# What belief system do you follow?



## Edward Elgar

Sorry if this has already been a thread, but I would find it interesting to get an idea of what people believed in light of the religious music thread.


----------



## World Violist

I suppose officially monotheism, but I'm also influenced by Buddhist philosophy and that sort of thing, personally.


----------



## Polednice

Atheism - or agnostic atheism to be more precise! And let's all keep this to a survey; no debating


----------



## Guest

Monotheism - Christianity. Specifically, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


----------



## Aramis

I dunno. I never tried to find out what category I fit, so I guess I follow no system. I was born roman catholic but lost my faith because of roman catholics. I think that Jesus is kewl guy and I would like him to exist. But I don't belive he does. I also don't belive he doesn't. I think he wouldn't be such a kewl guy if he would expect me to belive in him just because they told be he does, so I was often thinking about it and came to conclusion that I can't belive when I'm not certain, I can't be certain if there is no reason to be certain, there can't be reason to be certain in reality as I know it, so I will wait till I die and then see if there is a God and I shall tell him: _Sup fellow, I was quite kewl guy, even though I had no faith, so put me into heaven if you don't mind_.


----------



## Taneyev

Thank God, I'm an atheist


----------



## Weston

I couldn't vote exactly. I may fall somewhere between monotheism and polytheism, or perhaps a belief (more like a hunch) of one god with many many faces or facets.

I grew up in a multi-faith home. Half Baptist , half Jehovah's Witnesses. I was yanked out of the Baptists and forced into the realm of Jehovah's Witnesses until the world ended in 1975 -- except that it didn't end and I had a perfect excuse to drop all that foolishness. (Christmas still gives me the creeps however because of that experience.) I then became a rapid follower of pure science and Carl Sagan was the prophet.

These days I still believe in science, however science is finding some weirdly spiritual seeming possibilities through quantum physics that almost sound like what spiritualist have been saying for millenia. I may be coming full circle.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Edward Elgar said:


> Sorry if this has already been a thread, but I would find it interesting to get an idea of what people believed in light of the religious music thread.


Not sure whether you can change the poll options, but Hinduism is monotheistic. Brahma (masculine), Vishnu and Shiva are the three manifestations of Brahman (neuter), which one could call the personification of Nirvana (a rather bad description, but I hope you get the drift).

Yes, the religion preceding Hinduism was polytheistic, but so was the religion preceding Judaism.



> Contemporary Hinduism is predominantly monotheistic,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Typology


----------



## Edward Elgar

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Not sure whether you can change the poll options, but Hinduism is monotheistic. Brahma (masculine), Vishnu and Shiva are the three manifestations of Brahman (neuter), which one could call the personification of Nirvana (a rather bad description, but I hope you get the drift).
> 
> Yes, the religion preceding Hinduism was polytheistic, but so was the religion preceding Judaism.


Hindus that say all their gods are in fact manifestations of one god may be trying to escape persecution from monotheists. Until recently, British law discriminated against polytheism, so it would have been wise to disguise your faith as monotheism at this time. Also, in the middle east, Hindus were persecuted an routinely killed for believing in many gods. Again, wise to disguise as monotheism.

The most laughable attempt to disguise polytheism as monotheism is christianity. Again, we hear christians saying that the father, son and holy ghost are one god. How can this be when Jesus talks to god in the bible as if he were a different entity asking "father, why hast thou forsaken me?" The holy ghost enters all with christian faith, essentially making this a different entity. Most christians would scream at me for suggesting they were polytheist, but then again, how many of them really understand the trinity?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Edward Elgar said:


> Hindus that say all their gods are in fact manifestations of one god may be trying to escape persecution from monotheists. Until recently, British law discriminated against polytheism, so it would have been wise to disguise your faith as monotheism at this time. Also, in the middle east, Hindus were persecuted an routinely killed for believing in many gods. Again, wise to disguise as monotheism.
> 
> The most laughable attempt to disguise polytheism as monotheism is christianity. Again, we hear christians saying that the father, son and holy ghost are one god. How can this be when Jesus talks to god in the bible as if he were a different entity asking "father, why hast thou forsaken me?" The holy ghost enters all with christian faith, essentially making this a different entity. Most christians would scream at me for suggesting they were polytheist, but then again, how many of them really understand the trinity?


I think you have to acknowledge the distinction between the popular religion and the theological religion. If theological Christianity wants to make a by-pass to monotheism out of the whole Trinity thing, while Hinduism uses the concept of Trimurti to do the same - so be it. I couldn't care less.


----------



## Krummhorn

Monotheism ... been a Lutheran all my life. 

Imho, there is no "right" or "wrong" religion/church or belief/non-belief. We each have our own ideals and should never admonish another person for not believing what we individually think is true or false. It is each persons right and privilege to decide what is best for them personally. I would never attempt to convert anyone to my religion ... I have many friends from many walks of life and religious and non-religious affiliations.

I attend church regularly because I want to .. be it for fellowship or spiritual gain .. nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Hindus that say all their gods are in fact manifestations of one god may be trying to escape persecution from monotheists. Until recently, British law discriminated against polytheism, so it would have been wise to disguise your faith as monotheism at this time. Also, in the middle east, Hindus were persecuted an routinely killed for believing in many gods. Again, wise to disguise as monotheism.
> 
> The most laughable attempt to disguise polytheism as monotheism is christianity. Again, we hear christians saying that the father, son and holy ghost are one god. How can this be when Jesus talks to god in the bible as if he were a different entity asking "father, why hast thou forsaken me?" The holy ghost enters all with christian faith, essentially making this a different entity. Most christians would scream at me for suggesting they were polytheist, but then again, how many of them really understand the trinity?


I'm sorry, was the purpose behind starting this poll to get a survey of the beliefs of people here, or to give commentary on belief systems?

Christianity is not a homogeneous pool - there are numerous beliefs that are encompassed by the title "christianity." Indeed, not all believe in the concept of the Trinity in the way that, for example, Roman Catholics do.

At any rate, I believe you are the one who listed Christianity under the "Monotheism" category.


----------



## mueske

Agnostic. So by default also atheist.


----------



## Artemis

Edward Elgar said:


> The most laughable attempt to disguise polytheism as monotheism is christianity. Again, we hear christians saying that the father, son and holy ghost are one god. How can this be when Jesus talks to god in the bible as if he were a different entity asking "father, why hast thou forsaken me?" The holy ghost enters all with christian faith, essentially making this a different entity. Most christians would scream at me for suggesting they were polytheist, but then again, how many of them really understand the trinity?


 Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit? But I must point out that the above statement by you is a laughably ignorant summary of Christian belief concerning the Trinity.

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

I couldn't see this thread being confined to a simple listing of one's religious views. Sooner or later there was bound to be additional "comment" either by way of snide remarks about particular faiths or further astonishing revelations about the immense wisdom possessed by the odd "super-kid" who may lurk.

I wasn't, however, expecting the originator of the thread to shoot himself in the foot in such a crude way, by giving the game away so soon that his real agenda is to poke yet more ignorant fun at one of the World's major religions. For this reason, I have no wish to participate any further in this thread along the intended lines. But I may add further comment as I see fit.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit? But I must point out that the above statement by you is a laughably ignorant summary of Christian belief concerning the Trinity.
> 
> The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.
> 
> I couldn't see this thread being confined to a simple listing of one's religious views. Sooner or later there was bound to be additional "comment" either by way of snide remarks about particular faiths or further astonishing revelations about the immense wisdom possessed by the odd "super-kid" who may lurk.
> 
> I wasn't, however, expecting the originator of the thread to shoot himself in the foot in such a crude way, by giving the game away so soon that his real agenda is to poke yet more ignorant fun at one of the World's major religions. For this reason, I have no wish to participate any further in this thread along the intended lines. But I may add further comment as I see fit.


Right now you are making a monkey out of yourself. Redeem yourself and prove how The Trinity doctrine doesn't contradict montheism without resorting to a distorted definition of "one", "person" and what have you.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I am a Christian, but I do not follow a single church's viewpoints. My beliefs are a stew of different beliefs in Christianity.


----------



## Argus

I answered atheist in the poll but I would consider myself an agnostic atheist or, possibly more correctly, an apatheist.

The existence of a deity doesn't interest me anywhere near as much as other possible theories to the universe. Exploring things like the existence of parallel universes, time being non-linear and the nature of the sub-atomic particles are more interesting ways of wasting my time.

What if, for example, an individual were to believe in an unproven scientific theory of everything, like say, string theory or supersymmetry? That individual would still have a _belief_, so to speak, as the theory is not yet proven with direct evidence but it is a belief that is technically provable in the future. What would this individual be labelled as?

I'll just add that my understanding of modern quantum physics is very basic so that last paragraph may not make complete sense.



> These days I still believe in science, however science is finding some weirdly spiritual seeming possibilities through quantum physics that almost sound like what spiritualist have been saying for millenia. I may be coming full circle.


The deeper we (humanity) seem to get into understanding the true nature of things around us the weirder they become to explain. An example would be Quantum Foam. Things like the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement are far harder to imagine than anything a spiritualist has ever put forward.


----------



## Polednice

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Right now you are making a monkey out of yourself. Redeem yourself and prove how The Trinity doctrine doesn't contradict montheism without reorting to a distorted definition of "one", "person" and what have you.


Just think of some Russian dolls


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its Atheism but then Philosophy based belief system. No dogma to be found here..


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Right now you are making a monkey out of yourself. Redeem yourself and prove how The Trinity doctrine doesn't contradict montheism without reorting to a distorted definition of "one", "person" and what have you.


I could try but I don't believe in wasting my time on lost causes such as discussing things of this nature with people so obviously hostile to religion as you.

To be as helpful as possible, however, I would only suggest that if you really do want an explanation, why don't you consult some relevant theological sources. You must know what they are are. For a start, you say that you have read the Bible twice. Are you sure it was the Bible and not something else? Anyway, assuming it was the Bible, wasn't that good enough for you? Surely you didn't miss the very many relevant Scriptural references to the topic we are presently discussing. Perhaps you might read it again, next time trying to remain as concentrated as possible (I trust you take my gentle hint) and discuss any problems you may have with one Poland's many thousands of Priests. If they can't sort you, then I doubt that I can.

I do wish you luck but if, despite my best endeavours to help, you still experience problems in this area you might consider suing your brains for non-support.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> I could try but I don't believe in wasting my time on lost causes such as discussing things of this nature with people so obviously as hostile to religion as you.
> 
> To be as helpful as possible, however, I would only suggest that if you really do want an explanation, why don't you consult some relevant theological sources. You must know what they are are. For a start, you say that you have read the Bible twice. Are you sure it was the Bible and not something else? Anyway, assuming it was the Bible, wasn't that good enough for you? Surely you didn't miss the very many relevant Scriptural references to the topic we are presently discussing. Perhaps you might read it again, next time trying to remain as concentrated as possible (I trust you take my gentle hint) and discuss any problems you may have with one Poland's many thousands of Priests. If they can't sort you, then I can't.
> 
> I would only add that if, despite my best endeavours to help, you still any problems in this area you might consider suing your brains for non-support.


In what way am I hostile? You see, hostility, defamation, blasphemy - all these words are abused by theists who can't prove their point. Theists always resort to ad hominem...

Let's see - the Bible, you say?

1. It doesn't mention virgin birth. On the other hand it mentions brothers of Jesus.

2. The whole story of Jesus has been plagerised. It resembles the story of Osiris way too much.

3. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone mention the concept of the Trinity.

4. The Gospels tell contradictory stories of Jesus' birth. Were they going to Betlehem because of the census (that'd be weird as they were not Roman citizens at all) or because of Herod, who was already several years late by the time 1 BC/AC arrived.

Are you sure you have read the Bible?


----------



## Artemis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> In what way am I hostile? You see, hostility, defamation, blasphemy - all these words are abused by theists who can't prove their point. Theists always resort to ad hominem...


My advice to you stands and that's all you are getting. Offering you any more would clearly be as welcome as a rattlesnake at a square dance.


----------



## Polednice

KaerbEmEvig said:


> In what way am I hostile? You see, hostility, defamation, blasphemy - all these words are abused by theists who can't prove their point. Theists always resort to ad hominem...


Throughout these discussions, I've thought that you have been one of the _least_ hostile! It's especially a shame when defenders of faith resort to pre-emptive ad hominem before anybody has even lifted a finger to push over the field of straw men.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Artemis said:


> My advice to you stands and that's all you are getting. Offering you any more would clearly be as welcome as a rattlesnake at a square dance.


You see, that's the problem with you. You won't step down from your high horse. You had blatantly insulted Polednice and me throughout the course of the other thread, you are doing it this time again.

When faced with rational arguments, you first resort to ad hominem and then retreat. To spice things up, you are convinced that you have proved everyone wrong. That's laughable, to say the least.


----------



## rojo

WARNING:

Please refrain from attacking others, and others' belief systems, or we'll have to close this thread as well.

State your beliefs, and respectfully let others have theirs. Move on if you cannot.


----------



## Guest

I think arguing this is pointless and ridiculous. It never goes anywhere. I have yet to see anybody ever converted one way or the other in arguments over religion. 

As a Christian, and a Mormon, I am well aware that many people out there enjoy telling me what exactly I do and don't believe. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it. Faith is not something that can be acquired by empirical evidence. I am also a scientist, and well versed in the scientific method. I think it is ridiculous to live your life tied exclusively to one or the other. Man is a creature that is run by both reason and emotion. That is true even if you are atheistic. If it weren't so, why is there so much interest in attributing some biological explanation to ideas, feelings, etc. that people of religion purport to have? 

Luckily, God exists independent of whether anybody anywhere believes in Him. So it is with my faith in Him. His existence is not contingent on belief in Him, just as none of you would cease to exist were I to stop believing you do. 

I could really care less whether someone else wants to label me monotheistic, polytheistic, or anything in between, and I learned a long time ago to disregard the opinions of the young intellectuals who, after getting themselves a higher education, think themselves expert in explaining to me why what I believe is false. While they may have amassed a large amount of knowledge, they have yet to gain wisdom. There is more information available out there than any one person can know, and it is increasing all the time. 

For all that science can teach us about life and the world around us, there is so much that it cannot. The difference between man and every other form of life on this planet goes beyond mere physical properties. I can accept theories such as evolution developing plausible explanations for the development of the diversity of life - I see examples of this in my own research, although at a very microscopic scale. But how mankind, a relatively recent branch of the animal kingdom, could develop the cognitive and emotional abilities that we have in such a ridiculously short amount of time, in terms of evolutionary time scales, is harder to conceive than anything else.


----------



## Polednice

*Deep breaths* 

Well... there are certainly some... points on here (probably best not to qualify that with an adjective)! Of course, I will respectfully leave each of you to your own beliefs even though I don't respect the beliefs themselves  I'm just glad that rationality is holding up the poll.


----------



## Edward Elgar

KaerbEmEvig is right. Artemis, you simply gave a vague comment about your own beliefs regarding the trinity (where you got them from I don't know) and then criticised me for commenting on the origins of the bible and the history of christianity in response to a quiery by KaerbEmEvig regarding distinctions between polytheism and monotheism.

How have I shot myself in the foot? I'm simply stating facts based on the evidence provided (the bible). My point in response to KaerbEmEvig was simply that the boundary between polytheism and monotheism is sometimes hazy due to the nature of scripture and history. Don't interpret this as an attack on your personal beliefs which have just as much validity as mine.


----------



## Edward Elgar

KaerbEmEvig said:


> 3. Nowhere in the Bible does anyone mention the concept of the Trinity.


Even though there is no mention of a trinity acting as one force, there are references to at least three seperate deities.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Edward Elgar said:


> Even though there is no mention of a trinity acting as one force, there are references to at least three seperate deities.


Maybe in the NT, but this on the other hand contradicts the OT, because the Messiah was supposed to be a political leader (and a messiah isn't a genuine figure - there were more of them in the history of Judaism), not someone divine.

Also, the Trinity Doctrine formed throughout the 4th century.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

KaerbEmEvig said:


> You see, that's the problem with you. You won't step down from your high horse. You had blatantly insulted Polednice and me throughout the course of the other thread, you are doing it this time again.
> 
> When faced with rational arguments, you first resort to ad hominem and then retreat. To spice things up, you are convinced that you have proved everyone wrong. That's laughable, to say the least.


Bearing in mind the warning from the Moderator, I offer my humble opinion on the remarks above which have been allowed to stand so I presume I may comment upon them.

It seems to me that they are very, very inappropriate. The two gentlemen doing the complaining (Polednice and KaerbEmEvig) seem to me to be positively full of themselves academically. I won't elaborate any further on that issue in view of the warning, but I trust members will get my drift.

In the closed thread on religion, both of them tried to foist their atheistic view on this music Forum under the pretense of discussing musical appreciation. That thread became twisted out of all recognition from its original purpose mainly by Polednice's constant attempts to put forward his atheistic views, and to rubbish completely the Christian viewpoint. It is clear that his comments went much further than was necessary to answer the question posed about musical appreciation, and ventured way to far in the direction of putting forward his specific views on religion or rather his contempt for it. He became very clearly rattled by another member's Christian stance.

KaerbEmEvig joined in but made no musical reference whatsoever - not one - but instead merely told us how much he disowned and disliked the Christian Faith he was brought up in, and then began to make a number of highly disparaging remarks or innuendo about people who draw comfort from their Christian faith. Here's a selection of some of his very obviously *hostile* comments from that thread, drawing comparisons between belief in Christianity and belief in the Loch Ness Monster, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Tooth Fairies etc. In the light of these remarks, how he or his side-kick, Polednice, dare argue otherwise is incomprehensible.



KaerbEmEvig said:


> A single glimpse behind the curtains has made me aware of how shallow religion actually is when you pay closer attention to it and investigate a little further. In my opinion, anything that feeds on negative emotions and sentiments is shallow and hurtful (longing for an afterlife is one, since people content with their here-and-now do not need an afterlife; some people may seek refuge in the afterlife-to-come [terrorists, to name one group] instead of chaning their actual life
> …
> 
> Are you an agnostic atheist towards gnomes? Maybe towards pink unicorns? How about the? Russle's Teapot? Maybe the Loch Ness Monster? Dwarves? Elves? The Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Why should one treat religion differently than the rest of the superstition? I haven't met a single person who would say they are an weak atheist or an agnostic atheist towards any of the things I've just mentioned. How is the Christian God any different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
> 
> When paired up with these, the notion of God's existence becomes just as ridiculous. It only gets special treatment because many people believe in the existence of one.
> 
> What deep in their hearts they know that there is no difference between God, FSM or the Tooth Fairy and yet they wouldn't call themselves agnostic atheists towards the last two. ).


In conclusion, I would say come on you two, you've been rumbled.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> Bearing in mind the warning from the Moderator, I offer my humble opinion on the remarks above which have been allowed to stand so I presume I may comment upon them.
> 
> It seems to me that they are very, very inappropriate. The two gentlemen doing the complaining (Polednice and KaerbEmEvig) seem to me to be positively full of themselves academically. I won't elaborate any further on that issue in view of the warning, but I trust members will get my drift.
> 
> In the closed thread on religion, both of them tried to foist their atheistic view on this music Forum under the pretense of discussing musical appreciation. That thread became twisted out of all recognition from its original purpose mainly by Polednice's constant attempts to put forward his atheistic views, and to rubbish completely the Christian viewpoint. It is clear that his comments went much further than was necessary to answer the question posed about musical appreciation, and ventured way to far in the direction of putting forward his specific views on religion or rather his contempt for it. He became very clearly rattled by another member's Christian stance.
> 
> KaerbEmEvig joined in but made no musical reference whatsoever - not one - but instead merely told us how much he disowned and disliked the Christian Faith he was brought up in, and then began to make a number of highly disparaging remarks or innuendo about people who draw comfort from their Christian faith. Here's a selection of some of his very obviously *hostile* comments from that thread, drawing comparisons between belief in Christianity and belief in the Loch Ness Monster, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Tooth Fairies etc. In the light of these remarks, how he or his side-kick, Polednice, dare argue otherwise is incomprehensible.
> 
> In conclusion, I would say come on you two, you've been rumbled.


"Positively full of themselves academically" - I don't see what has given that impression. I am fully aware of the comments I made on the other thread about my education and what I have read, but these were highly uncharacteristic remarks that served no purpose other than to make people aware that a patronising tone towards younger individuals is highly unnecessary. Aside from this, all I ever do is state my opinions, which I do not expect anyone to either agree or disagree with, for I never claim to know any facts - particularly on a forum dealing with art! As an arts student, I'd know! (And before that is criticised by people without a sense of humour, that last sentence was a joke ).

I didn't make a constant attempt to force my atheistic views on people. While commenting on the actual question, I made derisive remarks about organised religion in general, but those were side-comments due to the irrationality that organised religion cannot help but display. I would further point out that, on this thread at the very least, the under-the-belt arguments and ad hominems were quite obviously initiated by someone from the 'other side'.

As for KaerbEmEvig's 'hostile' comments - that selection you quoted was not hostile in the least! Nor was it in any way offensive! If you actually consider the claims made by theistic religions and the evidence they have to support such claims, the comparisons that KaerbEmEvig made are _entirely legitimate_. The problem here is that people of faith seem all too easily to take offence at remarks that are, if anything, highly empirical! Then, they resort to personal attacks and instigate a vicious circle.

Come on now, you and your allies, recognise that you're voicing a distorted view of the whole situation. And, particularly Andy Loochazee, I still cannot quite believe the tone you use in your posts - you speak to people with such unwavering criticism as though you hold divine knowledge yourself, and yet you accuse others of arrogance?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Andy Loochazee said:


> KaerbEmEvig said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single glimpse behind the curtains has made me aware of how shallow religion actually is when you pay closer attention to it and investigate a little further. In my opinion, anything that feeds on negative emotions and sentiments is shallow and hurtful (longing for an afterlife is one, since people content with their here-and-now do not need an afterlife; some people may seek refuge in the afterlife-to-come [terrorists, to name one group] instead of chaning their actual life
> …
> 
> Are you an agnostic atheist towards gnomes? Maybe towards pink unicorns? How about the? Russle's Teapot? Maybe the Loch Ness Monster? Dwarves? Elves? The Tooth Fairy?
> 
> Why should one treat religion differently than the rest of the superstition? I haven't met a single person who would say they are a weak atheist or an agnostic atheist towards any of the things I've just mentioned. How is the Christian God any different to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
> 
> When paired up with these, the notion of God's existence becomes just as ridiculous. It only gets special treatment because many people believe in the existence of one.
> 
> What deep in their hearts they know that there is no difference between God, FSM or the Tooth Fairy and yet they wouldn't call themselves agnostic atheists towards the last two. ).
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on what exactly is offensive in this post? The comparison between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Christian God is a legit one. Until either of them's been proven to exist, I don't see how they are any different. Or maybe you could enlighten me.

You know why you claim these words to be filled with hostility? Why you are so easily offended? Because you know exactly that faith is irrational, that it holds no water - whatsoever. Irrationality cannot defend itself and thus it must be defended through the use of words such as "hostility", "blasphemy" and so on. Ungrounded accusations that bring nothing to the debate.

I haven't seen scientists using these words. You know why? Because scienence can stand its ground by itself alone.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I think Polednice and KaerbEmEvig would prefer theists to use rational thinking when it comes to religion, but bear in mind, theists have good reasons for believing what they do.

Firstly, it's probably the religion of their parents or of the area in which they were raised. If you are told something is true until you are an adult, the chances are you will defend that something's existance.

Secondly, the lure of a cult is strong for some people. I was tempted to become a Buddhist at one point. Just think of the new religion Jedi. (Damn! I should have put that as an option!)

Lastly, it is of comfort to think our loved ones are waiting in an afterlife. True, this may well be the hell of a rival religion.


----------



## Polednice

Edward Elgar said:


> I think Polednice and KaerbEmEvig would prefer theists to use rational thinking when it comes to religion, but bear in mind, theists have good reasons for believing what they do.
> 
> Firstly, it's probably the religion of their parents or of the area in which they were raised. If you are told something is true until you are an adult, the chances are you will defend that something's existance.
> 
> Secondly, the lure of a cult is strong for some people. I was tempted to become a Buddhist at one point. Just think of the new religion Jedi. (Damn! I should have put that as an option!)
> 
> Lastly, it is of comfort to think our loved ones are waiting in an afterlife. True, this may well be the hell of a rival religion.


Now all of these things are true, reasonable, understandable and I recognise them, but I bet you'll get shouted at for mentioning them! There's no winning


----------



## Edward Elgar

Polednice said:


> Now all of these things are true, reasonable, understandable and I recognise them, but I bet you'll get shouted at for mentioning them! There's no winning


I want dialogue with theists, but some are so defensive it's impossible to do so.

One of the points made earlier which is not a criticism of beliefs was the comparison between god (Yahway for instance) and the flying spagetti monster. People with passionate convictions in the existance of a flying spagetti monster (and I bet there are a fair few in this world!) have as much right to that belief as (for instance) a christian. This is not an attack, and yet theists will see it as an attack because it comes from those who have criticised their own beliefs.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> "Positively full of themselves academically" - I don't see what has given that impression. I am fully aware of the comments I made on the other thread about my education and what I have read, but these were highly uncharacteristic remarks that served no purpose other than to make people aware that a patronising tone towards younger individuals is highly unnecessary. Aside from this, all I ever do is state my opinions, which I do not expect anyone to either agree or disagree with, for I never claim to know any facts - particularly on a forum dealing with art! As an arts student, I'd know! (And before that is criticised by people without a sense of humour, that last sentence was a joke ).
> 
> I didn't make a constant attempt to force my atheistic views on people. While commenting on the actual question, I made derisive remarks about organised religion in general, but those were side-comments due to the irrationality that organised religion cannot help but display. I would further point out that, on this thread at the very least, the under-the-belt arguments and ad hominems were quite obviously initiated by someone from the 'other side'.
> 
> As for KaerbEmEvig's 'hostile' comments - that selection you quoted was not hostile in the least! Nor was it in any way offensive! If you actually consider the claims made by theistic religions and the evidence they have to support such claims, the comparisons that KaerbEmEvig made are _entirely legitimate_. The problem here is that people of faith seem all too easily to take offence at remarks that are, if anything, highly empirical! Then, they resort to personal attacks and instigate a vicious circle.
> 
> Come on now, you and your allies, recognise that you're voicing a distorted view of the whole situation. And, particularly Andy Loochazee, I still cannot quite believe the tone you use in your posts - you speak to people with such unwavering criticism as though you hold divine knowledge yourself, and yet you accuse others of arrogance?


I beg to differ on every point you try to make above.

In order to avoid conflict with the Moderator's warning, which I take very seriously, I shall avoid any further comment about your academic snobbery.

Regarding the two other matters:

1. You completely avoid my observation that, in the closed thread, you overstepped the mark by a very big margin in terms of answering the specific question originally posed in that thread. You first gave your opinion, which was fine, but when a few others came forward to give theirs which was contrary to yours you couldn't resist constantly coming back and ramming more and more of your atheistic opinions down our throats. In the process of so doing, you made some very strong negative comments about the basis and value of Christianity, and hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith, for which in your opinion there is virtually no supporting scientific evidence. None of this argumentation was necessary, and you should have backed out much earlier. Your pride was obviously hurt at the thought of losing out, so that's why you kept coming back, aggravating the situation yet further.

2. KaerbEmEvig's comments were clearly hostile to Christianity in the sense that he has made it plain that he has fully rejected it, sees fit to advertise that fact loud and clear on a thread in which he expressed no musical opinion whatsoever, and in the process of making his generally negative remarks he equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster, etc. How many more times do I have to spell this out?


----------



## emiellucifuge

I realise this is a sensitive situation but I see nothing wrong with the following points:

"hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith"

"there is virtually no supporting scientific evidence"

"equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster"


All three seem rational and fair to me.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> I beg to differ on every point you try to make above.
> 
> In order to avoid conflict with the Moderator's warning, which I take very seriously, I shall avoid any further comment about your academic snobbery.
> 
> Regarding the two other matters:
> 
> 1. You completely avoid my observation that, in the closed thread, you overstepped the mark by a very big margin in terms of answering the specific question originally posed in that thread. You first gave your opinion, which was fine, but when a few others came forward to give theirs which was contrary to yours you couldn't resist constantly coming back and ramming more and more of your atheistic opinions down our throats. In the process of so doing, you made some very strong negative comments about the basis and value of Christianity, and hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith given that in your opinion there is virtually no scientific evidence. None of this argumentation was necessary, and you should have backed out much earlier. Your pride was obviously hurt at the thought of losing out, so that's why you kept coming back, aggravating the situation yet further.
> 
> 2. KaerbEmEvig's comments were clearly hostile to Christianity in the sense that he has made it plain that he has fully rejected it, sees fit to advertise that fact loud and clear on a thread in which he expressed no musical opinion whatsoever, and in the process of making his generally negative remarks he equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster, etc. How many more times do I have to spell this out?


"Academic snobbery." And yet you still manage one last hypocritical comment - oh, how crafty!

1. I certainly made some heated comments in the other thread, but they were still in response to the question. I have checked the other thread and you will find that all my initial posts on the first few pages were direct answers, with the exception of two posts where I discussed a tangential remark about Walter Pater and 'art for art's sake'. You will then find that, based on my _response to the question_, *somebody else* criticised my argument in such a manner that it opened the discussion to whether or not God exists. I, in turn, responded briefly, clearly stating that I did not want a discussion on God's inexistence, but the various theists on the forum took it upon themselves to create that debate. If I am at fault, then so is everyone else.

Also, I have never stated or implied _in my life_ that people with faith are 'stupid'. I very openly say that it is 'irrational', but that is entirely different.

2. KaerbEmEvig's comments may have been off-topic, but they were certainly not hostile. How many times must I repeat - shout if I must! - that comparing a _personal, theistic, Abrahamic God_ to a speculated being such as the Loch Ness Monster is a legitimate comparison? There's is no escaping that _fact_.


----------



## Guest

Actually, Polednice and KaerbEmEvig, your comments tend to the condescending and do not in any way make a plausible case for your opinion. You continue to make comments about the ridiculousness of religion, and then wonder why anybody should take any offense. Furthermore, your only stated justification for your particular understanding of these issues, and claim that we should care at all, is based on your study of the issue, where it pertains to your particular educational niche. Your colleague, furthermore, claims broad conclusions regarding religion based on, by his own admission, as simple study. I understand that you are educated at a fine establishment, and don't doubt that it can grant one a very fine education in your chosen field. But you become very myopic in applying your own area of expertise to such a broad topic, and certainly can't, with such tools, make quite the sweeping statements you make. Are you prepared to make the case against any kind of supreme being from a philosophical and scientific perspective? In an authoritative manner? Too often the scientific method is touted the loudest by those who understand it least.

You hold religion to be irrational, but I am assuming that is based on your understanding of what is rational. Really, though, much of what you argue comes from the manner and language with which you couch your descriptions of religion - very much biased to make them sound absurd. But, you see, with such techniques you can make most anything sound ridiculous. Try explaining how every single physical aspect and process in the human body is determined by the various combinations for the 4 bases of DNA. You can't generate the entire english language with less than 26 letters, but the code for everything we are physically can be spelled out by A, T, G, and C, and on a molecule smaller than the naked eye can see. I can make that sound absurd.

You cannot use science to prove to others that God doesn't exist. That is an untestable hypothesis, and outside of the bounds of the scientific method. You can choose to not believe in a supreme being, but you have no basis by which you can prove to others that their belief is false. You cannot know whether they have had some personal proof that you have not.

The human mind is a wonderful thing. It has the ability to grasp the abstract. Were it not so, there would be no innovation. How could any new thought or idea ever develop were we to so chain ourselves to only what we can see before our eyes? All the cutting edge ideas that so enthrall people in the sciences came from someone's ability to go beyond what they could see or prove, and to ask if there was something more. Einstein developed his theory of relativity before the tools to prove them existed. Nobody applauds the people who trudge along, irrationally clinging to only the physical proof they could see with their own eyes. The great minds are those who are able to ponder those things that are not known. 

You believe that faith is irrational - I simply say that it is a concept that you have limited yourself from exploring.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

emiellucifuge said:


> I realise this is a sensitive situation but I see nothing wrong with the following points:
> 
> "hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith"
> 
> "there is virtually no supporting scientific evidence"
> 
> "equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster"
> 
> All three seem rational and fair to me.


Evenmoreso, the belief in the Loch Ness Monster has one advantage over Christianity: one can construe a scientific hypothesis based on it - it can be falsified by draining all of the water out of the lake.


----------



## Edward Elgar

emiellucifuge said:


> "hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith"


A muslim would say the same thing. Why should it be any more invalid that an athiest should make this assertion rather than a person of faith? It shouldn't.



emiellucifuge said:


> "there is virtually no supporting scientific evidence"


This is true, no offence intended in this comment.



emiellucifuge said:


> "equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster"


I believe passionately in the Loch Ness monster! How dare you equate this belief to a system that has virtually no supporting scientific evidence!


----------



## Andy Loochazee

emiellucifuge said:


> I realise this is a sensitive situation but I see nothing wrong with the following points:
> 
> "hence implied that Christian followers must be stupid for believing any of their Faith"
> 
> "there is virtually no supporting scientific evidence"
> 
> "equated Christian belief with something akin to belief in the Loch Ness Monster"
> 
> All three seem rational and fair to me.


Comments like this are as useless as rubber lips on a woodpecker.

Get yourself a dictionary, and stop nit-picking.

How old are you, bye the way? Don't tell me you're only *15* too?

Just to to change the tone of this discussion a bit, I feel the need to tell you all a joke about 15 year olds. Here it is:

..............

A Parent's Worst Nightmare!

A father entered his 15 year old daughter's bedroom and saw a letter on the bed. With the worst premonition he read it with trembling hands.

"_Dear Mum and Dad,

It is with great regret and sorrow that I'm telling you that I've eloped with my new boyfriend. I've found real love and he is so nice, especially with all his piercings, scars, tattoos, and his big motorcycle. But it is not only that, I'm pregnant and Ahmed said that we will be very happy in his trailer in the woods. He wants to have many more children with me and that is one of my dreams.

I've learned that marijuana doesn't hurt anyone and we'll be growing it for us and his friends. They're the ones providing us with all the cocaine and ecstasy we could ever want.

In the meantime, we'll pray for science to find the AIDS cure so Ahmed gets better. He deserves it. Don't worry about money, Ahmed has arranged for me to be in films that his friends Leroy and Jamal make in their basement.

Apparently I can earn $100 a scene and I get a $100 bonus if there are more than three men in the scene, and an extra $200 if they use a horse.

Don't worry Mum, now I'm 15 years old I know how to take care of myself.

Someday I'll visit you and Dad so that you can meet your grandchildren.

Your loving daughter, Aimee

P.S. Dad, it's not true; I'm at a neighbours house. I just wanted to show you that there are worse things in life than denting the car. Sorry about your BMW."_


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Actually, Polednice and KaerbEmEvig, your comments tend to the condescending and do not in any way make a plausible case for your opinion. You continue to make comments about the ridiculousness of religion, and then wonder why anybody should take any offense. Furthermore, your only stated justification for your particular understanding of these issues, and claim that we should care at all, is based on your study of the issue, where it pertains to your particular educational niche ... I understand that you are educated at a fine establishment, and don't doubt that it can grant one a very fine education in your chosen field. But you become very myopic in applying your own area of expertise to such a broad topic, and certainly can't, with such tools, make quite the sweeping statements you make.


I cannot even begin to understand why you have made this comment, because it would be _impossible_ for me to apply my own area of study to this question - I am a student of English Language and Literature. I spend my time reading novels, poetry, plays, literary criticism and then discuss things such as genre, linguistics, phonology, philology _etc. etc._ That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on theology!

My arguments are entirely based on me going _outside_ the realm of my own area of study, which is why I stated that I have read works on (a)theism by polemicists, politicians, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists and philosophers. Thus, what you said is completely unfounded.



DrMike said:


> You hold religion to be irrational, but I am assuming that is based on your understanding of what is rational. Really, though, much of what you argue comes from the manner and language with which you couch your descriptions of religion - very much biased to make them sound absurd. But, you see, with such techniques you can make most anything sound ridiculous. Try explaining how every single physical aspect and process in the human body is determined by the various combinations for the 4 bases of DNA. You can't generate the entire english language with less than 26 letters, but the code for everything we are physically can be spelled out by A, T, G, and C, and on a molecule smaller than the naked eye can see. I can make that sound absurd.


I'm not even going to begin deconstructing that analogy because it's simply wrong in too many ways.



DrMike said:


> You cannot use science to prove to others that God doesn't exist. That is an untestable hypothesis, and outside of the bounds of the scientific method. You can choose to not believe in a supreme being, but you have no basis by which you can prove to others that their belief is false. You cannot know whether they have had some personal proof that you have not.


It is when you say things such as this that I realise that I cannot have a sensible discussion with you. You tell me that I have limited myself from exploring religion, but - even though you will never see this very important fact - the paragraph just quoted is a prime example of the circular reasoning that people use to make faith utterly invulnerable to attack. There's no arguing with it. It simply must be. That is not the basis on which mankind has made progress and, seeing that you adhere to circular logic, I will go nowhere further with you on this matter.


----------



## Aramis

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Evenmoreso, the belief in the Loch Ness Monster has one advantage over Christianity: one can construe a scientific hypothesis based on it - it can be falsified by draining all of the water out of the lake.


No, it wouldn't prove anything. If there would be no monster I would say that a megalodon could evaporate from depths of arctic ocean and in form of a cloud get to the Loch Ness , then condense and fall with the rain intro the lake, eat the monster and vanish next day the same way he did get there. Now he's back under the glacier.

And monster's bones were stolen by those poachers hunting elephants in Africa for their tusks.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Of course you can generate the entire English language with less 26 letters, let's say 25, duh - make it 2. It's called the binary code: http://www.tekmom.com/buzzwords/binaryalphabet.html


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> How many times must I repeat - shout if I must! - that comparing a _personal, theistic, Abrahamic God_ to a speculated being such as the Loch Ness Monster is a legitimate comparison? There's is no escaping that _fact_.


No, it is not a legitimate comparison. The existence of a Loch Ness monster can be tested. Such a monster would have a physical body and exist in a very limited geographical region, and efforts can (and have) been made to detect the creature. It is clearly a fictional creature.

There is also no comparison between a personal, theistic, Abrahamic God and something such as the flying spaghetti monster. It is not a logical comparison. The FSM is a known unreal contrived being by someone thinking that they were being clever, to use to poke people in the eye.

Here, I'll show you how absurd it is. Take the concept of black holes. What is at the center of a black hole? Well, you will likely tell me a singularity, something of infinite density but zero volume. Well, now, that just sounds ridiculous! Infinite density but zero volume? Absurd. You can't prove that to me. I think that is just the delusion of a bunch of scientists who could think of no other way to explain what would be at the center of a black hole. In fact, I think that there is a Baskin Robbins there, with all the free ice cream you can eat to the first person to ever reach it. Now, you can't disprove that there is a Baskin Robbins at the center of a black hole. And I can't disprove there is a singularity of infinite density and zero volume. Therefore, both possibilities are equally ridiculous.

Except it doesn't work like that. People for good reason believe in God. The FSM was created as a ridiculous attempt to discredit people that believe in God. The two are not comparable.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> You cannot use science to prove to others that God doesn't exist. That is an untestable hypothesis, and outside of the bounds of the scientific method. You can choose to not believe in a supreme being, but you have no basis by which you can prove to others that their belief is false. You cannot know whether they have had some personal proof that you have not.


The responsibility of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. I could say the flying spagetti monster is real, but the responsibility would be on me to prove it, not for flying spagetti monster skeptics to disprove it.

No theist has yet made an attempt to take the responsibility of proving the existance of a god and theirfore it is rational to assume that there is no god. That is unless you are prepared to take the responsibility.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> There is also no comparison between a personal, theistic, Abrahamic God and something such as the flying spaghetti monster. It is not a logical comparison. The FSM is a known unreal contrived being by someone thinking that they were being clever, to use to poke people in the eye.


From an objective perspective, there's no difference between the two. The FSM even has it's own holy scripture by now. "The FSM is a known unreal [...] being" - to an atheist - any god is. Try to look at the comparison out of the theist's frame, think out of the box.



> Here, I'll show you how absurd it is. Take the concept of black holes. What is at the center of a black hole? Well, you will likely tell me a singularity, something of infinite density but zero volume. Well, now, that just sounds ridiculous! Infinite density but zero volume? Absurd.


That's the beauty of science. Its theories are testable. As of now, we can't tell how matter behaves in black holes. Yes, General Relativity indicates singularity, but Quantum Mechnics says otherwise. As of now, one cannot postulate anything certain until both theories are unified into one (hail LHC!).



> I think that is just the delusion of a bunch of scientists who could think of no other way to explain what would be at the center of a black hole.


That's actually exactly how it goes. You take a scientific theory, apply Ockham's Razor and get the most plausible answer.



> In fact, I think that there is a Baskin Robbins there, with all the free ice cream you can eat to the first person to ever reach it. Now, you can't disprove that there is a Baskin Robbins at the center of a black hole. And I can't disprove there is a singularity of infinite density and zero volume. Therefore, both possibilities are equally ridiculous.


No - vide: Ockham's Razor.



> Except it doesn't work like that. People for good reason believe in God.


What are the reasons?



> The FSM was created as a ridiculous attempt to discredit people that believe in God. The two are not comparable.


So far you didn't explain why exactly.


----------



## TresPicos

I would have liked a pure "Agnostic" poll option. So, I guess my vote has to go to Buddhism instead.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

TresPicos said:


> I would have liked a pure "Agnostic" poll option. So, I guess my vote has to go to Buddhism instead.


Agnosticism is the negative end of the polar spectrum (as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states) of possession of knowledge. Atheism on the other hand is the negative end of the polar spectrum of faith/belief. The poll asks about the latter.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> The responsibility of proof lies with the one making a positive claim. I could say the flying spagetti monster is real, but the responsibility would be on me to prove it, not for flying spagetti monster skeptics to disprove it.
> 
> No theist has yet made an attempt to take the responsibility of proving the existance of a god and theirfore it is rational to assume that there is no god. That is unless you are prepared to take the responsibility.


But we make no such claim that the existence of God can be proven by scientific means. I have stated that already. And whether you accept that or not is irrelevant. Not everything can be proven. And I won't try to prove it to you. All I can do is to say that I believe in God, and I can tell you how I came about that belief, and invite you to do the same to see whether you come to the same conclusion. I offer no other proof.

I have not asked anyone here to accept my belief. The point of my comments is to suggest that while you may believe that it is rational to assume there is no god, you and the other outspoken atheists here have actually been asserting an absolute to us - you state that there is no god. I am saying you can't say that. By scientific methods, you can't say that. By your methods of evaluation, you may be able to claim that the probability of the existence of a god is very low, but you can't say that one doesn't exist. I don't need to be able to prove that a FSM doesn't exist to justify my belief in god.

Since such broad sweeping statements have been thrown around regarding those of us with a belief in a god by those of you who "know" better, I'll make this one statement - "deluded" or not, natural selection seems to be doing a pretty good job of selecting for those of us with some belief in a higher power over those of you who don't. But as evolution nudges you out of the gene pool, don't worry - you'll at least still have the intellectual superiority.


----------



## Polednice

Is it me imagining things, or haven't the theists - by their very nature - been implicitly claiming that God definitely does exist?

Nobody needs to prove that God is real; they just need to prove that you can't prove that God is real  And, despite the figures that show an increase in atheism and humanist attitudes, if I were to ignore them, then it would have nothing to do with natural selection if God-fearers were increasing - there's a difference between biology and religious oppression


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Hello everyone... Chi_townPhilly here- itinerant poster, humble dilettante and all-around good Joe. Let me answer the original question-

I come from a Protestant background. Early on, I was brought up Methodist- but my most recent church affiliation is Lutheran. In spite of this, there was a period of time when, fresh from college and head filled with existential philosophy, I embraced atheism. I hope that, with that life-experience, I'm not unsympathetic to the perspectives of the people who have been engaged by atheism. Now... switching over to 'Moderator' hat--

*Ask me about discussing bedrock viewpoints without 
belittling, ridiculing, or sneering at alternative perspectives.

Before it's too late.

Although it may already be too late...*


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Hello everyone... Chi_townPhilly here- itinerant poster, humble dilettante and all-around good Joe. Let me answer the original question-
> 
> I come from a Protestant background. Early on, I was brought up Methodist- but my most recent church affiliation is Lutheran. In spite of this, there was a period of time when, fresh from college and head filled with existential philosophy, I embraced atheism. I hope that, with that life-experience, I'm not unsympathetic to the perspectives of the people who have been engaged by atheism.


Well, the thing I'd like to know - and I'm not at all bothered about this, I'm just curious - is why there seems to be this consensus that a lot of atheists are just inexperienced students and that 'wisdom' will bring faith later in life... I don't doubt that it was true in your case and though I'm sure _you_ don't mean to suggest it, it has before been mentioned where there is a patronising undercurrent. I feel certain that my universe-perspective will never change because of what I have learned from sceptical thinking and it strikes me that the only 'wisdom' age might bring is some moving personal experience which can understandably - but not justifiably in my eyes - lead to faith.

Enlighten me


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> Well, the thing I'd like to know - and I'm not at all bothered about this, I'm just curious - is why there seems to be this consensus that a lot of atheists are just inexperienced students and that 'wisdom' will bring faith later in life... I don't doubt that it was true in your case and though I'm sure _you_ don't mean to suggest it, it has before been mentioned where there is a patronising undercurrent. I feel certain that my universe-perspective will never change because of what I have learned from sceptical thinking and it strikes me that the only 'wisdom' age might bring is some moving personal experience which can understandably - but not justifiably in my eyes - lead to faith.
> 
> Enlighten me


Here's my answer.

Looking at your background I gather you are 19? Think what you knew on these matters when you were 9, or 14, or even 16? See how much you have learned over each of these periods. You don't stop learning as you get beyond 19. Nor is it a kind of ratchet-effect where you simply add more and more knowledge without ever modifying the results of previous learning, sometimes quite heavily.

So it would be unwise for you to say that your "universe-perspective will never change". It could happen. In possibly 10 or 20 years time you may look back on your present entrenched views and realise how wrong they were. Much the same thing as CTP described happening to him also happened to me. I was Christian, then agnostic, now (in my late 20s) I'm more or less back to where I started.

You know the story about St Paul on the road to Damascus? People who are older than you who have been through more adjustment processes than you in their thinking tend not to like less experienced opinions from your age group thrown at them in such a forceful manner as you have repeatedly demonstrated. If you were a lot older and could speak from demonstrable experience and learning things might be different, but as it is you are merely a 19 year student, and I mean with no disrespect to you or to any students. It's a fact that you are still very young.


----------



## Polednice

But sceptical inquiry is free of such things like age and experience - those are the kinds of excesses that defile free thought. Maybe (and this is something I very highly doubt) I will 'believe' when I am older, but I can say that my current self would be very disappointed, for the _only_ circumstance in which such a thing could happen would be if something of tremendous importance happened in my life, but I am all to aware of my own insignificance (and statistics!) to allow any such event to take control of my world view. I recognise that I am younger and thus, necessarily, less experienced than others, but that's no basis for a comparison in reasoning skills.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> But sceptical inquiry is free of such things like age and experience - those are the kinds of excesses that defile free thought.


Why don't you fly that one by your professors and poll them for their opinions on the matter. True, you can engage in skeptical inquiry at any age - most people will tell you that age and experience greatly enhance your proficiency. Mozart was indeed a musical genius at a very early age - but it was not the child Mozart that wrote the Jupiter symphony. The same can be said for Beethoven and his 9th symphony. With any intellectual pursuit, it is ridiculous to think that age and experience will have no bearing.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Why don't you fly that one by your professors and poll them for their opinions on the matter. True, you can engage in skeptical inquiry at any age - most people will tell you that age and experience greatly enhance your proficiency. Mozart was indeed a musical genius at a very early age - but it was not the child Mozart that wrote the Jupiter symphony. The same can be said for Beethoven and his 9th symphony. With any intellectual pursuit, it is ridiculous to think that age and experience will have no bearing.


Scepticism is not an intellectual pursuit, it is a _way_ of thinking and thus has absolutely nothing to do with skills that get better with age such as composition. It is not hard to know how to think sceptically, and, if you're doing it properly, then your method should certainly never change! It's like saying that someone can ride a bicycle better with every year that passes. Age is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Polednice said:


> But sceptical inquiry is free of such things like age and experience - those are the kinds of excesses that defile free thought. Maybe (and this is something I very highly doubt) I will 'believe' when I am older, but I can say that my current self would be very disappointed, for the _only_ circumstance in which such a thing could happen would be if something of tremendous importance happened in my life, but I am all to aware of my own insignificance (and statistics!) to allow any such event to take control of my world view. I recognise that I am younger and thus, necessarily, less experienced than others, but that's no basis for a comparison in reasoning skills.


It's kind of difficult to explain but I'll try. Please forgive me if it sounds a bit garbled.

What tends to happen, based on my experience after leaving Uni and that of other people I have discussed this kind of thing with, is that as you get older the kind of issues that once loomed large in your mind become less important as new issues come along to replace them, perforce through change of circumstances. Right now I can see that you are very much into philosophy of religion, and it's a big priority in your thoughts. Fair enough but think back 5 years ago and try to recall the number one issue on your mind then. I bet it was something else.

In 5,10 years time something similar could happen again. The kind of things that are now important may well subside, and you look back on your present learning and interests merely as a tool to help you get by in some totally different occupation. I recall that in my student days I became quite taken up and inspired after reading Kant, Nietsche , Russell, and Wittgenstein and all that, but it all gradually tends to melt away into the dim and distant after you leave uni. It won't be long before the number one thing on your mind is how to mend a burst water pipe, or how to stop the child being sick every time you go out in the car, and such mundane things. In other words, strong favourable attitudes towards academia subside, and in the process iof adjusting to the real world it's quite possible to become a lot less atheistic. I'm not saying it will happen but it could happen. That's why opinions from people with a longer life's experience are often worth listening to. They have seen it all before.

Sorry, I know it's not well expressed but I hope you can make at least make some sense of it.


----------



## Polednice

Andy Loochazee said:


> It's kind of difficult to explain but I'll try. Please forgive me if it sounds a bit garbled.
> 
> What tends to happen, based on my experience after leaving Uni and that of other people I have discussed this kind of thing with, is that as you get older the kind of issues that once loomed large in your mind become less important as new issues come along to replace them, perforce through change of circumstances. Right now I can see that you are very much into philosophy of religion, and it's a big priority in your thoughts. Fair enough but think back 5 years ago and try to recall the number one issue on your mind then. I bet it was something else.
> 
> In 5,10 years time something similar could happen again. The kind of things that are now important may well subside, and you look back on your present learning and interests merely as a tool to help you get by in some totally different occupation. I recall that in my student days I became quite taken up and inspired after reading Kant, Nietsche , Russell, and Wittgenstein and all that, but it all gradually tends to melt away into the dim and distant after you leave uni. It won't be long before the number one thing on your mind is how to mend a burst water pipe, or how to stop the child being sick every time you go out in the car, and such mundane things. In other words, strong attitudes towards academia subside, and in the process iof adjsting to the real world t's quiute possible to become a lot less atheistic. I'm not saying it will happen but it could happen. That's why opinions based on a longer life's experience are worth listening to.
> 
> Sorry, I know it's not well expressed but I hope you can make at least make some sense of it.


I can completely understand about the major shift that can occur with what things preoccupy your mind when you're a completely independent member of society, and what you said makes sense in a grammatical way, but don't you think that kind of progression (or regression) would make such a person feel regretful?


----------



## kmisho

I believe in this priest.


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> I think arguing this is pointless and ridiculous. It never goes anywhere. I have yet to see anybody ever converted one way or the other in arguments over religion.


This thread should have ended here.

I typed out a well thought out and fair reply seeing both sides of the argument, explaining how the FSM is perfectly valid and how if people need religion to get through life or be happy, that's perfectly fine. But I took too long to write it, the forum logged me out and I am unable to retreive it. Damn. It was excellent. I mentioned these two American Mormon women I know and explained how you can't really blame atheists for their outspoken views. It was about 80 lines long. Took me about 45 minutes to plan out. It was the Citizen Kane of posts. No ad hominems or snide remarks at all. It was like God come down from heaven and controlled my fingers as I typed. It transcended this thread. But now it's lost forever because the forum logs you out after too short a time limit. It was a shining beacon of eternal truth among the lowly quibblings of mere mortals. I should have copied and pasted it but didn't think anything would go wrong.

That's ruined this thread for me. I'm going to let everyone continue doing what DrMike said in my quote of his but I've had enough.


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> This thread should have ended here.
> 
> I typed out a well thought out and fair reply seeing both sides of the argument, explaining how the FSM is perfectly valid and how if people need religion to get through life or be happy, that's perfectly fine. But I took too long to write it, the forum logged me out and I am unable to retreive it. Damn. It was excellent. I mentioned these two American Mormon women I know and explained how you can't really blame atheists for their outspoken views. It was about 80 lines long. Took me about 45 minutes to plan out. It was the Citizen Kane of posts. No ad hominems or snide remarks at all. It was like God come down from heaven and controlled my fingers as I typed. It transcended this thread. But now it's lost forever because the forum logs you out after too short a time limit. It was a shining beacon of eternal truth among the lowly quibblings of mere mortals. I should have copied and pasted it but didn't think anything would go wrong.
> 
> That's ruined this thread for me. I'm going to let everyone continue doing what DrMike said in my quote of his but I've had enough.


Fear not! I'm placing my faith in your words and I will believe that you had a behemoth-post ready to unleash on the world that was stolen from you! So, I'll just pretend I saw it and from now on treat you with great reverence and awe


----------



## Il Seraglio

Monotheism I guess.

I believe in God in the same sense that Spinoza did. 

I'm pretty sympathetic to non-literal interpretations Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but don't strictly follow any of them.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Sorry if this has already been a thread, but I would find it interesting to get an idea of what people believed in light of the religious music thread.


Why didn't you include* Agnosticism* it is the only view that makes any sense


----------



## Polednice

Andante said:


> Why didn't you include* Agnosticism* it is the only view that makes any sense


:O But agnosticism is not on the same spectrum as theism -> atheism!


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> :O But agnosticism is not on the same spectrum as theism -> atheism!


Explain please I don't quite follow you


----------



## Polednice

I stole this from page 4 



KaerbEmEvig said:


> Agnosticism is the negative end of the polar spectrum (as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states) of *possession of knowledge*. Atheism on the other hand is the negative end of the polar spectrum of *faith/belief*. The poll asks about the latter.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I stole this from page 4


Agnosticism takes the view that the existence or none existence of a creater is unknown or unknowable it *does not *take a neg or pos view and therefore the statement that you quoted:: [_as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states_] is IMHO is not correct,


----------



## Polednice

Andante said:


> Agnosticism takes the view that the existence or none existence of a creater is unknown or unknowable it *does not *take a neg or pos view and therefore the statement that you quoted:: [_as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states_] is IMHO is not correct,


Well, I'll bear in mind the definition you intend when you use the word, but I'm too tired to argue about it now :/ I need sleep!


----------



## Guest

Sweet Dreams *Polednice*, you are up late, hope you don't have an early start
btw why did you change your avatar ?


----------



## Polednice

Andante said:


> Sweet Dreams *Polednice*, you are up late, hope you don't have an early start
> btw why did you change your avatar ?


[I am actually going to bed after this post, I'm falling asleep at the computer! Thankfully, I can get up when I like  - I just felt like a change for my avatar, I don't know why :/ But Byron is just as perfect an individual for me to display! Don't worry, Brahms will be back soon enough ]


----------



## yoshtodd

I discovered Theravada Buddhism this year and it's the closest I've come to feeling "faith" in my life. In the west most people are exposed only to Zen and Mahayana (Tibetan and others) Buddhism. They are all pretty different despite sharing a similar core. I believe Buddha was a mortal man who realized and taught something transcendent.


----------



## Edward Elgar

DrMike said:


> All I can do is to say that I believe in God, and I can tell you how I came about that belief, and invite you to do the same to see whether you come to the same conclusion. I offer no other proof.


Please tell us how you came about with this belief, I'm very interested to find out the reasons people turn to faith.



DrMike said:


> Since such broad sweeping statements have been thrown around regarding those of us with a belief in a god by those of you who "know" better, I'll make this one statement - "deluded" or not, natural selection seems to be doing a pretty good job of selecting for those of us with some belief in a higher power over those of you who don't. But as evolution nudges you out of the gene pool, don't worry - you'll at least still have the intellectual superiority.


This is rather an odd comment. Are you reffering to political power in America? It's puzzling to comprehend what you're trying to say here. How can evolution be nudging us out of the gene pool when we are living in an increacingly secular society? Do you understand how evolution works? Natural selection takes place when those with unbeneficial characteristics die. Do you think we are going to die simply for looking at the world as an independant observer?

The thing about interlect is that for most athiests, we realise that this life is probably all that we are going to experience. We need something interesting to pass the time! (What better way than the study of music?!) Theists on the other hand can mess up this life because they've got another one to come. I think it more likely that they will go to the hell of a rival religion based on the odds, but still, life seems to be cheaper in the eyes of a theist. I think suicide bombers are putting natural selection into better effect than athiests lol!


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Andante said:


> Agnosticism takes the view that the existence or none existence of a creater is unknown or unknowable it *does not *take a neg or pos view and therefore the statement that you quoted:: [_as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states_] is IMHO is not correct,


I think you misunderstood the definition. Agnosticism takes the negative stance when it comes to the notion of possession of knowledge, i.e. "I *do not* know whether [insert an idea here] is true". That's a negative stance, while "I *do* know that [insert an idea here] is true" would be a positive stance.


----------



## TresPicos

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Agnosticism is the negative end of the polar spectrum (as in it can only be positive or negative, no intermediate states) of possession of knowledge. Atheism on the other hand is the negative end of the polar spectrum of faith/belief. The poll asks about the latter.


No, agnosticism is the negative end of the polar spectrum of _claiming/pretending _to possess knowledge. 

But I agree that agnosticism is answering a different question, since there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists (like me), as well as pure agnostics.

Furthermore, the "Atheism (No belief system)" poll option should have been split into "Atheism" and "Undecided (No belief system)". It's definitely not the same thing.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

TresPicos said:


> No, agnosticism is the negative end of the polar spectrum of _claiming/pretending _to possess knowledge.


Yes, [I'm aware of that and] you are correct. It's just I didn't want to throw in even more words into something already that long.


----------



## mueske

Andy Loochazee said:


> It's kind of difficult to explain but I'll try. Please forgive me if it sounds a bit garbled.
> 
> What tends to happen, based on my experience after leaving Uni and that of other people I have discussed this kind of thing with, is that as you get older the kind of issues that once loomed large in your mind become less important as new issues come along to replace them, perforce through change of circumstances. Right now I can see that you are very much into philosophy of religion, and it's a big priority in your thoughts. Fair enough but think back 5 years ago and try to recall the number one issue on your mind then. I bet it was something else.
> 
> In 5,10 years time something similar could happen again. The kind of things that are now important may well subside, and you look back on your present learning and interests merely as a tool to help you get by in some totally different occupation. I recall that in my student days I became quite taken up and inspired after reading Kant, Nietsche , Russell, and Wittgenstein and all that, but it all gradually tends to melt away into the dim and distant after you leave uni. It won't be long before the number one thing on your mind is how to mend a burst water pipe, or how to stop the child being sick every time you go out in the car, and such mundane things. In other words, strong favourable attitudes towards academia subside, and in the process iof adjusting to the real world it's quite possible to become a lot less atheistic. I'm not saying it will happen but it could happen. That's why opinions from people with a longer life's experience are often worth listening to. They have seen it all before.
> 
> Sorry, I know it's not well expressed but I hope you can make at least make some sense of it.


Ever read Siddhartha by Hesse?


----------



## Artemis

Andante said:


> Explain please I don't quite follow you


 It's easy, Andante, when you get the hang of it. Please allow me to provide you with a guiding hand:

If you are an *Agnostic* you should arguably tick the Buddhist box, or refrain from voting altogether if you feel uncomfortable about aligning yourself with this group, although I'm sure they would love to count you among their fold. See post #50.

If you are a *Hindu*, you shouldn't tick the Hindu box because that's for polytheists and Hindus are monotheists, so a Hindu should tick the Monotheism box. 

If you are a *Buddhist* you can, if you wish, tick both the box "Buddhism" and Monotheism box since if you're a Buddhist it's acceptable to believe that God was the "first cause", although most adherents to Buddhism don't care how it all started since as the main issue for them is the extinguishment of suffering and the hope of achieving Nirvana by a process of indefinite birth and re-birth and following the teachings of the Buddha.

If you have *no belief system*, one could either tick the Atheist box or conceivably the Buddhist box. The reason why the latter could in principle be ticked is that if one's concept of God is a pantheistic one such as that proposed by Spinoza this is arguably another form of atheism since it falls outwith most religious traditions in the Western world which views the notion of God who stands in a direct personal relationship with humans.

If you are a *Christian* then, according to Edward Elgar, the majority of Christains (those who believe in the Trinity) should tick the polytheism box because in his opinion "_The most laughable attempt to disguise polytheism as monotheism is Christianity"_ (post #9). Strictly, only Unitarian Christians should tick the monotheism box.

These minor ambiguities in his otherwise excellent categories shouldn't obscure the results. One hopes.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I thought this would be simple and I hope it has been for the majority of people who have contributed to the poll. You either believe in one god, many gods, philosophy/spirituality systems or no gods.

Looking back I should have put an agnostic option, however, if you are certain we cannot prove there is a god (as DrMike is), the chances are a god doesn't exist, so even though you agnostics are not being as dogmatic as theists or athiests, please select the athiest option. That is if you don't mind being lumped in with athiests. 

I put in brackets (no belief system) in the hope that this would encompass all non-belivers and those sitting on the fence and not practicing a faith.


----------



## Polednice

Edward Elgar said:


> I thought this would be simple and I hope it has been for the majority of people who have contributed to the poll. You either believe in one god, many gods, philosophy/spirituality systems or no gods.
> 
> Looking back I should have put an agnostic option, however, if you are certain we cannot prove there is a god (as DrMike is), the chances are a god doesn't exist, so even though you agnostics are not being as dogmatic as theists or athiests, please select the athiest option. That is if you don't mind being lumped in with athiests.
> 
> I put in brackets (no belief system) in the hope that this would encompass all non-belivers and those sitting on the fence and not practicing a faith.


I don't think those criteria are at all hard to understand and, really, the whole point of this thread has been for people to simply choose a poll option on _your_ terms so that you can get the kind of picture you wanted - _not_ for people to start debating (and, surprise surprise, getting unnecessarily offended) the technicalities of the terms and how they should be most respectfully labelled.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I don't think those criteria are at all hard to understand and, really, the whole point of this thread has been for people to simply choose a poll option on _your_ terms so that you can get the kind of picture you wanted - _not_ for people to start debating (and, surprise surprise, getting unnecessarily offended) the technicalities of the terms and how they should be most respectfully labelled.


Not to "debate" this point, but the first two people to start debating the technicalities of the terms were first KaerbEmEvig (whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic) and Elgar himself, who discussed Hinduism, and then stated that Christians were polytheistic (although he put them in the monotheism category in his own poll). So when the creator of the poll himself confuses the issue, I don't think it is so hard to understand why others might be befuddled by the choices. Essentially, Elgar said, "Here, this is my characterization of these religions. Where do you fit into my spectrum?" That some objected to their classification is not so hard to understand. And as I mentioned in my second post to this thread, I am still wondering whether the purpose was mainly to conduct a survey and get an understanding of the demographics at play in this forum, or to then tell people whether or not their belief system was intellectually applaudable, or whether they were as irrational as a person believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

What my beliefs are, and how I know them, are very real. Attempting to explain them in this type of a forum would be about as productive Columbus giving a travelogue to a group of flat-earthers. Should anybody here truly care, I would be happy to explain them by private message, but I will not air them in this setting. I think it is pretty obvious what the reaction would be.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> What my beliefs are, and how I know them, are very real. Attempting to explain them in this type of a forum would be about as productive Columbus giving a travelogue to a group of flat-earthers. Should anybody here truly care, I would be happy to explain them by private message, but I will not air them in this setting. I think it is pretty obvious what the reaction would be.


I think that's very sensible. The problem seems to be that even when a group of people wishes to discuss the dry semantics of something like this, emotions still go through the roof. This comment isn't aimed at anybody in particular, or any particular group of people - it just seems to be a perpetual nuisance! Couldn't we all just stop talking about it now?


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> Not to "debate" this point, but the first two people to start debating the technicalities of the terms were first KaerbEmEvig (whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic) and Elgar himself, who discussed Hinduism, and then stated that Christians were polytheistic (although he put them in the monotheism category in his own poll). So when the creator of the poll himself confuses the issue, I don't think it is so hard to understand why others might be befuddled by the choices. Essentially, Elgar said, "Here, this is my characterization of these religions. Where do you fit into my spectrum?" That some objected to their classification is not so hard to understand. And as I mentioned in my second post to this thread, I am still wondering whether the purpose was mainly to conduct a survey and get an understanding of the demographics at play in this forum, or to then tell people whether or not their belief system was intellectually applaudable, or whether they were as irrational as a person believing in a flying spaghetti monster.


Quite so. I couldn't agree with you more. The classification system was highly dubious to start with, especially in lacking an "Agnostic" option. But when the thread originator very quickly started to make disparaging remarks about the validity of the most central doctrine of mainstream Christian doctrine, The Trinity, I couldn't take any of it seriously. In the light of that comment, it was quite apparent to me that the whole thing was likely conceived merely as an opportunity to have a further swipe at those who have a recognised religion, and sure enough it wasn't long before the usual culprits were again treating us to further insights into their super-charged minds (or so they think).


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> Quite so. I couldn't agree with you more. The classification system was highly dubious to start with, especially in lacking an "Agnostic" option. But when the thread originator very quickly started to make disparaging remarks about the validity of the most central doctrine of mainstream Christian doctrine, The Trinity, I couldn't take any of it seriously. In the light of that comment, it was quite apparent to me that the whole thing was likely conceived merely as an opportunity to have a further swipe at those who have a recognised religion, and sure enough it wasn't long before the usual culprits were again treating us to further insights into their super-charged minds (or so they think).


And, as ever, your comments demonstrate that you're just as bad as everyone else


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> ... or whether they were as irrational as a person believing in a flying spaghetti monster.


You can't say that. That is a privilege reserved for firm atheists.



> Attempting to explain them in this type of a forum would be about as productive Columbus giving a travelogue to a group of flat-earthers.


What does Columbus have to do with the realisation of the Earth being spherical. Many educated people believed the Earth was round centuries before Columbus. A better item to have used in that analogy would have been the photographs of Earth took by the Apollo astronauts. The photograph's are more empirical.

The poll would have been better if it just asked if you have a faith or if you are an atheist. I know agnosticism is on a different plane of measurement in that it only identifies whether you believe a faith can be proved or not. With only 2 options the question have been basically: Do you have a faith? Yes or No. Less debate about the nature of some religions/faiths whilst still dividing the forum. The original question is obviously biased to focus on religion and marginalises other belief's like nihilism,fatalism, solipsism and determinism.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Artemis and DrMike, christians have always thought of themselves as monotheistic. That is why I placed them in the monotheism category. Hindus have many gods (true some Hindus have said they are parts of one god but this is a reformation to fit in with the monotheist majority) so I have placed them in the polytrheist category.

Christianity was inspired partly by paganism (polytheism) through it's hijacking of pagan festivals. The trinity was devised in order to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament, _inadvertantly_ giving it a polytheist vibe. However, all christians will argue to the death that each part of the trinity is a part of one god.

I do like theological debate, but the main purpose of this thread was for demographic purposes put in motion by my curiosity in light of the religious music thread. For me, the most interesting divide in theology is the divide between monotheism and polytheism. Further divisions are simply splitting hairs.

I encourage positive discourse on reasons people have for their belief systems, but if anyone sees this benign gesture as an attack on their belief system, that will only lead me to assume you have little faith in your faith.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I disagree with your view that the greatest difference is between mono and polytheism, and that the others are just splitting hairs.

Arguably the greater gap or one might say a grand abyss is between no gods and one god, the gap between one to many gods is a lot smaller I believe.


----------



## tenor02

raised Christian, and still am...but i like to think that i take influence from multiple sources to provide me with the best explanation/insight to why i believe what i do.


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> Artemis and DrMike, christians have always thought of themselves as monotheistic. That is why I placed them in the monotheism category. Hindus have many gods (true some Hindus have said they are parts of one god but this is a reformation to fit in with the monotheist majority) so I have placed them in the polytrheist category.
> 
> Christianity was inspired partly by paganism (polytheism) through it's hijacking of pagan festivals. The trinity was devised in order to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament, _inadvertantly_ giving it a polytheist vibe. However, all christians will argue to the death that each part of the trinity is a part of one god.
> 
> I do like theological debate, but the main purpose of this thread was for demographic purposes put in motion by my curiosity in light of the religious music thread. For me, the most interesting divide in theology is the divide between monotheism and polytheism. Further divisions are simply splitting hairs.
> 
> I encourage positive discourse on reasons people have for their belief systems, but if anyone sees this benign gesture as an attack on their belief system, that will only lead me to assume you have little faith in your faith.


You treat christianity as one homogeneous mixture, which it is not. Not all who fall under this category believe all you say they do, or practice in the ways you describe. Not all are accepting of the Nicene Creed. So when you make these generalizations about christianity, you are referring to perhaps one variation. The Trinity is certainly accepted by Roman Catholics, the Orthodox churches, and many protestant denominations. But there are others who most definitely will not argue the the death that each part of the trinity is a part of one god.

I have no problems with theological debate. But I think it is rather condescending to tell a person that they are irrational for their beliefs, and then profess to be perplexed that anybody would take that, in any way, as insulting. I'm not sure what intellectual purpose that serves. Do you hope to be vindicated by having some person read your arguments, then suddenly have an epiphany and declare their foolishness for having believed such a thing, and thank you for opening their eyes?

A comparative discussion of various religious beliefs would indeed be an interesting one. It is something that interests me as well. But as we have seen here, you can't even treat each different category as a monolithic ideology. Certain beliefs are shared within Christianity, but there is much that is not. And the same can be said for most other major religious categories. It would be appropriate to define the broad categories by certain common ideas, but specific points of doctrine often do not carry across the entire group - as is the case with the doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I have no problems with theological debate. But I think it is rather condescending to tell a person that they are irrational for their beliefs,


How do you make that out as condescending? I also think that these beliefs are irrational but have no problem with those that have a faith what ever it is

====================
Dr Mike
You put Atheism as a no belief system which is wrong they believe that there is no God aka creator. 
Just as an extra ingredient I would add that the Human mind/brain is probably incapable of comprehending or understanding the "Meaning of life, the UV and all that jazz" so in truth we are all stumbling in the dark.


----------



## Edward Elgar

emiellucifuge said:


> I disagree with your view that the greatest difference is between mono and polytheism, and that the others are just splitting hairs.
> 
> Arguably the greater gap or one might say a grand abyss is between no gods and one god, the gap between one to many gods is a lot smaller I believe.


I said the most _interesting_ divide in _theology_. Please don't misquote. Of course the gap between athiesm and theism is the greatest gap, but that doesn't explain why I condensed the various belief systems into three categories.


----------



## david johnson

Christian.


----------



## Lukecash12

Christian.


----------



## Artemis

Despite my reservations about this thread, I did tick the box for monotheism as I'm R.C.


----------



## Argus

I'd be interested to know how many theists who answered the poll hail from North America. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the European members are either atheist or agnostic. Maybe this supports the theory that one's religion is largely due to culture and childhood exposure rather than the rational and well thought out decision of an adult mind.

I'd also be interested to know how many people were raised iwithout religion yet converted at a later stage in life, and the reasons behind this change.

Also I have the suspicion that the poll favours monotheism, as I'm sure classical music being as it is of European origins, is linked more closely to Christianity than other beliefs or lack thereof.


----------



## Guest

Well, I was raised in a church going family and a similarly inclined school I did not question any thing that I was taught, I was in the church choir, my family were all music lovers and played instruments, It was not until my late 20s that I started to give it any real thought and eventually saw it [religion] as a means of explaining certain things that were beyond our knowledge so I became an Atheist, it was a few years later that I realised this point of view was also a type of belief and just as arrogant.
So now I am an agnostic as it makes more sense (to me) to admit that we just do not know and probably never will.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> I'd be interested to know how many theists who answered the poll hail from North America. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the European members are either atheist or agnostic. *Maybe this supports the theory that one's religion is largely due to culture and childhood exposure rather than the rational and well thought out decision of an adult mind*.


After conceiving this great "thought" maybe you should sit down and give your mind a rest.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> Maybe this supports the theory that one's religion is largely due to culture and childhood exposure rather than the rational and* well thought out decision of an adult mind*.


Despite the knee jerk reaction from Artimus, I agree with you 100% I have bolded as she did.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Andante said:


> How do you make that out as condescending? I also think that these beliefs are irrational but have no problem with those that have a faith what ever it is.


People who are influenced by (for instance) Thomist thought (to say little of C.S. Lewis or Chesterton) would find the implication that their conclusions are irrational condescending at the very minimum. It comes pretty close to offensive, even.

I have my disagreements with the atheist/agnostic perspective. However, *at no time* have I asserted that their core belief is irrational. I don't think it's unreasonable to request the same courtesy in return.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> I'd be interested to know how many theists who answered the poll hail from North America. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the European members are either atheist or agnostic. *Maybe this supports the theory that one's religion is largely due to culture and childhood exposure rather than the rational and well thought out decision of an adult mind.*
> 
> I'd also be interested to know how many people were raised iwithout religion yet converted at a later stage in life, and the reasons behind this change.
> 
> Also I have the suspicion that the poll favours monotheism, as I'm sure classical music being as it is of European origins, is linked more closely to Christianity than other beliefs or lack thereof.


I see. The implication being that us dumb hick colonials across the pond ain't got no proper educatin' and is just childish? Please. Condescending and arrogant. So Europeans are enlightened, while we Americans are less prone to intellectual introspection, possessing the intellectual curiosity of a child? Based on a poll of, what, 40 people? I don't think that a rational adult mind prone to thinking things out would make such a sweeping statement based on such a limited poll that is not anywhere near approaching statistical significance. All you are polling here is a limited number of people on a classical music forum that willingly decide to volunteer their belief system.


----------



## tahnak

*What belief system do I follow?*

Invariably, all have answered in the context of worship and religious beliefs.
If I may be allowed to say so, my belief system is that there is One God. We are all his creation. We have been sent here on trial in this life for our deeds. We will be raised on the Day of Judgment. We will see the Hereafter. There is no alternative to this belief system. 
But over and above this, we are all part of a music forum and my belief system, maybe revolutionary, is that Music is the language preferred by God as a medium of worship. I am not saying this by instinct. But angels have told me in my dreams. Music is the superior language of them all and the highest belief system. Nothing is higher than music as an offering to the Divine Architect of the Universe.
A symphony is the highest figure of speech and God is well pleased.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I see. The implication being that us dumb hick colonials across the pond ain't got no proper educatin' and is just childish? Please. Condescending and arrogant. So Europeans are enlightened, while we Americans are less prone to intellectual introspection, possessing the intellectual curiosity of a child? Based on a poll of, what, 40 people? I don't think that a rational adult mind prone to thinking things out would make such a sweeping statement based on such a limited poll that is not anywhere near approaching statistical significance. All you are polling here is a limited number of people on a classical music forum that willingly decide to volunteer their belief system.


I would imagine that Argus's take on the matter would have more to do with the fact that Europe is an increasingly secularised continent, as epitomised by places such as Denmark, where religion may be important to some people, but not nearly so central as it is for America. America currently seems to be the bastion of right-wing (and crazy radical) Christianity, and also houses a great emphasis on the importance of religion in daily life - this is certainly due in large part to the way that the various churches have to finance themselves.

So, I doubt that Argus's comment - mild as it was - displayed any kind of prejudice.



tahnak said:


> Invariably, all have answered in the context of worship and religious beliefs.
> If I may be allowed to say so, my belief system is that there is One God. We are all his creation. We have been sent here on trial in this life for our deeds. We will be raised on the Day of Judgment. We will see the Hereafter. There is no alternative to this belief system.
> But over and above this, we are all part of a music forum and my belief system, maybe revolutionary, is that Music is the language preferred by God as a medium of worship. I am not saying this by instinct. But angels have told me in my dreams. Music is the superior language of them all and the highest belief system. Nothing is higher than music as an offering to the Divine Architect of the Universe.
> A symphony is the highest figure of speech and God is well pleased.


I mean absolutely no disrespect with the following question, but I have to ask whether or not you are serious?


----------



## The Cosmos

I'm more along the lines of 'I don't know/I don't care' category. Basically, it just means that I've never really given it enough thought to form an opinion. Funnily enough, I live in a country where I'm literally surrounded by religious freaks in every single direction. So yeah - atheist, agnostic, religious, non-religious?! Well, I don't really know . Lets just say, I've managed to remain uneducated to this day (although that's not really the case ).


----------



## Argus

DrMike said:


> I see. The implication being that us dumb hick colonials across the pond ain't got no proper educatin' and is just childish? Please. Condescending and arrogant. So Europeans are enlightened, while we Americans are less prone to intellectual introspection, possessing the intellectual curiosity of a child? Based on a poll of, what, 40 people? I don't think that a rational adult mind prone to thinking things out would make such a sweeping statement based on such a limited poll that is not anywhere near approaching statistical significance. All you are polling here is a limited number of people on a classical music forum that willingly decide to volunteer their belief system.


You can infer what you want from my words but I never claimed them to be true of the general population. I used information acquired strictly from the poll and discussion contained within this thread.

It's just a fact that religion is largely divided by geographical factors.


----------



## The Cosmos

DrMike said:


> So Europeans are enlightened, while we Americans are less prone to intellectual introspection, possessing the intellectual curiosity of a child?


Hey, I'd take curiosity of a child over intellectual enlightenment anyday you know...at least makes things a lot more fun  (although I've yet to try the latter).


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Argus said:


> I'd be interested to know how many theists who answered the poll hail from North America. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the European members are either atheist or agnostic.


I'd like to revise this query- here... let me have a go (alterations will be in italics):

I'd be interested to know how many _a_theists who answered this poll are _not over 30 years old_. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the _atheists_ are _not over 30 years of age_.

I make no invidious hypotheses concerning the above. 
I just thought I'd put this out there. in the interest of "equal time."


----------



## Polednice

I suppose it just goes to show that the latest generation is the first to be free-thinking


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> I suppose it just goes to show that the latest generation is the first to be free-thinking


It doesn't go to show any such thing. You can't infer anything of a general nature from the discussion/voting results in this thread. It is a very small, self-selecting sample of opinion from only a segment of the wider community by age, and an even smaller segment in terms of musical appeal. It is statistically useless.

Its value, if any, is to show just how unpleasant some people can be against the religious views of others. Rather than let all the weasel-faced little nerds with acne get away with it, I have kept some of you company with hopefully some useful opinion of a more mature nature. I certainly haven't learned anything, but it's quite fun at times sparring with some of you.


----------



## kmisho

I'm going on 46 and have never been religious in any conventional sense a single day of my life.

God is Santa Claus for adults. Get over it. Even if there is some sort of super extra-cosmic entity out there, he does not care about _you_.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> It doesn't go to show any such thing.
> 
> *ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC. ETC.*


That's why I said it as a joke and emphasised that it was jocular with the use of emoticons. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.... you are tiresome sometimes


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I suppose it just goes to show that the latest generation is the first to be free-thinking


Nah, they just like to think it is free-thinking to be rebellious and against everything the older generation is for. Honestly, theirs is not really a new line of thinking. And it tends to be fairly widespread in campuses and universities (spoken from experience). Save for the few who really do generate new and truly revolutionary ideas, most of what is considered "free-thinking" is the acceptance of what someone else has devised in their mind. In fact, many of the great minds throughout history did not become great in the confines of the university, where typically the prevailing views of the faculty reign supreme.

Someone once said that a conservative is a liberal who graduated and had to get a job.


----------



## mueske

DrMike said:


> Nah, they just like to think it is free-thinking to be rebellious and against everything the older generation is for. Honestly, theirs is not really a new line of thinking. And it tends to be fairly widespread in campuses and universities (spoken from experience). Save for the few who really do generate new and truly revolutionary ideas, most of what is considered "free-thinking" is the acceptance of what someone else has devised in their mind. In fact, many of the great minds throughout history did not become great in the confines of the university, where typically the prevailing views of the faculty reign supreme.
> 
> Someone once said that a conservative is a liberal who graduated and had to get a job.


That someone is most likely right. And it's sad.


----------



## Polednice

My university must be an exception then - the loudest people around are the damned evangelists in the Christian Union; atheists are the minority and only formed a student society two years ago - yeah, I'm following the status quo and don't really know what the hell I'm talking about...


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Artemis said:


> Its value, if any, is to show just how unpleasant some people can be against the religious views of others.


and regrettably, the unpleasantness has not been confined to one side of the aisle. [Though admittedly, some of the ripostes fall in the nature of the proverbial 'retaliatory foul.'] Now, to reinforce the point one more time:


rojo said:


> WARNING:
> 
> Please refrain from attacking others, and others' belief systems, or we will have to close this thread as well.
> 
> State your beliefs, and respectfully let others have theirs. Move on if you cannot.





Chi_townPhilly said:


> [Please discuss] bedrock viewpoints without belittling, ridiculing, or sneering at alternative perspectives.


FINAL WARNING


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> Its value, if any, is to show just how unpleasant some people can be against the religious views of others. Rather than let all the weasel-faced little nerds with acne get away with it, I have kept some of you company with hopefully some useful opinion of a more mature nature. I certainly haven't learned anything, but it's quite fun at times sparring with some of you.


I, for one, am thankful for your useful contribution to this thread.



> I'd like to revise this query- here... let me have a go (alterations will be in italics):
> 
> I'd be interested to know how many atheists who answered this poll are not over 30 years old. From the discussions in this thread it seems that, apart from the obvious exception, most of the atheists are not over 30 years of age.
> 
> I make no invidious hypotheses concerning the above.
> I just thought I'd put this out there. in the interest of "equal time."


Zeitgeist.



> Someone once said that a conservative is a liberal who graduated and had to get a job.


The plastic things on the end of shoelaces are called aglets.


----------



## Guest

Ultimately, getting back to the initial intention of this thread and poll, my thoughts are these:
1. Religious convictions, or lack thereof, have no intrinsic bearing on the ability of one to appreciate classical music. Just as I don't have to be Indian to enjoy Indian food, I don't have to have the same belief system as a composer to enjoy his/her music.

2. Masterpieces of classical music were composed by those both with and without firm religious convictions. Bach certainly comes to mind in the field of those with firm religious beliefs. Did it make him a better composer? That would only be speculation, based on whether the God he believed in did, in fact, exist, which we will not entertain at this point. However, would some of his most moving works have been created had he not had the beliefs he did? His B Minor Mass? His St. Matthew Passion? His numerous cantatas, etc.? I would argue no. So in that sense, his Christianity made him the composer he was. Would he have written something equally beautiful but without a religious context? Its possible, but we will never know.

3. Matters of belief are deeply held and personal to those who hold them. To dismiss them openly, or to characterize them in dismissive and condescending tones, or to imply a lack of intellectual depth for those who hold religious beliefs is neither necessary, nor productive, nor even simply polite. Whatever a persons belief system (or lack thereof), and however they came about it, unless it directly impacts you, should be left to that person in peace. If it is none of your business, it really is none of your business. Unless they are attempting to force those beliefs on you, leave them alone. And the same goes in the other direction (religious towards atheist/agnostic).


----------



## Lukecash12

Argus said:


> You can infer what you want from my words but I never claimed them to be true of the general population. I used information acquired strictly from the poll and discussion contained within this thread.
> 
> It's just a fact that religion is largely divided by geographical factors.


Even if that is true, does that make any difference? You seem to be falling into a bad habit here. That is: classifying something so that you can demean it. Sure, you can make it look bad, but you can't come up with anything substantial whatsoever, as all you are doing is stating an irrelevant fact.

I don't pretend to know your opinion on the matter, or whether or not you intended to condescend towards the religious, but be aware that you are being none other than a usurper and a tyrant when you try to mix up the opinions of others by spouting irrelevant data.


----------



## Stunt21

I marked "atheism" on the poll, as I very deeply am. This doesn't disable me from enjoying quite a lot with religious music.

I'll always be pleased to have *respectful* conversations about this topic, although I don't have much time these exams days 

Greetings.


----------



## Guest

Chi_townPhilly said:


> People who are influenced by (for instance) Thomist thought (to say little of C.S. Lewis or Chesterton) would find the implication that their conclusions are irrational condescending at the very minimum. It comes pretty close to offensive, even.


I am sure they would think all sorts of things but that is not condescending, how else can you have a discussion of opposing views ? Me thinks we are becoming too politically correct.



> I have my disagreements with the atheist/agnostic perspective. However, *at no time* have I asserted that their core belief is irrational. I don't think it's unreasonable to request the same courtesy in return.


Why does this upset you ?? Discussions on Religion and Politics always gets heated it is the nature of the beast, it is not *ad hom*, simply people disagreeing. Perhaps you should *ban *any discussion on Religion or Politics.

As was posted by Edward Elgar 
[*I encourage positive discourse on reasons people have for their belief systems, but if anyone sees this benign gesture as an attack on their belief system, that will only lead me to assume you have little faith in your faith*]
How any of this post is condescending is a mystery to me "have I missed something?" you could even say our discussions on various aspects of classical music is condescending, If people are going to be offended so easily then_ do not enter the room._


----------



## Guest

I really don't understand why those members here who post condescending comments about the beliefs of others can't understand why others find them condescending, or why they should take offense.

A belief is just that. Unless it is something that you can, with some degree of certainty, disprove (which cannot be done with most religious beliefs), then to comment on what is in another person's head, and the merits of that belief, is simply wrong. A discussion of your own conclusions on what you have come to believe is certainly reasonable to include in such a discussion, but to attempt to characterize another's beliefs is arrogant and simply wrong. Science does not disprove religion. What it does is show that, given what we know of natural laws at this time, the probability of the existence of a higher power/God is very low. That is all science is. It offers no absolute truths, only the most likely results given certain parameters. That which we call scientific truths are merely observations that have received continued evidential support without contradiction. Certain things we can say with a high degree of certainty - the earth is round, it orbits the sun, etc. Some things, like the existence of a God, are, at least for now, untestable, and by current scientific standards have a low probability of being true. But just as I cannot prove to you the existence of the God I believe in, you cannot prove to me the non-existence of that God. Therefore, a truly reasoned debate at this point would revolve around what you have come to believe based on your studies and observations, and for me to do the same. For me to pass judgment on your personal beliefs, when I have no way to prove or disprove them, would be wrong. And vice versa. You can certainly say what you believe, and how you came to that belief, is fine. But when you seek to judge my beliefs, by your own definition, there is no way for you to verify or falsify them, and so any judgment is purely subjective based on your own personal biases. You cannot know that my belief is irrational. Whether I can prove it to you is irrelevant to whether or not it is real. I can't use my own personal belief as a proof to you for my beliefs. Faith is something personally acquired. 

Bottom line, to say that a person's beliefs are irrational, without any particular way to prove that they are so, is, in itself, irrational.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the following represent an serviceable summation of the *Andante* position?:

"You are irrational"=personally offensive.

"Your core belief system is irrational"≠personally offensive.

_You_ may find there is more than an ant's eyelash worth of distinction between these two statements. After having consulted with the Moderation & Administration Team, I can assure you that we unanimously find little or no difference in the offensiveness of the two statements.

And yes, I think it's still possible to discuss these things while remaining respectful of other people's points of view.

Let's try, shall we??!


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> A belief is just that. Unless it is something that you can, with some degree of certainty, disprove (which cannot be done with most religious beliefs), then to comment on what is in another person's head, and the merits of that belief, is simply wrong.


Well, that isn't really true. I'm not comparing religion to this, but consider the beliefs of a schizophrenic. Is it wrong to give them treatment? Is it wrong for us to 'know' what they _believe_ isn't true? Religion obviously isn't a psychological disorder, but similarly we can't just lay down a blanket rule that says all beliefs must be free from criticism. We have to draw the line somewhere, and not everyone agrees on which side of the line religion should fall.



DrMike said:


> Therefore, a truly reasoned debate at this point would revolve around what you have come to believe based on your studies and observations, and for me to do the same.


Now _that_ I can agree with. Far too much of these discussions have been filled with lots of 'whats' by hardly any 'whys'. "I believe this" and "I believe that" - "well, you're just young and naive, I'm old and wise; no, you're irrational and I'm not." I don't think anybody has actually said _why_ they believe what they believe except for a few generalisations that span only a few sentences.

However, I think this is partly because some of us both do and do not want an all-out 'does God exist discussion', so nobody knows whether it's appropriate to approach a thread like that.

*But still*: I will forever maintain that it is _not_ condescending to call another person's beliefs irrational - at least, even if the person saying such a thing _intends_ to be patronising, the person it is said to should not feel the least bit offended. To take it to the extreme, I _would not care_ if you all called me a ****ing idiot, and an absolute moron for liking Brahms above all others; or if you called me a dumb fool for studying crappy Medieval literature - however hurtfully you might mean it. But we're not even saying that - we're saying 'irrational'. By all means, tell us that we're irrational back! It doesn't matter! Maybe it's true  But the point is that we have to discuss it; not just get offended at the use of - let's admit it - _extremely_ mild and inconsequential adjectives.

EDIT --- Specifically at Chi then, "You are irrational" _does not equal_ "personally offensive", thus, nor does any such statement about core beliefs.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Polednice said:


> I will forever maintain that it is _not_ condescending to call another person's beliefs irrational


False. If you wrap your viewpoint in a self-professed banner of rationality and label contrary viewpoints to be irrational, that's _highly_ condescending.


Polednice said:


> But we're not even saying that - we're saying 'irrational'. By all means, tell us that we're irrational back!


I wouldn't. I don't seek to violate Forum Rules on this matter.


Polednice said:


> Specifically at Chi then, "You are irrational" _does not equal_ "personally offensive", thus, nor does any such statement about core beliefs.


Again false. The former is a personally offensive ad-hominem, specifically violative of the Forum Rules. The characterization of a contrary view as irrational flies in the face of this previous warning:


rojo said:


> Please refrain from attacking others, and others' belief systems, or we will have to close this thread, as well.


As this text has been ignored, we will now have to follow through on the previously articulated specific consequence to those continued attacks.

*This thread is closed.*


----------

