conviction and belief.
`Religion` is often interpreted out of context. It is a moral code/way of life(bar any ceremonial practices and what not). The bible would describe true religion as :
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
To both those that are knowledgeable or ignorant of the God of the bible.
However, all major religions including christianity fall short of that, and thus become and are useless. It can be deduced that religious practices are nothing more than man-made rules and regulations, with no truth behind it(Like baptism at birth). As the bible would say: Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.
@TaintedWisp
Having the title `Christian` hardly qualifies us as being any more special or favored by God. Acts 10:34
Your presumption as to who inherits eternal life or not is also judgemental. I hope you understand that.
Atheist and strong believer in the ancient alien theory. Look it up on Youtube. It's just a theory but it makes a whole lot more sense. Just think. lol...
No. It's not a theory. Don't disgrace the word.
Sorry, bit of a pet peeve of mine... it is detrimental to effective communication to replace a fairly well accepted definition for a word with your own definition. At least without first giving your own definition, which you obviously did. But to call an accepted definition "out of context" is factually untrue. In everyday discourse, it doesn't really matter what "the bible would describe" or what "God our Father accepts"; for effective communication, what matters is what everyone else thinks.
If you're wondering, (ty google) religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
-As anecdote, when talking with normal people I call myself an atheist, even though it would be more accurate to call myself agnostic.
Atheism actually means "an active belief that god is nonexistent". But most people just go with "a lack of belief that god exists", which includes even more people.
You see, true atheism doesn't actually apply to me, because I don't actively believe that god doesn't exist. (I only think he probably doesn't).
I mean you can always have your own view of the word and explain it to whomever you get close to. You could even just let people have that word and have your own thing. But for effective communication it's generally best to go with the flow.
I guess this is why I said the definitions are vague, but I feel pretty safe in saying you are wrong here. Most people I've seen define agnosticism (including both the Dutch and English versions of wikipedia) have said that it doesn't neccessarily mean you believe a god does or does not exist, but rather simply that you think we cannot know (right now) if there is a higher power. This seems a logical general definition too, because if agnosticism meant that you had to believe in a higher power per se, it'd just be theïsm with a whiff of scepticism. The problem is that 'agnosticism' really is just a word that only gets meaning when we give it to it, but seeing as it is derived from ancient Greek and in its purest form means 'without knowledge' I think it's fair to say an agnost does not take a stance in the god-debate.
This in turn is why it's the 'belief' I feel closest too: it seems pretty obvious to me that, at least right now, we simply cannot possibly know whether a god exists or not. We are just as far away from proving it as we are from disproving it.
On another note, don't make the mistake of saying "X cannot be proven, so it is unscientific". Popper would like to have a word with you.
No.
Reread.
It'd be unscientific to state that "there is no god".
It's unscientific because nobody can make that claim. It's impossible to prove a negative.
it basicly sums up to this... what came 1st, the chicken or the egg? lol. people that 'believe' say that the chicken was created from nothing and then made the egg. as for my views on it, there is eveidence to show things that defy the laws of phiscis (yes i can not spell, lol) that do happen. a person struck my lightning and walking away with a headache? WTF! you can take the data from what a person can sustain such as an electric chair and the data on how powerful a lightining bolt is and if you use the data a person struck by lightning should pretty much fry him like an egg easily. other stories like this show that there is more to it than what it seems. science can you how something works but not why it works.
btw lets not confuse "religion" (defined above) with "organized religion".
(google) organized religion - an institution to express belief in a divine power;
very different things i think
I hope you're young.
@Eiviyn: Go
Wow at his terrible grammar, What he meant was "Science can know hows something works, but not why it works in the way it does"
Clearly we're going by the second, broader, definition. Not that that's the point.
^-what's the difference? :P
Perhaps I am religious then based on me looking it up just now, I am vehemently against made up rituals/ceremonies though. However, onto more pressing matters. Tdhsst's use of characters has bothered me greatly, to the point of giving me a headache, so here is a slightly better version of what he was saying.... No I'm not a grammar nazi, but it shouldn't cause physical pain to your readers to understand what you were typing.
It basically sums up to this... What came first, the chicken or the egg? lol. Those that 'believe' say that the chicken was created from nothing and then made the egg. As for my views on it, there is eveidence to show things that defy the laws of physics that do happen.
A person struck by lightning and walking away with a headache? WTF! You can take the data from what a person can sustain such as an electric chair. Then, you can compare it to the data on how powerful a lightining bolt is. From this data, it appears that a person struck by lightning should pretty much be fried like an egg easily. There are other stories like this that show that there is more to get struck by lightning than you might think. Science can show you how something works but not why it works.
@tdhsst: Go
The egg came first. The chicken is the mutant offspring of whatever laid the egg (feathered dinosaur?).
The person walking away didn't actually get struck by lightning. The headache comes from the pressure shockwave produced by rapid heating and ionization of the surrounding air when the lightning struck very close to the person. While the nearby surrounding air is ionized, the ionized particles, instead of the person, became the path of least resistance for the lightning. In a properly operated electric chair, the electricity travels directly through the person, else the person still remains painfully alive.
@tdhsst: Go
Things work the way they do because the processes lower the total energy of the systems and increase the total entropy of the systems, at least in this universe until something contrary is discovered.
@FDFederation: Go
They do say that chickens are descendants of the T-Rex.
I see myself as an agnostic I was raised christian but in a world full of science it's hard to tell what's true. If God or some greater being is out there is there they probably live along the lines of If you do it right no one will know you did it at all.
My view on all this is that Religion has several purposes. Whether or not certain religions are real or fake or if I'm right or wrong who am I to know such things? However I believe that religion is more or less a way for humans to do a couple of things...
1. This dosen't totally relate but it makes sense. Religion has been used for manipulative purposes in the past a good example would be cults. I'm not saying all religions are bad but some people are saps and a "religion" is a great way to lure insecure people in. Religion can be a good way to feel secure that there is a greater being looking out for you among other things.
2. I believe religions serve the purpose of giving something to have after you die. I don't know about you guys but I have a hard time tieing my brain around what death is like. I mean is it just poof that's it... nothing just darkness? Could it be something like reincarnation or heaven? We can't ever truely know. (Until of course we die although we wouldn't really "know" cause we couldn't think) I feel that religion helps to ease the uncertainty of death.
The bible while parts of that may be true I would bet there are some exaggerated pieces in there. Like my father used to say "Every good lie is based on the hint of truth." You can't trust man to keep things accuarate over the course of 2000 years. But hey that's just me and my opinion.