What is your religion?

[mystBoag]

What best describes your religious beliefs? I realise the categories are broad, but it would be interesting to get a feeling for the distribution of views in this forum.

I'm a agnostic, though an atheist for all practical purposes.

[Texsand]

I guess I believe like the Native Americans, in the Great Spirit, the encompassing of everthing into the sum of it's total parts.

[Hydrok]

According to some people on the forum I'm not a real catholic because I support a womans right to choice (which isn't true, I just think that the women of the country should settle it on their own.)

[Vic]

i voted agnosticism, even thhough i don´t think you can consider it as a "religious" belief.

I don´t believe, i either know or don´t know.

[Achilles]

I grew up Catholic, became agnostic, and I am personally evolving toward Atheist. But I too do NOT call atheism a religion, I am not following anyone but my individualism, to me it is just a freedom.

[Thermopylae]

Atheist.

[Vanessa]

I grew up Catholic, became agnostic, and I am personally evolving toward Atheist. But I too do call atheism a religion, I am not following anyone but my individualism, to me it is just a freedom.

well said, dittio for me but i would insert "evolved" where you have "evolving"

[Achilles]

I see a typo..I meant "I too do NOT call atheism a religion", and Vanessa...I might just as well say evolved as well.

(edited in my post)

[pragmatic]

.

Christian Agnostic is the best I can come up with. Have read the Bible a couple of times and I find it fascinating. I also read the “Bible for Dummies” and appreciated the common man language that did a nice job of bringing the stories into an understandable context. Reality is that the concept of the higher being overwhelms my simple mind. (hence the agnostic element of my faith.). Am most drawn to the book of Revelations in which I find passages that give me the hook into the fact that the Bible is real and valid.

.

[marv]

I didn't vote because atheism is not a belief or religion. It's an opinion; literally it's "non-religious".

So what is my opinion? There are no gods or angels or devils. There is no heaven or hell or any other place to go when you die. What's called a "soul" is just your conscience.

Every night, when you fall asleep, you taste a little bit of death. When you die, hopefully in a peaceful manner, it will simply be like falling asleep in which there are no dreams and from which there is no waking.

Where were you before you were born?

[Thermopylae]

Where were you before you were born?

Great question. Obviously I don't know. But it is kind of strange, I don't know how to put this in words, but, it's strange how your mind exists. I mean, how? I wish I could phrase it, but I can't. How am I seeing what I am seeing right now, why am I seeing it, what the hell, god man, you got me thinking way too much. Not that I havn't thought about it before. But still, how the hell did my mind come into being.?

I too am an atheist republican.

[Democritus]

I'm a Christian, a northern Methodist if you're extra curious, bordering on agnostic.

[Albert]

I'm a Christian, a northern Methodist if you're extra curious, bordering on agnostic.

Agnostic is derived from Gnostic, the pursuit of knowledge, which would seem to place you on a very spiritual path. Some of the Ancient Gnostic texts considered the pursuit of knowledge to be the pursuit of the divine. The devil thrived on ignorance hence the persistent use in the Christian Gospels of images of light and darkness.

Myself I’m a cafeteria Catholic who is finds himself influenced by Taoist thought and drawn to Handsome Lake and the Peacemaker in the Iroquois Tradition. I’m a seeker plain and simple.

[gopman]

I'm a Roman Catholic.

[Joe Blow]

I'll add to the voices already present in that I do not describe atheism as a religion, however that is the 'theory' (if you wish to describe it thus) that I subscribe to.

[Thermopylae]

I'll actually change my answer.

I'm whatever HDT was.

[pragmatic]

I'll actually change my answer.

I'm whatever HDT was.


.

(i'll bite....what's HDT...?)

[Thermopylae]

The question isn't what, it's who.

Henry David Thoreau. Great poet and essay writer. Born in a puritan new england town, his ideas were not accepted there, he was born a puritan, but came to his own conclusions, and if you read the poem in my signature, you'll understand more about him. According to legend though, when he did die, and was buried in his hometown, someone painted onto his grave 'BURN IN HELL'. HDT wrote a few excellent essays demanding that slavery must be abolished. Read some of his works, they're worth it.

[eugene40]

I would say I was a mixture of agnostic in its true meaning of seeking knowledge ,,, aetheist,,, and taoist..... But really it depends on who I am discussing religion with...

[Chelle]

I have not a clue.


I'm 'confused' at best.





Chelle

[Achilles]

I have not a clue.


I'm 'confused' at best.

Start a following...it might be easy to do! ;)

[DeathMonkey]

Atheist. Pissed off Atheist. :devil:

If you boil down religion to "how do you answer the questions to which you have no answer - what happens when you die, who made the Universe" etc, Atheism is still an attempt to answer those questions, and in that regard, IMHO, fits as a religion. Agnosticism is not as clear, and so is more of a grey area. It doesnt answer anything, but aknowleges the questions.

[marv]

Posted by DeathMonkey:
"...Atheism is still an attempt to answer those questions, and in that regard, IMHO, fits as a religion."

Atheists use reason and logic, theists use fear of the unknown and superstition while agnostics sit in a corner reading books muttering, "I'm confused."

My response:
Are there gods? No, they're not needed. Nor angels, devils, some paradise or some hell. But if you want a god, there are hundreds to choose from. Take your choice.

What happens when you die? Pretty much the same thing that happed before you came along. Nothing.

Who made the Universe? Nobody. No Big Bang, no creation; hasen't it occurred to anybody that maybe it's always been here? My personal opinion is that the Universe is infinite in both size and duration and filled with finite matter that constantly rearranges itself in perfectly understandable fashion. But you're entitled to your's.

Atheism is not a religion for the sole reason that atheists do not say, "I believe there are no gods." To believe something is to accept its truth without any evidence or first-hand knowledge. An atheist will say that there are no acceptable reasons for gods and devils and heavens and hells and such to exist.

Of the theists, atheists and agnostics, the agnostics are the most useless because they just sit there in their corner reading and re-reading the questions without offering any answers.

[Underling]

I am a Druid.

[cpwill]

Atheists use reason and logic, theists use fear of the unknown and superstition

incorrect, theists as well use logic. i've seen logical athiests and illogical athiests; the same as i've seen logical and illogical believers.

[Democritus]

Of the theists, atheists and agnostics, the agnostics are the most useless because they just sit there in their corner reading and re-reading the questions without offering any answers.

One could argue that agnostics are the most honest, ackowledging the question and admitting that they don't know the answer.

If one was so inclined, of course.

[marv]

cpwill:"incorrect, theists as well use logic. i've seen logical athiests and illogical athiests; the same as i've seen logical and illogical believers."Can you give me some examples of logical theistic belief? Also, I thought that I had subtley pointed out a difference between belief and opinion. Someone who says, "I believe that there are no gods." cannot be a real atheist. As well, to say, "There are no gods." is equally unacceptable because it implies knowledge. One can only say, "I've seen no evidence of..." or "I've conceived of no reason for..." and that's where I stand. Illogical theistic beliefs are common and not worth discussion.

Democritus:One could argue that agnostics are the most honest, ackowledging the question and admitting that they don't know the answer.True! True! True! I hope that I didn't suggest that they were dishonest - only useless!

[gopman]

Can you give me some examples of logical theistic belief?

Rene Descartes

[Democritus]

True! True! True! I hope that I didn't suggest that they were dishonest - only useless!

Not at all, didn't mean to imply that you were. I just meant to point out that maybe they were useful in their own way.

And a Logical Theist:
Pascal

(Although I'm not sure he counts, but Pascal's wager is an interesting theory.)

[marv]

Something I've neglected to mention. Although I'm an atheist, I'm staunchly pro-life. The reason being that a fertile human egg is destined to become a full grown human being. Not an oak tree or a minnow or a blade of grass or anything else.

I also have a great deal of respect for all religions to the extent that they benefit the human race.

[Antipathy]

I'll add to the voices already present in that I do not describe atheism as a religion, however that is the 'theory' (if you wish to describe it thus) that I subscribe to.Atheism may not be a religion but it certainly requires an element of faith!

[mystBoag]

Atheists use reason and logic, theists use fear of the unknown and superstition while agnostics sit in a corner reading books muttering, "I'm confused."


Atheists claim certainty about metaphysics. Specifically, they claim that there is no metaphysics. By metaphysics, I mean that which is separate from the physical world. Since we (at least I) only have knowledge of the physical world, any statement concerning the nature of the metaphysical world must be based on faith. For it to be based on anything else requires evidence. If you have real evidence for something metaphysical, then you have misclassified it.

To quote from A.J. Ayers in "Language, Truth and Logic" (very well worth a read, BTW) :
the man who is ready to prove that metaphysics is impossible is brother metaphysician with a rival theory of his own.

If you reject blind faith, and have no evidence beyond the normal physical world, the only rational position to adopt is agnosticism. Atheism is a step too far.

It is perhaps correct to claim that Atheism isn't a religion. While it is certainly a position of faith, it lacks the ritualistic, emotional, narrative and social characteristics that most religions have. Still, I don't think that it is unreasonable to include it as an option in the poll!

[marv]

Descartes...hmmmm...reminds me of Heisenberg. Common sense counts for nothing. True? Heisenberg gives you a sealed box containing a cat. Is the cat alive or dead? Descartes would have you believe that if you think the cat is alive, then it must be alive. On the other hand, if you open the box and see the cat for your self, you may be deceived by your senses. Sorry. I can't buy that.

Pascal, on the other hand, sits in the corner making wagers. God is or god is not; how does it benefit me? Which way should I bet? Sorry again. This is a non-starter.

[marv]

mystBoag:Atheists claim certainty about metaphysics. Specifically, they claim that there is no metaphysics. By metaphysics, I mean that which is separate from the physical world. Since we (at least I) only have knowledge of the physical world, any statement concerning the nature of the metaphysical world must be based on faith.This is some really, really bad logic.It is perhaps correct to claim that Atheism isn't a religion. While it is certainly a position of faith,...And this is completely false.

But, of course, you can include anything in the poll.

[mystBoag]

This is some really, really bad logic.And this is completely false.

marv: would you care to expand?

[xexon]

My path is related to eastern mysticism. There isn't much I can say beyond that.



x

[marv]

[Atheists] claim that there is no metaphysics [and] any statement concerning the nature of the metaphysical world must be based on faith.This is where the logic breaks down. You don't have to prove a negative. In other words, Atheists don't have to prove that there is no such thing as metaphysics; you have to prove that there is.

[mystBoag]

This is where the logic breaks down. You don't have to prove a negative. In other words, Atheists don't have to prove that there is no such thing as metaphysics; you have to prove that there is.

My position is that you can't know, not that metaphysics certainly exists. I'm not really sure what you mean by "a negative". Consider the two propositions:

1. Metaphysics exists.
2. Metaphysics does not exist.

The second one is negative only in a syntactical sense. It is just as much of a proposition about the state of things as the first is. I think what you are relying on (correct me if I am wrong) is the the principle of Occam's Razor: one accepts the simplest theory which fits the evidence.

Your theory of atheism is certainly the simplest theory which fits the evidence concerning metaphysics (there is no evidence, so all theories fit, and yours is the simplest). However, it is normal to ensure that the degree of certainty attached to a particular theory is proportional to the strength of evidence that you have for it. Since there is no evidence, you should attach no certainty to it at all.

If an atheist is someone who believes the first proposition with certainty, or even just assigns it the balance of probability, then atheists are far exceeding the level of certainty that it rationally justified. Thus it is an act of faith.

[Craig]

A couple of points, marv and mystboag:

First, the definition of belief as "[t]o believe something is to accept its truth without any evidence or first-hand knowledge," is erroneous. A belief can be predicated upon of evidence or knowledge, and it can also be predicated upon a lack thereof.

Second, metaphysics properly is the inquiry into the nature of reality. As atheism asserts that reality is physical in nature, it falls within a metaphysical tradition, and thus it makes no sense for the atheist or atheism to claim there is "no metaphysics".

[Duo_Maxwell]

hmmm...don't be too hard on them Craig.

Religion: Something along the lines of what Voltaire believed in.

[mystBoag]

Craig,

I think you are being a little harsh. I don't think i used "belief" in that sense - rather I used "faith" to signify belief without evidence. Also, although "metaphysics" is used in a variety of senses, the sense in which I used it is well established, and I did provide a definition!

[Craig]

Craig,

I think you are being a little harsh. I don't think i used "belief" in that sense - rather I used "faith" to signify belief without evidence.

That part of my discussion was addressed specifically to marv, and not to you. (If you look at the start of my post, you notice that I included both of your names).

Also, although "metaphysics" is used in a variety of senses, the sense in which I used it is well established, and I did provide a definition!

Well, given that I just took a full course on Metaphysics this year in university, I'm going to presuppose that my definition is the more authoritative one. ;)

[mystBoag]

Well, given that I just took a full course on Metaphysics this year in university, I'm going to presuppose that my definition is the more authoritative one. ;)

At the very serious risk of sounding petty, the Oxford English Dictionary has 4 separate definitions of "metaphysics" in philosophical usage, including both yours and mine. ;)

[Craig]

That may be so, but the Oxford English Dictionary is not the same thing as a philosophical dictionary. While metaphysics does include other questions of fundamental nature to philosophy, it's primary concern is the nature of reality. Your definition is the result of the misnomer "metaphysics" which arose first in the English literary tradition and then expanded to other disciplines as only the non-physical, or immaterial aspect of reality. Properly, metaphysics is a more broad definition that was originally conceived from Aristotelian philosophy, (or at least was given its modern name), and evolved as a philosophical tradition from there.

[mystBoag]

Your definition is the result of the misnomer "metaphysics" which arose first in the English literary tradition and then expanded to other disciplines as only the non-physical, or immaterial aspect of reality.

Now I'm definitely going to sound petty! In fact my definition is the standard sense in which "metaphysics" is understood by logical positivists, who are hardly outside the philosophical tradition. Furthermore, as you point out, this is the sense in which the word is widely understood in general, and this is not an academic philosophy journal. Given that I referred to Ayer, who was one of the foremost logical positivists, and given that I indicated the sense in which I was using the word, I don't think that there was very much room for misunderstanding, whether you are knowledgeable about philosophy or not.

[Craig]

I don't think that there was very much room for misunderstanding, whether you are knowledgeable about philosophy or not.

Given that logical positivists are only one group within a vast philosophical tradition, the broader definition of metaphysics most commonly used within philosophy is more appropriate. And, given that much of your argument rested on the assertion that atheism denies metaphysics, I felt it was important to note that your definition is not the only definition of metaphysics, and philosophically speaking, it is not the best one.

[Pink]

I have a Bible-based belief. I don't attend a church. But I do believe the Bible is authentic and true.

My mom was a Jehovah Witness when I was younger...then they "excommunicated" her. LOL When I met my first husband, I began attending a Baptist church with him and his family. I left theirs but still wanted to attend some church, so I spent a few years going from one to another to another. After meeting too many judgemental "Christians", I decided to stay home. I can't lose my salvation, it's not terrible not to go to church, so now I'm satisfied with myself. To an extent...

Geez...time to end this post...I was ready to derail into my downfalls! :D ;)

[Toby]

I have a Bible-based belief. I don't attend a church. But I do believe the Bible is authentic and true.

My mom was a Jehovah Witness when I was younger...then they "excommunicated" her. LOL When I met my first husband, I began attending a Baptist church with him and his family. I left theirs but still wanted to attend some church, so I spent a few years going from one to another to another. After meeting too many judgemental "Christians", I decided to stay home. I can't lose my salvation, it's not terrible not to go to church, so now I'm satisfied with myself. To an extent...

Geez...time to end this post...I was ready to derail into my downfalls! :D ;)

You pretty much summed up my life for the most part. LOL. Was raised Lutheran. Later dated a guy who belonged to the Baptist church so went there for several years. After that relationship ended tried a Non Denominational church but no one really talked to me so I quit going. Have attended a few other churches here and there but mostly just stay home. Want to find a church to attend on a regular basis but haven't yet.

[mahayana]

Pardon the late entrance of the lone buddhist. I'm really more of a zen existentialist. Attracted to zen in large part for its lack of doctrines. Strong skeptic (though I'm trying not to be attached to it) whenever I detect sophistry.

I seek enlightenment for the sake of all living things, so that must imply that I know I don't know the answers, but am still looking for evidence. Raised Methodist, still a big Jesus fan.

What do you think of the country song

"I don't believe that heaven waits...just for those who congregate...I like to think that God is love...He's down below...he's up above...that right is right and left is wrong...that north and south can't get along...but I believe in you...I believe in babies..."

Funny, huh?

[TomAZ]

I'm an Atheist because I reject superstition in all it's forms. Simple as that.

[mahayana]

...I reject superstition in all it's forms.

I'm much the same, just have a recurring curiousity about where these beliefs come from, what actually happened to those people to make them so sure. So far, no one here has even offered why they believe in spirits.

Of course, you know that calling yourself an athiest brings on the worst kind of social prejudice, as atheism is a tiny minority position, despite the higher percentage on this board. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" and all that. :)

[Democritus]

My reason for believing is along the lines of Pascal's Wager:


You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.

You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.

You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.

You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
Pascal theorized that belief in God always had a greater or equal result to not believing and there was thus no reason not to believe.

[marv]

TomAZ, good to see you again. Still got that WWI German buckle? Your post makes my point exactly.

Democritus, you're a wagering man, are you not? Your post is one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

I was raised a Lutheran and started college in 1956 at Valparaiso University, a Lutheran school. During my first semester as a freshman, an assignment required some research in the library. There I came across a book titled The Biography of the Gods which gave a moderate look into the five principle religions of the world.

In the last paragraph of the last chapter, Hayden, the author, stated, "For too long we have put off unto the gods those things that we should be doing for ourselves." After years of catechism, parochial school and church, I found something that made sense to me.

[earth]

I'm a self-professed Omniest.

[Independent]

My religion is which ever religion is the most interesting and convient for the given moment. I strive to be a part of everything while being attached to nothing. Every religion has its benefits and disadvantages. Thus, I take the wisdom from every religion that is useful to me and ignore the rest.

[J2828]

Roman Catholic.

[Vic]

My reason for believing is along the lines of Pascal's Wager:



Pascal theorized that belief in God always had a greater or equal result to not believing and there was thus no reason not to believe.

SO basically you "believe" just because in your opinion it´s more convenient to "believe".
But it couldn´t be, that believing only because you are afraid of being wrong, is even worse?

anyways: you don´t have to believe or not believe, you can also say i don´t know or i don´t care.

Because me, i don´t really care if there is somebody in the skies or not, because i don´t feel the need to prove the existence or nonexistence of god.

[Democritus]

SO basically you "believe" just because in your opinion it´s more convenient to "believe".
But it couldn´t be, that believing only because you are afraid of being wrong, is even worse?

anyways: you don´t have to believe or not believe, you can also say i don´t know or i don´t care.

Because me, i don´t really care if there is somebody in the skies or not, because i don´t feel the need to prove the existence or nonexistence of god.

That was Pascal's Wager. I didn't say it was accurate. It's a logical fallacy, a false dilemma. It assumes that those are the only two options when, of course, they are not. I only said it at all because Mahayana was looking for someone to offer "why they believed in spirits."

[mahayana]

Thanks, Democritus, for one answer. I was a bit disappointed that no one described their "religious experience" on the other thread. My thoughts are mainly that people follow the religion they were born to, without much questioning. Some may leave it, or take on a new faith, but the "why" is still very much unexamined.

[MikeD4o7]

Thanks, Democritus, for one answer. I was a bit disappointed that no one described their "religious experience" on the other thread. My thoughts are mainly that people follow the religion they were born to, without much questioning. Some may leave it, or take on a new faith, but the "why" is still very much unexamined.


I think that so many people believe because they're raised to. They're also raised to believe that faith is the most important virtue a person can have... and because faith is the opposite of doubt... people are inclined to supress their doubts about religious matters and embrace everything plausible within religion without really asking if it's the most direct or simple answer to the question at hand. Because of that, everything that we don't know is automatically labeled as "God's doing" and alternative answers are shunned until they're practically irrefutibly proven by science.

Look at evolution... it's gained so many mountains of evidence that the faithful are split on whether or not to give human origins up to the world of science or cling to it as a miracle independent of our scientific theories and laws. As more evidence piles up, we'll continue to see a shift of the faithful admitting that human origins can be explained without the supernatural... at which point they'll fall back, as always, to the beginning of the universe... and no matter how many plausible scientific explanations are given to it... they will reject them offhand. Just as they did the cause of lightning and disease, jus as they did about the earth's orbit around the sun, and just as they did about evolution. There is a very clear pattern here.

[xexon]

My "why", was an inborn sense of something more than I was being told. Church made no sense to me as a child, because I KNEW there was something missing from their explaination of things.

Bare in mind, this was a pretty tall order for a small town church in Alabama in the early part of the last century. I knew nothing of the outside world, let alone anything of other religions.

So basically, I had an itch that nobody could scratch.

I did prove one thing of the church to be true...that God helps those that help themselves. I knocked, and the door opened for me.

The path was different than the one I was brought up in, but the destination was the same.




x

[mahayana]

"The Lord helps those that help themselves."

Ah, yes. A famous southern blessing, said before meals. I was 40 miles north of the 'bama line, in Wayne County. There is still a lot of superstition mixed with the "old time religion" in the rural South. Guess I'm hopeful that the "seek and ye shall find" part of the proverb is true as well.

[TomAZ]

I'm much the same, just have a recurring curiousity about where these beliefs come from, what actually happened to those people to make them so sure. So far, no one here has even offered why they believe in spirits.

Of course, you know that calling yourself an athiest brings on the worst kind of social prejudice, as atheism is a tiny minority position, despite the higher percentage on this board. "When in Rome, do as the Romans" and all that. :)


mahayana. Fully realized. I was born an Atheist like every other human being. I just reject all the brain-washing that occurs at a very early age in all religions. I've been around many decades, and thus far no one has been able to convince me that a belief in snakes, donkeys and burning bushes that speak a human language, will make me a better person. :rolleyes:


Hi marv; Yes, I still have that belt-buckle, but it isn't from WWI. It was worn by the Nazi-Christian soldiers during WWII and inscribed with "GOTT MIT UNS".

[marv]

TomAZ,
My apologies. It's been a while and I'd forgotten.

[Texsand]

Thanks, Democritus, for one answer. I was a bit disappointed that no one described their "religious experience" on the other thread. My thoughts are mainly that people follow the religion they were born to, without much questioning. Some may leave it, or take on a new faith, but the "why" is still very much unexamined.
M,

I think those that go around broadcasting their spiritual experiences with any definitive answers as to the ultimate nature of things, are the types that typically wind up the David Koresh's of the world. In other words they get done in by their own charismatic experience by determining the answer they received for themselves is the answer that will apply to all.

[marv]

Perhaps, "...those that go around broadcasting their spiritual experiences..." are seeking reassurance of their spiritual experiences by seeking those who might agree with them.

This dovetails with the "catastrophe" theory that says that those with the most extreme and hardened spiritual belief are more easily turned than those with a weaker belief because of the depth of value it holds for them.

[Texsand]

Perhaps, "...those that go around broadcasting their spiritual experiences..." are seeking reassurance of their spiritual experiences by seeking those who might agree with them.

This dovetails with the "catastrophe" theory that says that those with the most extreme and hardened spiritual belief are more easily turned than those with a weaker belief because of the depth of value it holds for them.
I can't disagree with that perspective at all Marv in fact I agree completely. But it sure makes for some mighty dangerous people especially when they are running around with a small munitions dump. Or can hijack 4 airplanes to use as bombs. And the discomfort of the Founder's for organized religion becomes ever more understandable in light of the current religous fervor sweeping much of the US today.

[Kana]

i.... am a mixture of the philosophies of shinto, buddhism, and ba'hai.

[marv]

I'm not sure how prominent a part it played in the deliberations of the Founders, but the Salem witch trials and religious persecution in England and elsewhere in Europe may have been on their minds.

One of my favorite cartoons was by Virgil Partch in an issue of Colliers magazine back in the early fifties. It showed a man walking down a saloon bar sweeping the beer bottles and drinks off the bar. One seated man at the bar says to another, "Damn, I hate a reformed drunk."

[mahayana]

"Damn, I hate a reformed drunk."

And the ex-smokers are having a field day, too, putting their extra-strong intolerance into play. Non-smokers are far kinder to the addicts.

[Distant]

I'm more of a realist, and if that constitutes me as an atheist than so be it, however I do have other approaches. I would also consider myself an antichrist though others would not, but I find that that's where my beliefs lie, and so I take them. I oppose God for very simple reasons.

[Craig]

I'm more of a realist, and if that constitutes me as an atheist than so be it, however I do have other approaches. I would also consider myself an antichrist though others would not, but I find that that's where my beliefs lie, and so I take them. I oppose God for very simple reasons.

Just a quick query: are you by chance trying to say that you are a member of the Church of Satan established by Anton Szandor LaVey?

[barciad]

My own beliefs which utterly reject any organisational structure completely.

[Joe Blow]

Just a quick query: are you by chance trying to say that you are a member of the Church of Satan established by Anton Szandor LaVey?

That was a very humorous book..... :devil: ;)

[Voice Of Reason]

I am a Roman Catholic............It would be very sad for me to think that the human race is just and accident and that when you die that is all there is.......

I hope some of you atheists on your deathbed maybe see the light and accept some type of religious beliefs........

[barciad]

VOR, (or for that matter anyone else) do you believe that a religion has to have a organisational structure?

[Kana]

absolutely not.
in the words of MY god...
'religion is the opiate of the masses.'

[Joe Blow]

I hope some of you atheists on your deathbed maybe see the light and accept some type of religious beliefs........

Not a chance in hell :devil: :D

[Joe Blow]

VOR, (or for that matter anyone else) do you believe that a religion has to have a organisational structure?

Organized religion is just a way for 'the church' to control the unwashed, uneducated, stinking masses and have them do their bidding.

[mahayana]

Hmmm...it does get some to wash and put on clean clothes once a week. And for educating, there is Sunday School and the Sermon!

[barciad]

So why have any organisational structure at all when it is going to lead to a corruption of the true word?