mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[RAGESTAR 479]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Well, sort of. I don't believe Satan rules Hell. The Bible describes Hell as a place prepared for the punishment of Satan and his angles, not for them to rule over. Common misconception.

 

And if, hypothetically, it turned out your beliefs are true and I became aware of this truth, then I would certainly abandon my beliefs and live according to your gods!

 

That's actually very intriguing to hear you say that, because if I were to ask the same question to a few other Christian's I've spoken to, they would probably laugh at me and tell me that they aren't answering the question because my gods don't exist. However, I'm glad to know that you show that your at least willing to consider my words and answer such a question politely.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

That's actually very intriguing to hear you say that, because if I were to ask the same question to a few other Christian's I've spoken to, they would probably laugh at me and tell me that they aren't answering the question because my gods don't exist. However, I'm glad to know that you show that your at least willing to consider my words and answer such a question politely.

 

Yeah. I take my faith very seriously, and it's not just arbitrarily placed. I choose to continue believing in the God of the Bible because it's the only thing that makes sense in my mind. I genuinely believe it to be true and logical. If I were to be proven wrong on that, I wouldn't stubbornly hold onto a belief that I knew deep down to be invalid.

 

In short, I choose what to believe because I seek truth, not because I just like being a Christian.

 

I still don't believe that your gods are actually real, but I also realize that my understanding of the universe is flawed, and I could hypothetically be wrong about anything.

Jedi (the 16th largest relegion in Australia).

You may think I'm joking, but if the bible is proof god exists, then the many fanfictions and movies proof Jedi exists. Plus we're not prejudice, so long a you're not sith, we don't like them too much.

 

The Bible isn't meant to be proof that God exists. It's meant to be a history of His people and His works in the world that He created.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Henny Penny Benny

[Stancet 689]

 

 

disregards the negatives, like "If you don't believe in what I blieve your going to hell" what a crock that is am I right?

 

 

I agree. Everyone should journey their own spiritual path and find truth in their own time. Although I'm a Christian it makes me disgusted to be in a group while they've got nothing better to do than disown others.

[RainbowxWolf66 67]

I do believe in God but i am also very open minded about other religions and paths such as Wicca and Paganism i am very interested in. I dont really have a set path or religion or god i believe in or follow. So i won't vote if that is okay

[The Dandy 73]

 

The Bible isn't meant to be proof that God exists. It's meant to be a history of His people and His works in the world that He created.

 The Bible isn't meant to be proof that God exists. It's meant to be a history of His people and His works in the world that He created.

(Hope I did this write and I've quoted him).

Yes, but a piece of history about "his" people and "his" works, implies that god is real, therefore it acts as proof that god exists. A book or movie or whatever can not say or imply something is real, without acting as evidence that the very thing is real. Furthermore, it's not a very accurate piece of history, so even then it would be a tainted source. But, since you would be inclined to disagree with me, what is the proof that god exists then?

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

(Hope I did this write and I've quoted him).

Yes, but a piece of history about "his" people and "his" works, implies that god is real, therefore it acts as proof that god exists. A book or movie or whatever can not say or imply something is real, without acting as evidence that the very thing is real. Furthermore, it's not a very accurate piece of history, so even then it would be a tainted source. But, since you would be inclined to disagree with me, what is the proof that god exists then?

 

If I were to write a book about a planet halfway across the universe that was populated by midgets who eat staples and poop nuclear energy, and I wrote it as if it was true, that still wouldn't in any way act as evidence of such a planet. The Bible isn't supposed to somehow prove that God exists. It's not meant to convince people of His existence. It's meant to teach people—people who already believe in Him—about who He is and what He has done in this world.

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no "proof" that God exists, not in the sense you seem to be asking. There's certainly no scientific "proof" that I'm aware of. It's something people choose to believe, regardless of proof or the lack thereof.

[The Dandy 73]

If I were to write a book about a planet halfway across the universe that was populated by midgets who eat staples and poop nuclear energy, and I wrote it as if it was true, that still wouldn't in any way act as evidence of such a planet. The Bible isn't supposed to somehow prove that God exists. It's not meant to convince people of His existence. It's meant to teach people—people who already believe in Him—about who He is and what He has done in this world.

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no "proof" that God exists, not in the sense you seem to be asking. There's certainly no scientific "proof" that I'm aware of. It's something people choose to believe, regardless of proof or the lack thereof.

Correction, if you wrote it as if it was true, and you believed that it was true, it would in fact, act as evidence that (well it doesn't exists, it's more evidence people think it exists, but for arguments sake lets say it does) exist. Not to be confused as to you writing that book, "knowing" it's untrue, but writing it so that the characters think it's true, or even suggests that the author think it is. I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, it is meant to provide morals true, however, it teaches these by saying it's from god's own mouth. Look at the 10 commandments (as an example), it says that he was literally spoken to by god and told that is what we are meant to do, the rules we must abide by. Although you may choose to see it as "only for people that already believe in him", the bible is taken as from the mouth of god (even though people wrote it), thus the bible is meant to be taken as proof that god exists.

 

"Faith with proof, isn't faith at all", I would assume sums that up.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

Correction, if you wrote it as if it was true, and you believed that it was true, it would in fact, act as evidence that (well it doesn't exists, it's more evidence people think it exists, but for arguments sake lets say it does) exist. Not to be confused as to you writing that book, "knowing" it's untrue, but writing it so that the characters think it's true, or even suggests that the author think it is. I'm afraid that is where you are wrong, it is meant to provide morals true, however, it teaches these by saying it's from god's own mouth. Look at the 10 commandments (as an example), it says that he was literally spoken to by god and told that is what we are meant to do, the rules we must abide by. Although you may choose to see it as "only for people that already believe in him", the bible is taken as from the mouth of god (even though people wrote it), thus the bible is meant to be taken as proof that god exists.

 

"Faith with proof, isn't faith at all", I would assume sums that up.

 

You say it well when you say "it's more evidence people think it exists".

 

Let's revise my metaphor. Let's say I wrote a biography of a nonexistent man named Jim Bobberson, and I wrote it to be taken as though he was dictating and I was merely writing it down. No one in his right mind would accept my book, in and of itself, as proof that Jim Bobberson was a real person. The book would simply be meant to detail the life of Jim Bobberson if he did exist. So if you were to believe Jim Bobberson was a real person, my book would provide you with details to believe about his life. But it wouldn't make sense to say that my book was meant to prove his existence.

 

In the same way, the Bible is meant to be read as the word of God, written by man. It would make no sense to take the Bible, in and of itself, as proof of God's existence. For people who believe in God, it details His commands and His actions and who He is. For people who don't believe in God, it details who people believe Him to be. "The bible is taken as from the mouth of god" does not logically lead to "the bible is meant to be taken as proof that god exists". At best, one could conclude that the Bible can be taken as claiming that God exists. But it makes no sense to take it as proving that God exists.

 

By the logic you seem to be using, the Bible might as well say "God exists. Trust me, He told me so Himself. And to prove it, I wrote it in a book." That doesn't make sense. To say that's what the Bible says is to grossly and deliberately misrepresent what Christians believe. I might as well say "Oh, TheFluttershyGuy? Yeah, he's a ten-foot-tall, five hundred year old, pink gorilla made of Tabasco sauce. Trust me, he told me so himself. And to prove it, here's a book I wrote about it." It simply makes no sense. That logic doesn't work.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Henny Penny Benny

[The Dandy 73]

You say it well when you say "it's more evidence people think it exists".

 

Let's revise my metaphor. Let's say I wrote a biography of a nonexistent man named Jim Bobberson, and I wrote it to be taken as though he was dictating and I was merely writing it down. No one in his right mind would accept my book, in and of itself, as proof that Jim Bobberson was a real person. The book would simply be meant to detail the life of Jim Bobberson if he did exist. So if you were to believe Jim Bobberson was a real person, my book would provide you with details to believe about his life. But it wouldn't make sense to say that my book was meant to prove his existence.

 

In the same way, the Bible is meant to be read as the word of God, written by man. It would make no sense to take the Bible, in and of itself, as proof of God's existence. For people who believe in God, it details His commands and His actions and who He is. For people who don't believe in God, it details who people believe Him to be. "The bible is taken as from the mouth of god" does not logically lead to "the bible is meant to be taken as proof that god exists". At best, one could conclude that the Bible can be taken as claiming that God exists. But it makes no sense to take it as proving that God exists.

 

By the logic you seem to be using, the Bible might as well say "God exists. Trust me, He told me so Himself. And to prove it, I wrote it in a book." That doesn't make sense. To say that's what the Bible says is to grossly and deliberately misrepresent what Christians believe. I might as well say "Oh, TheFluttershyGuy? Yeah, he's a ten-foot-tall, five hundred year old, pink gorilla made of Tabasco sauce. Trust me, he told me so himself. And to prove it, here's a book I wrote about it." It simply makes no sense. That logic doesn't work.

I'm sorry to reply to something so long, so shortly. But you are correct it would just be proof for people that believed he existed, but if you wrote it in the hope that people would read and think he was real (as the bible is done) then it would be more than that.

 

I would like to remind you that we are talking about religion, what is sensible and logical is irrelevant. All the matters in this case is how the majority of people which follow the bible use it, and they use it as evidence that god exists, that's why they treat the words of the bible so importantly, to the point where you need to swear by it (in court houses and parliament).

 

Yes, you're completely right, that is my logic, because that is the logic of Christians, one has faith (faith meaning with no proof) that god exists, therefore one believes in god because "trust me, he said so". Well if that logic doesn't work, than please remind me as to how the bible has been believed for about 2000 years (as you have just said there is no scientific proof, therefore meaning it's faith, therefore meaning it's "cause he said so"). And for future reference, people said: "slavery is fine, cause the bible said so", "Homosexuality is wrong cause, the bible said so", "there are three planets, cause the bible said so" (prior to science disproving that), so "god exists, cause the bible says so" is not only practised, but far from a stretch.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

I'm sorry to reply to something so long, so shortly. But you are correct it would just be proof for people that believed he existed, but if you wrote it in the hope that people would read and think he was real (as the bible is done) then it would be more than that.

 

I would like to remind you that we are talking about religion, what is sensible and logical is irrelevant. All the matters in this case is how the majority of people which follow the bible use it, and they use it as evidence that god exists, that's why they treat the words of the bible so importantly, to the point where you need to swear by it (in court houses and parliament).

 

Yes, you're completely right, that is my logic, because that is the logic of Christians, one has faith (faith meaning with no proof) that god exists, therefore one believes in god because "trust me, he said so". Well if that logic doesn't work, than please remind me as to how the bible has been believed for about 2000 years (as you have just said there is no scientific proof, therefore meaning it's faith, therefore meaning it's "cause he said so"). And for future reference, people said: "slavery is fine, cause the bible said so", "Homosexuality is wrong cause, the bible said so", "there are three planets, cause the bible said so" (prior to science disproving that), so "god exists, cause the bible says so" is not only practised, but far from a stretch.

 

What is "sensible and logical" is not irrelevant. It may simply be that what you find sensible and logical is not the same as what I find sensible and logical. And you have no right to say your sensibility and logic are better than mine (not that you did say that, but it seemed to be implied).

 

So the majority of people who follow the Bible use it as evidence that God exists? How do you know this? To make such a claim with any authority, you'd have to have interviewed "the majority of people who follow the Bible" and found your understanding to be true. But as it is, it sounds like pure speculation and misinformation.

 

"Because that is the logic of Christians." So now you're trying to tell me the logic that I use, when you don't even know me. That ain't gonna work, mate. I don't believe in God "because He said so". I believe in God because it makes sense to me. Because all I've seen in the world corroborates my belief in Him. And I don't know a single fellow Christian who solely believes in Him "because He said so".

 

And let me remind you that scientists of the times proved Africans to be inferior to whites, and they proved that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Yes, the church held some wacky scientific beliefs, but so did the scientific community of the times. It wasn't just the church. Scientists have long been proving what they wanted to prove because they wanted it to be true.

[Neutrino 47]

Atheisssssst!

 

Why?

Because I can't just believe in something illogical or as morally confusing as religion...

1.) Lets say, the majority of 'Christians' have never read the bible,

2.) Many religious texts and sources are outright copies of other religions,

3.) Often, religious teaches/preachers/heads are contradictory or even immoral. -and the peoples of no religion don't have these teachings (or prejudices) because they decide their own morals and learn from their own perspective... Or something.

[StabbedByANarwhal 75]

Atheisssssst!

 

Why?

Because I can't just believe in something illogical or as morally confusing as religion...

1.) Lets say, the majority of 'Christians' have never read the bible,

2.) Many religious texts and sources are outright copies of other religions,

3.) Often, religious teaches/preachers/heads are contradictory or even immoral. -and the peoples of no religion don't have these teachings (or prejudices) because they decide their own morals and learn from their own perspective... Or something.

I thought with atheism there is no morals.

And you got it backwards.

Many religions come off of Christianity.

Christianity didn't really copy any religion.

[Malinter 3,064]

I thought with atheism there is no morals.

And you got it backwards.

Many religions come off of Christianity.

Christianity didn't really copy any religion.

 Actually christianity has stolen a few festivals from other religions like winter solace and such made there own versions.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Malinter

[StabbedByANarwhal 75]

Furthermore, a society that decides its own morals will eventually collapse do to the corruption of human nature.

For example:

 

Take two people groups. Christians and Atheists.

 

Christians go based on the Bible's morals and standards on how to live your life by letting the Bible dictate what is right and what is wrong.

 

Atheists go based on whatever they want. "Choose your own morals" as they would say.

It is not healthy for a person to dictate what is right and what wrong by his prospective.

If I think killing is ok by what atheists believe that's ok because I have chosen my own morals.

Of course that would be wrong... if you had a book to tell you so, but keep on deciding your own morals and see the destructive path it leads you down.

My personal opinion is that it's quite barbaric to do what you "feel" is right and ok.

I have chosen a guide for my life.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

 Actually christianity has stolen a few festivals from other religions like winter solace and such made there own versions.

 

True, but those are man-made festivals, not actually festivals instituted by Scripture. Let's take Christmas for example. Sure, it may be celebrated when and how it is because Christians wanted to appeal to pagans, but when and how it's celebrated aren't part of Christianity. The only part of Christmas that is really part of Christianity is what it celebrates, which is the birth of Christ, even though He probably wasn't actually born on December 25.

 

Point is, yes Christians have borrowed from other religions, but that doesn't mean that Christianity has done so.

[StabbedByANarwhal 75]

Actually christianity has stolen a few festivals from other religions like winter solace and such made there own versions.

Tell me exactly what Christianity stole from winter solace.

By the way.

The belief in the Christian God is older than any other religion.

[~Sole~ 852]

Tell me exactly what Christianity stole from winter solace.

By the way.

The belief in the Christian God is older than any other religion.

I'm sorry, but that's not even close. Hundreds of religions predate any abrahamic religion by thousands of years. I don't know where you got that bit of info from dude. And most Christmas traditions, like the giving of gifts, decorating trees, and hanging stockings/boots are even confirmed to be derived from northern pagan traditions. So is Easter, being derived from a pagan tradition known as Eostre. Just thought I'd clear some things up for ya.

[BastementSparkle 20,326]

Furthermore, a society that decides its own morals will eventually collapse do to the corruption of human nature.

For example:

 

Take two people groups. Christians and Atheists.

 

Christians go based on the Bible's morals and standards on how to live your life by letting the Bible dictate what is right and what is wrong.

 

Atheists go based on whatever they want. "Choose your own morals" as they would say.

It is not healthy for a person to dictate what is right and what wrong by his prospective.

If I think killing is ok by what atheists believe that's ok because I have chosen my own morals.

Of course that would be wrong... if you had a book to tell you so, but keep on deciding your own morals and see the destructive path it leads you down.

My personal opinion is that it's quite barbaric to do what you "feel" is right and ok.

I have chosen a guide for my life.

NO. Just No. Do you want to know why I don't go around kicking kittens, and setting fire to hospitals? Because empathy. I decided my morals based on empathy. I wouldn't cause suffering because I would feel awful for, knowing that I harmed someone. It's fine to get your morals from a religion, but are you telling me that the only reason you don't hurt people is because a book told you not to? That scares me. The idea that the only thing stopping you from doing something awful is the fear of punishment from a deity.

 

 I'm not saying that's how you are. But that idea frightens me.

[Envy 6,169]

Furthermore, a society that decides its own morals will eventually collapse do to the corruption of human nature.

For example:

 

Take two people groups. Christians and Atheists.

 

Christians go based on the Bible's morals and standards on how to live your life by letting the Bible dictate what is right and what is wrong.

 

Atheists go based on whatever they want. "Choose your own morals" as they would say.

It is not healthy for a person to dictate what is right and what wrong by his prospective.

If I think killing is ok by what atheists believe that's ok because I have chosen my own morals.

Of course that would be wrong... if you had a book to tell you so, but keep on deciding your own morals and see the destructive path it leads you down.

My personal opinion is that it's quite barbaric to do what you "feel" is right and ok.

I have chosen a guide for my life.

I do not see this when I look at a group of Christians. I see a bunch of individuals who have their own idea of what is right and wrong. Some Christians have absolutely no problem with the idea of killing another, even though their holy book is supposed to dictate otherwise.

 

I, as an atheist, am a strict pacifist. I didn't "choose" this morality. It's just how I think.

 

Funny how so many think that there is this great simple "choice" that people can make it regards to belief in God and morality. Where does this misconception even come from? Do some people really bind their morality to how they interpret the Bible and they'd really stop believing in the morality they think they've derived from the Bible if they for some reason came to stop believing?

 

If that were true, their morality wasn't very deep, while mine very much was. I came to my morality from empathy, not some ancient book. It's much more scary to me the idea of people really only having "morality" because of the commandments of some book.

 

But I do not believe that's actually how it works. Although, for some individuals it may. And those individuals are dangerous no matter whether they have religious belief or not, because as I noted, Christian belief does not seem to be a very big deterrent to killing another. If they lack the empathy, they'll just use the religion as an excuse. "He had a demon inside of him!" We see these stories all of the time, and whether or not I am completely right, there still is no such "absolute morality" among Christians.

 

The belief in the Christian God is older than any other religion.

That's blatantly false.

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

I do not see this when I look at a group of Christians. I see a bunch of individuals who have their own idea of what is right and wrong. Some Christians have absolutely no problem with the idea of killing another, even though their holy book is supposed to dictate otherwise.

 

I, as an atheist, am a strict pacifist. I didn't "choose" this morality. It's just how I think.

 

Funny how so many think that there is this great simple "choice" that people can make it regards to belief in God and morality. Where does this misconception even come from? Do some people really bind their morality to how they interpret the Bible and they'd really stop believing in the morality they think they've derived from the Bible if they for some reason came to stop believing?

 

If that were true, their morality wasn't very deep, while mine very much was. I came to my morality from empathy, not some ancient book. It's much more scary to me the idea of people really only having "morality" because of the commandments of some book.

 

But I do not believe that's actually how it works. Although, for some individuals it may. And those individuals are dangerous no matter whether they have religious belief or not, because as I noted, Christian belief does not seem to be a very big deterrent to killing another. If they lack the empathy, they'll just use the religion as an excuse. "He had a demon inside of him!" We see these stories all of the time, and whether or not I am completely right, there still is no such "absolute morality" among Christians.

 

That's blatantly false.

 

Morality is a choice. Any conscious thought is a choice. Everything you do, think, and believe is a choice. It may not seem like a choice because any alternative seems too absurd to consider, but it's still a choice.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not even close. Hundreds of religions predate any abrahamic religion by thousands of years. I don't know where you got that bit of info from dude. And most Christmas traditions, like the giving of gifts, decorating trees, and hanging stockings/boots are even confirmed to be derived from northern pagan traditions. So is Easter, being derived from a pagan tradition known as Eostre. Just thought I'd clear some things up for ya.

 

Strictly speaking, those Christmas traditions aren't really Christian traditions. They've been tacked onto Christians' celebration of Christ's birth, but they're not really related to Christianity in any way. Same thing with Easter. Our modern traditions for celebrating these holidays aren't related to Christianity. The only thing in them that is Christian in origin is what they celebrate, i.e. the birth (Christmas) and resurrection (Easter) of Christ.

 

And I'm genuinely curious, as I've never looked much into it: what religions predate Abrahamic religion? And what do you mean, exactly, by "predate"? And when did such religions come to be? And for that matter, when do you see Abrahamic religions as coming to be?

NO. Just No. Do you want to know why I don't go around kicking kittens, and setting fire to hospitals? Because empathy. I decided my morals based on empathy. I wouldn't cause suffering because I would feel awful for, knowing that I harmed someone. It's fine to get your morals from a religion, but are you telling me that the only reason you don't hurt people is because a book told you not to? That scares me. The idea that the only thing stopping you from doing something awful is the fear of punishment from a deity.

 

 I'm not saying that's how you are. But that idea frightens me.

 

Yeah, that is a common misrepresentation of Christianity. It's not just "Oh, the Bible says I shouldn't do this, so I don't."

 

Personally, I believe that the heart of all people is inherently wicked due to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and any good in the heart of man is put there by God. On our own, we (myself included) are incapable of anything truly good. But when we come to know and believe in God, our hearts are transformed to be more like His. So anyone who claims to know God but still consistently does evil, clearly isn't really a Christian.

 

That's where I get my morality from.

[~Sole~ 852]

Morality is a choice. Any conscious thought is a choice. Everything you do, think, and believe is a choice. It may not seem like a choice because any alternative seems too absurd to consider, but it's still a choice.

 

 

 

Strictly speaking, those Christmas traditions aren't really Christian traditions. They've been tacked onto Christians' celebration of Christ's birth, but they're not really related to Christianity in any way. Same thing with Easter. Our modern traditions for celebrating these holidays aren't related to Christianity. The only thing in them that is Christian in origin is what they celebrate, i.e. the birth (Christmas) and resurrection (Easter) of Christ.

 

And I'm genuinely curious, as I've never looked much into it: what religions predate Abrahamic religion? And what do you mean, exactly, by "predate"? And when did such religions come to be? And for that matter, when do you see Abrahamic religions as coming to be?

just look up the definition of abrahamic religion on google dude. And do you really need me to tell you what predates them? C'mon, it's simple history. Here, I'll name a few: heathenism/norse beliefs, Celtic beliefs, almost all African beliefs, Buddhism. I could go on, but that's just a few. And when I say predates, I mean the religion or faith was created or started before Christianity or other abrahamic religions. Edited March 22, 2014 by ~LoSt SoLe~

[Henny Penny Benny 936]

just look up the definition of abrahamic religion on google dude. And do you really need me to tell you what predates them? C'mon, it's simple history. Here, I'll name a few: heathenism/norse beliefs, Celtic beliefs, almost all African beliefs, Buddhism. I could go on, but that's just a few. And when I say predates, I mean the religion or faith was created or started before Christianity or other abrahamic religions.

 

Well Christianity didn't start with Christianity. It began with Judaism, and branched off when the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But even Judaism, the first Abrahamic religion, didn't begin with Judaism. It wasn't until the time of Abraham that it became called as such, but even Abraham's ancestors worshipped the same God. I can't prove that, and admittedly it is something I believe on faith. But then again, I'm not really trying to prove anything to you, as that would be futile. I suppose I'm just trying to explain my own beliefs.

 

Regardless, though, since we lack the ability to travel back in time, it's impossible to prove one way or the other. This is really an argument that can't be won. I really don't know why I got into it to begin with. You may well be right for all I know, and you certainly seem more knowledgable on the subject than I am. But whichever of us is right is never going to convince the other anyway. 

Edited March 22, 2014 by Henny Penny Benny

[~Sole~ 852]

Well Christianity didn't start with Christianity. It began with Judaism, and branched off when the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But even Judaism, the first Abrahamic religion, didn't begin with Judaism. It wasn't until the time of Abraham that it became called as such, but even Abraham's ancestors worshipped the same God. I can't prove that, and admittedly it is something I believe on faith. But then again, I'm not really trying to prove anything to you, as that would be futile. I suppose I'm just trying to explain my own beliefs.

 

Regardless, though, since we lack the ability to travel back in time, it's impossible to prove one way or the other. This is really an argument that can't be won. I really don't know why I got into it to begin with. You may well be right for all I know, and you certainly seem more knowledgable on the subject than I am. But whichever of us is right is never going to convince the other anyway. 

true enough, I just wanted to throw in my knowledge for good measure. Thanks for being respectful and kind with your opinion, you'd be surprised how much that's in short supply with religious arguments.

[Gyruss 125]

I see that there's a healthy debate going on already.  A part of me wants to toss my hat into the ring, but another part of me wonders if I should read more than just the last page before I do that.  For now, I'll just go on the record saying I'm an atheist.  Yeah.  An atheist on the Internet.  How boring, right?

I'd go into detail, but at the moment that's going to take more effort than I'm willing to give.  That is to say, I do know why I believe what I do (my thoughts are a bit more detailed than just lack of belief), but I don't really feel like summoning the mental energy to articulate the details at the moment.

One thing I will say for the moment, however is this:  I know a few nonreligious persons in real life; none of them are family.  When I have to go to an event like a wedding or funeral in the family, I have to give an appearance of being at least somewhat religious.  The thing is, I do not earnestly believe in the hymns and prayers, so I have trouble bringing myself to actually say them.  I kind of unconsciously think "I can't say this stuff.  I'm already lying and pretending enough as it is to appease relatives."

[~Sole~ 852]

I see that there's a healthy debate going on already.  A part of me wants to toss my hat into the ring, but another part of me wonders if I should read more than just the last page before I do that.  For now, I'll just go on the record saying I'm an atheist.  Yeah.  An atheist on the Internet.  How boring, right?

I'd go into detail, but at the moment that's going to take more effort than I'm willing to give.  That is to say, I do know why I believe what I do (my thoughts are a bit more detailed than just lack of belief), but I don't really feel like summoning the mental energy to articulate the details at the moment.

One thing I will say for the moment, however is this:  I know a few nonreligious persons in real life; none of them are family.  When I have to go to an event like a wedding or funeral in the family, I have to give an appearance of being at least somewhat religious.  The thing is, I do not earnestly believe in the hymns and prayers, so I have trouble bringing myself to actually say them.  I kind of unconsciously think "I can't say this stuff.  I'm already lying and pretending enough as it is to appease relatives."

I know what you mean there dude. Most of my family are either Christian or atheist, and I'm sure many would either think I'm an idiot or disown me if they discovered my religion. So I have To act like I believe in Christian god a lot, even though I REALLY don't like to. And you know, just because you don't believe in Christian god doesn't make you an atheist. Not trying to convert you, but there's more then just Christianity and atheism out there, a lot more.