Atheist or christian?

See, here's what I like, though.

I'm not a christian. I'm not buddhist, muslim, athiest, or any other specific religion.

Yet I still believe in a philosophy of love like you.
I was never brought into a religion, though. I was baptised, because my mother wanted me to have any option I wanted. Well, my option is, just, being kind and open with people. I don't need someone to pray to in order to help other people or myself. I'd much rather do it physically.
I think a lot of the time, people decide helping should be left to the hands of god, rather than attempting to do what we can do with a little self sacrifice, and hard work.

Does not having a religion, because I was not raised with one, constitute with your theory: "I don't believe that a person would be in the wrong for believing in a religion, if that's the only religion they've ever known."?

"See, here's what I like, though.

I'm not a christian. I'm not buddhist, muslim, athiest, or any other specific religion.

Yet I still believe in a philosophy of love like you."

: D Sorry, I didn't list all the options. Yes, I think you can - and should - have a philosophy of love, no matter how you were raised, or what you did or did not end up believing in.

You make a really good point about how some religious people will leave things "in the hands of God," rather than directly help. (Though, of course, a non-religious person could just as easily look at a starving person and go "meh. Natural selection.") I think this is definitely a mistake, especially when, at least in Christianity, service and "love of neighbor" is kind of the point.

"Actually, Bob, you can be a scientist and believe in god. Didn't Einstein do that?"

^^
Some of the world's most important scientific discoveries were made by devout christians in secrecy. Take Gregor Mendel for example. If he had let religion get in his way, he wouldn't have made such breakthroughs in the field of genetics...I realise that his discoveries weren't HUGE, but they were inportant stepping stones. If the religious authoraties had found out about his work, he probably would've been burned....but he still did it.

And if I'm not mistaken, he was a pastor or something of that nature.

Personally (even though I don't believe in it myself) I think that science and religion CAN coexist - I mean, isn't it possible that "God" could have created all of the intricate systems in our world that scientists are exploring today?

I personally do not believe that science defies religion...if anything it just explores it further.

In fact, many mathematicians/philosiphers of our past believed that mathematics was actually the study of the God's blueprints of the earth.

""I guess I will. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that you HAVE sinned in your life. Nobody's perfect.And I thought Jesus died on the cross, not god. I'd like to ask you two questions:If your god is so powerful, why is there so much misery in the world? and:Did god give us free will?""

Jesus was God in the flesh. I know I am a sinner, but we are all sinners saved by grace.. He paid for past, present, and future sins. So i am covered.

1. Because the World is full of sin

2. Yes. God did give us free will thats why you chose to not believe and i chose to believe.

=]]

Jesus was god in the flesh...?

I thought he was just some guy who tried to spread god's word and all that jazz.

Haha, I guess I really DON'T know anything about christianity....

"I actually prefer it when Michael copies phrases, repeats himself, and keeps it short. In his longer soliliquies, his abuse of the English language is nothing short of horrifying. His apparent assumption that others will be impressed, intimidated or convinced by his pseudointellectual nonsense is nothing short of insulting."

Ouch! that's going to leave a mark

I actually prefer it when sherry post numbers in the discussions, although I would not have guessed her age it did add to her pseudo innocence

I still love you sherry, though I am not surprised I am the only one that has said that to you in twelve years lol

One of the first discussions I ever entered on belief in God seemed to be the metaphoric pig wrestling with Kevin and other doubters. Even though I have found the theory of evolution to not be a threat to faith I defended the story of genesis as the subjective inspired word of God. I began to test my opposition's sense of dignity by constantly referring to them as accidentally highly evolved apes. An appeal was made to the scientific minded to state if science could prove that God did not exist. A proclaimed scientist stated that science could not prove that anything did not exist. But he stated that some scientist believed that God did not meet the empirical evidence standard as defined by Occam's razor
"This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories
The irony is that this razor was developed by a devout Franciscan friar William of Ockham
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away (Schmitt 2005). While Occam's razor cannot prove God's nonexistence, it does imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any way I remember that the scientist of the discussion exclaimed and I quote
"Jesus tap dancing Christ how stupid can you get" to some data that he said was totally inaccurate that another zealous Christian had presented
It was especially surprising to me that from my phrase, [accidentally highly evolved apes], the word in that phrase he found most offensive was "accidentally"
He explained that Evolutionary theory doesn't say that life came about by accident. It says that the variations that come about in life is random, but the mechanism that sifts through it(natural selection) is anything but random. Here's an example...if you take a jar full of sand and shake it up, the sand will "by accident" be mixed up by the water. However, if you leave this jar by itself for a few minutes, all the sand will have sunk to the bottom..."by accident" ! Point being, a non random filter(gravity in this case) will produce order from randomness

'Micheal, ask a decent question that is related to this topic and I'll answer it, though can you ever do the same with me?'

How do you percieve your soul?

I do not percieve my soul Micheal, as I do not believe we have them, if by the word soul you mean a divine spark of life that survives death.

If I ever use the word soul, it's about summing up a persons character, eg;

"She is a wise old soul"

I used to believe we had souls, like eternal entities that powered our bodies and travelled from life to life, but I only believed that because I'd read it in spiritual texts and it sounded nice, you know, it comforted me around the time there was a death in my family. When I was older and did some research and really thought about what I was affirming myself to, I abandoned it as a belief.

I still love the idea though, I just don't see any evidence.

What was your question?
I would like to if it is included in my knowledge

92 posts filled with rhethorical questions and answers that leaves more questions...

How funny...

^^^You know Bob, sharing this information about your past, may be used against you by another Ddavid lookalike....

Are you sure you're ready to impart that info..

^^Tell me, tell me...

I wanna know...

If we tell you, you won't learn anything eh?

I find you really funny Noir, warning Bob to be careful of speaking about himself in here! Ohhh...what do you think it going to happen? Someone will say what he already knows and has spoken about?

Scary.

Lol...

No Kevin, we don't want people like Ddavid and his its to take that info and use it to their advantage.

I am warning Bob, just like I would warn a child that comes in here, and divulges information which could be used against his advantage.

That's all...Also I would also like the same treatment next time I diveluge something about myself. You know.

Pay it forward...Lol.

You would like the same treatment? Cool.

Then stop detracting from the value of threads with worthless sarcasm, seeing as you asked. You are a reasonably smart guy who can offer insight, you don't need to stir everyone up at the least opportunity.

On Topic though. I think if there is a link between Science and religion, it's that science it attempting to prove or disprove the claims that religions make, which you think they would welcome right?

I mean, we all know that science has overtaken religion as the model we now use to explain the world and it's workings, so, that being the case, you really would assume that if religious people actually believed what they have faith in was valid, and worthy of inspection and research, they would welcome with open arms the investigations and discoveries of science.

Strangely, what you tend to see is a mass denouncement of anything scientific that even hints at a challenge to the ways of the faith, which is a real pity.

And the truth shall perhaps, maybe if you let it, set you free.

Http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/golshani.doc

I have nothing more to say on this, I think the website above me, would be a answer to your question. It seems that everyone has been going around in circles, evidencing their opinion and for some the lack there of, forcing it to be true.

It was fun in the first instances...Oh well.