Humans aren't animals.

[Gravekeeper]

Wow...ok, fair amount of arrogance going on in this thread whether anyone wants to admit it or not. >.>

How do you know that you get another life after this one?

Heck, how do you know we don't? Even Carl Sagan wrote in favour of more research into that topic to figure it out once and for all. Sure he was doubtful, but what scientific research that was done was enough to merit him thinking we should do more. But its hard to get any sort of scientific research into such things as its dismissed out of hand. What research has been done has been contentious, but did offer some odd results that merited further testing. Even Sam Harris thought it was odd enough to look into and the first book he wrote was "The End Of Faith". >.>

It isn't religion that makes me spiritual, frankly. Its largely a collection of musty old books of which only a handful of core beliefs are even relevant to the modern world. It's science that makes me spiritual. Science is amazing and the things we discover on even a daily basis are incredible. How you can dig into the universe and quantum physics and all that good stuff and not think there are powers beyond us that we are not yet able to discover or explain is what baffles me.

Before you go all staged intervention on me, I am technically Buddhist. I was not born into it ( I was born into a Catholic family, but my mom had had enough of that by the time I was 6 specifically because of how indoctrinating it was. ). I chose it after years of sifting through various religions and belief systems for ones that made more logical sense.

Buddhism doesn't have a creator god or any such thing, and Buddha himself was just a guy that wanted us all to not act like assholes to each other. Thats pretty good advice. I like it. So I stick with it. I've added other bits and pieces from here and there that work for me or have sounded reasonably correct. Also, Buddhists love the fsck out of science. ;p

Well, not all gods have holy books written about them. Based on Andara's posts on this thread and others, it appears that she has a sort of buffet-style religion. That's where a person takes the portions they like out of various different religions, forming their own conglomerate religion, without regard for whether those beliefs are true.

I find it amusing that someone who forms a religious or spiritual opinion based on parsing several sources for what sounds the most reasonable or correct ( Instead of blindly following the entirety of their own doctrine ) strikes you as a problem. "Buffet" style beliefs as you put it sound more reasonable than blind devotation.

[Ipecac Drano]

I find it amusing that someone who forms a religious or spiritual opinion based on parsing several sources for what sounds the most reasonable or correct ( Instead of blindly following the entirety of their own doctrine ) strikes you as a problem. "Buffet" style beliefs as you put it sound more reasonable than blind devotation.

As opposed to believing in a all-powerful being who will send you to The Bad Place for all eternity for not following His rules to the letter? I wouldn't want to pick and choose just the parts I like out of His book for fear of pissing Him off; that is, if I believed.

As many Xtians like to say, the Bible is the instruction manual for their faith.

[the_std]

As opposed to believing in a all-powerful being who will send you to The Bad Place for all eternity for not following His rules to the letter? I wouldn't want to pick and choose just the parts I like out of His book for fear of pissing Him off; that is, if I believed.

As many Xtians like to say, the Bible is the instruction manual for their faith.

But the problem with this, and almost all of your arguments, is that God is specific to each and every person. I, as an atheist, can see this. Not everyone believes in the Big Beard In The Sky who will rain down fire if you piss him off - the Biblical God is not really revered by most people in modern society. It becomes a form of personal interpretation. Sure, there are certain branches of Christianity that look down on this practice, but most of them have the intelligence to know that no one believes the exact same thing as their neighbor. One of my friends is the most staunch Roman Catholic I know, following commandments as closely as is truly possible while still maintaining some sort of life, and she told me she thinks of God as a positive energy that inspires her and moves her to do great things. Not some dude up there.

And most (not all) people do not interpret the Bible literally. Most see it as a document inspired by God, but written by man. Thus it is totally acceptable to pick and choose which parts you want to believe in. Why not? It makes you a better person to believe in "love thy neighbor" but shun "stone the adulterers". The only downside is that people don't accept this as a definition of Christianity because it either doesn't fit into their world view or it makes them harder to attack.

The only religious people you should truly have a problem with are the Christians who do use their religion for negative purposes - wars, pain, ignorance, that type of thing. And the majority of Christians do not do this. Most of them are reasonable, average people who just get a boost from a God you personally know nothing about. Why judge them unless they have specifically shown to cause harm as individuals? Religion is so personal that it is impossible to wholly define.

Attack the evil, not the religious.

[Ghel]

Heck, how do you know we don't? Even Carl Sagan wrote in favour of more research into that topic to figure it out once and for all. Sure he was doubtful, but what scientific research that was done was enough to merit him thinking we should do more.

I have no problem with religious beliefs suggesting avenues of research. But until the belief has been demonstrated to be true, we have no justification for declaring it to be true. You know what they call pseudoscience that has been demonstrated to be accurate? Science.

It's science that makes me spiritual. Science is amazing and the things we discover on even a daily basis are incredible. How you can dig into the universe and quantum physics and all that good stuff and not think there are powers beyond us that we are not yet able to discover or explain is what baffles me.

I think I understand what you are saying. The universe is an amazing place, and constantly fills me with awe and wonder. Still, I wouldn't call that spiritual. The reason is that the word "spiritual" is so poorly defined that I wouldn't know what I was saying. I would be afraid that somebody might take it to mean that I was religious, and that's certainly not true.

I'm not sure what you mean by "powers beyond us." If you mean that there might be intelligent creatures in the universe who are more technologically advance than we are, well, so what? Until we discover them, they might as well not be there. If you mean creatures with supernatural powers, again, so what? Different forms of life have different abilities. That doesn't make one creature intrinsically better than another.

Buddhism doesn't have a creator god or any such thing, and Buddha himself was just a guy that wanted us all to not act like assholes to each other. Thats pretty good advice. I like it. So I stick with it. I've added other bits and pieces from here and there that work for me or have sounded reasonably correct. Also, Buddhists love the fsck out of science. ;p

That sounds pretty cool.

I find it amusing that someone who forms a religious or spiritual opinion based on parsing several sources for what sounds the most reasonable or correct ( Instead of blindly following the entirety of their own doctrine ) strikes you as a problem. "Buffet" style beliefs as you put it sound more reasonable than blind devotation.

I don't get the impression that these folks (including Andara, who I originally made the comment about) pick their bits and pieces based on what seems the most reasonable and correct. Rather, it appears that they pick the pieces that they want to be true, without regard to whether they actually are true.

As many Xtians like to say, the Bible is the instruction manual for their faith.

I've also heard the Bible called (though not by Christians) the big book of multiple choice, since you can find a passage to support almost any viewpoint or action.

[Ghel]

The only religious people you should truly have a problem with are the Christians who do use their religion for negative purposes - wars, pain, ignorance, that type of thing. ...

Attack the evil, not the religious.

I know this was directed at Ipecac, but I must say that I agree with you, for the most part. As long as the belief is a private one, I have no problem with it. It is only when believers either state their belief as truth or when believers try to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do that I feel I must speak out.

[the_std]

It is only when believers either state their belief as truth or when believers try to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do that I feel I must speak out.

I agree with you with the "forcing others" bit. That would be an evil act, to me, as no one should have to believe in something that cannot be proven to them.

However, the 'truth' bit is harder. I think it is true, to them. As long as they represent it as a personal truth, not an absolute one, I bear them no ill will. And again, the majority of the Christians I've met do not try to represent their religion as something everyone should see in everything. It is just a big truth in their lives, that they get good things out of. That, I have no problem with. The definition of truth in things that cannot be proven or disproven is acceptably malleable.

[Ghel]

I think it is true, to them.

The truth is the truth regardless of whether somebody believes in it.

However, in ordinary conversation, I have (barely) enough tact to not point out when somebody says something false that is otherwise harmless. I mainly feel the need to correct someone on debate boards, like fratching, or when the falsehood could be harmful.

Please bear in mind that by "falsehood," I don't necessarily mean a deliberate lie. It could be that the speaker has accepted something they've been told uncritically, and then repeated that piece of (unknowingly false) information as if it were true. That doesn't change the fact that what they're saying is false.

[Gravekeeper]

As opposed to believing in a all-powerful being who will send you to The Bad Place for all eternity for not following His rules to the letter? I wouldn't want to pick and choose just the parts I like out of His book for fear of pissing Him off; that is, if I believed.

As many Xtians like to say, the Bible is the instruction manual for their faith.

I'm not even sure who you're talking to. Though "Xtians" seems like an obnoxious term specifically designed to offend people, to be honest. Either that or something only Scientologists can detect with a radio wand. Is there anyone in this thread that's actually in the "OMFG GOD WILL SMITE ME" category?

I don't even believe in God, Heaven or Hell, so my tree is the incorrect one to bark upwards at.

Was I raised on the Bible? Sure. I had Sunday school. I had my own Bible ( with pictures! ) when I was a kid. But I was taught it was a book of fables and parables designed to teach good morals. Not that it was any sort of literal book or that any of the events in it were historically accurate. I wasn't taught I would burn in Hell for anything. Well, my dad's family was Roman Catholic and they certainly wanted to teach me as such, but my mom would have nothing of it.

After my parents divorced I was in meditation class with my mom by the age of 9. >.>

I have no problem with religious beliefs suggesting avenues of research. But until the belief has been demonstrated to be true, we have no justification for declaring it to be true. You know what they call pseudoscience that has been demonstrated to be accurate? Science.

I don't view my spirituality, or honestly religion in general, as beliefs. I view them as theories. Ones we're not yet able to test properly with our current science. Hence I do read, learn, pick and choose which ones sound the most plausible to me. But regardless of that the teachings give me good tools and advice with which to simply live a good life, doing the best I can by myself and others. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm no fan of organized religion, I think everyone should find their own answers and frankly, everyone is different and has different needs and wants, so why should everyone have the same beliefs? That would be illogical. That's why we have different religions and beliefs to begin with. If you believe in something and that helps you be a better human being, thats good enough for me. Buddhist does not reject other belief systems. In fact it pretty much openingly says if you can prove to me that you've got something better, I will believe that instead.

And yes, it is thus possible to be Buddhist and an Atheist. I am not personally, I think something's on we still don't or are not ready yet to understand. What that is I couldn't tell you. But its too much of a magnificently complex machine to have been entirely random. We could all be a quantum simulation being run by the Omega Point for all I know. But there's something up and we haven't yanked back all the curtains yet.

I think I understand what you are saying. The universe is an amazing place, and constantly fills me with awe and wonder. Still, I wouldn't call that spiritual. The reason is that the word "spiritual" is so poorly defined that I wouldn't know what I was saying. I would be afraid that somebody might take it to mean that I was religious, and that's certainly not true.

True, "spiritual" likely has as many sub-definitions as "atheism". However, I use it as a term to seperate myself and others from religion. Buddhism is spiritual, for example. At its core it is a collection of teachings designed to make you a better person, expand your mind and look towards a reality greater than that which we currently understand. But without theism. Spirituality can exist with or without religion or theism. One can be spiritual and atheist. One can be spiritual and a scientist. It is simply the want for greater wisdom, awareness and answers while bettering yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "powers beyond us." If you mean that there might be intelligent creatures in the universe who are more technologically advance than we are, well, so what?.

I mean there's still so much going on we don't know and that there must intelligences beyond ourselves which have aspired to a greater level of awareness, knowledge and compassion than we yet have. I do not believe in a "creator" god for example, but I do believe that there must be beings beyond ourselves that exist in levels or realities beyond us that we are not yet aware of. To think we are the height of evolution in a physical, spiritual and intellectual sense is laughably arrogant.

But no, I don't believe an all powerful magic sky wizard snapped his fingers and created everything. I believe the universe is an immensely complex and amazing machine that will do as it will regardless of whether or not anyone is watching the controls. And we are simply progressing through this machine. We understand a little bit more of it each day. But I don't think we yet comprehend just how far the journey is or what is possible at the end of it.

I don't get the impression that these folks (including Andara, who I originally made the comment about) pick their bits and pieces based on what seems the most reasonable and correct. Rather, it appears that they pick the pieces that they want to be true, without regard to whether they actually are true.

I pick my bits based on what is reasonable or logical. Reincarnation for example, strikes me as logical. If the goal of this journey is to become increasingly more wise, compassionate and aware. There is no chance you could possible experience all there is to life in this particular universe on this particular planet in just one go around. You're going to need to come back and run through it again, and again, and again, and again till you've finally experienced all their is to experience and understood all there is to understand.

As long as the belief is a private one, I have no problem with it. It is only when believers either state their belief as truth or when believers try to force others to act as if they believe the same as they do that I feel I must speak out.

Agreed. I don't care if no one here believes what I do, it is the answers and conclusions that I have come to so far. They are different then the ones I came to years ago. They will be different from the ones I come to years from now. This is a learning process. As Buddhism would say, I am not the same person today that I was yesterday. Nor will I be the same person tomorrow as I am today.

I am not in this to preach, these are my own personal answers. They work for me. You can go find your own. >.>

This is why I make a distinction between being spiritual and being religious. Spiritual is finding your own answers, being religious is following someone else's answers. Religious is reading the Bible and going "Welp, that explains everything, I'm good.". Being spiritual is reading the Bible then going "Hmm.....", then reading the lost gospels, than the apocrypha, then historical accounts, then the Quran, then the Tanakh, etc etc.

All the while deciding for yourself which bits and pieces are worthwhile. Its impossible to understand the Bible without understanding what it is, how it came to be, how its been altered over the years for the purposes of different people, what was left out of it, how it was translated, etc.

Right, imma stop myself. I'm starting to ramble. >.>

[Mytical]

For years after leaving Christianity, I studied a few religions. None quite had the right answers (at least for me). So I am spiritual, but not religious. However, I always say..it is not religion, but the people in it that are the problem. Or I guess I COULD say ..Organized religion tends to get a bit..intense. The 'its my way or the highway' comes off a bit prideful, and most (recognized) religions teach that pride is a bad thing.

My stance is until there is proof either way, I will continue to seek answers. I mean..I can't see air..doesn't mean it's not there . I won't take anything on blind faith though. Which is why no religion has successfully answered all my questions. "Because this book or that person said so.." is not a valid answer to me.

Then again we shouldn't take the opposite 'blind faith' either. That absolutely nothing can exist beyond what we can understand. Just as prideful to me. "We can't be wrong!" Either side that says "We can't be wrong" is (to me) automatically wrong. I'll listen to people on any side. Atheist, Agnostic, Religious .. as long as they don't try to force me to believe their way. Once they do that, or get to the 'I can't possibly be wrong' stage..discussion with that person is over for me.

[Ipecac Drano]

I'm not even sure who you're talking to. Though "Xtians" seems like an obnoxious term specifically designed to offend people, to be honest. Either that or something only Scientologists can detect with a radio wand.

Again, the world isn't based on "either/or" logic.

Is there anyone in this thread that's actually in the "OMFG GOD WILL SMITE ME" category?

I'm sorry, is this thread supposed to be only about the people on this forum?

[Gravekeeper]

Again, the world isn't based on "either/or" logic.

.....what are you even talking about? I was just making a wisecrack.

I'm sorry, is this thread supposed to be only about the people on this forum?

So you're randomly attacking a position no one is representing? -.-

[Ipecac Drano]

.....what are you even talking about? I was just making a wisecrack.

Okay, then.

.....
So you're randomly attacking a position no one is representing? -.-

No. Once again, is this thread supposed to be only about the people on this forum?

[Gravekeeper]

No. Once again, is this thread supposed to be only about the people on this forum?

No, it just strike me as kind of odd and somewhat hostile in tone as if it was directed at someone.

[Ipecac Drano]

No, it just strike me as kind of odd and somewhat hostile in tone as if it was directed at someone.

Someone on this forum? Such as?

[Gravekeeper]

Someone on this forum? Such as?

I don't know, this thread is 14 pages long. =p