What are your religious beliefs (if any)?

[houghtam]

Do you follow any specific church/religion? How did you come to those beliefs? When in your life did you come to that realization and how?

[Drek]

I'm a deist, much like the most influential of our founding fathers. If I were ever required to swear an oath I would request that it be done on the Jefferson Bible.

This stems from the fact that I'm not a half-retarded cave man who believes whatever my parents force fed me growing up, and instead have indulged in extensive reading within all the various circles of religious philosophy. My final conclusion is that a higher power exists, it has clearly gifted us with free will, and that it's long term aims with regards to us is unverifiable. To that end we are left with an obligation to live in the most morally righteous way possible, and we define that logically from the greatest gift our creator gave us, again, free will.

[Garcia Bronco]

I am a spiritual person, but I can't get down with the organized religion. It's just not my thing. And when I have attended church, the minute politics comes up(which is rare), I get up and leave. Most of thoes beliefs are rooted in religious socialization from my family and early community, and while education has debunked myth, that same education has led me to realize that there is more that I don't know than I do know. Life on the other hand has taught me to trust my instincts. My instincts tell me that while organized religion is no good for me, there is some measure of good policy in religious institutions.

[houghtam]

As for me, I was born into a large Catholic family in Michigan, went to Catholic school for 13 years. Attended Mass once or twice a week. Attended Valparaiso University (Lutheran) out of high school.

While in high school, I took a Theology/Philosophy class where we studied Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, Constantine, the Mystics, etc. I also took 4 years of Latin and a year of Greek. In college I continued to study language and linguistics as well as the Roman Republic and Empire, Ancient Greece, Archaeology, Anthropology. Through that study, I came to the conclusion that the Bible, even as it stood in ancient times, was a flawed document, and therefore at the very least could not be the "true" word of God. As I've outlined before, once you add humanity to the equation, "God's Word" turns into "___'s Word" very quickly, unless you don't believe in free will.

I could not (nor have I ever been able to) reconcile myself with the thought of their being no God. Not because it would fill me with an enormous sense of sadness and despondence, which it likely would, but because it just doesn't logically work for me. I know that something can't come from nothing according to current scientific law, so...it all had to come from somewhere.

That leaves the question...what is God's purpose? With as much suffering as there is (and always has been!), all of the so-called truths about God cannot be true. All-knowing. All-powerful. All-loving. A God who has the power and desire to end suffering but does not must not be aware of it. A God who has the knowledge and power to end suffering but does not must not love. A God who has the knowledge and desire to end suffering but does not has no power.

No. To me, I believe in a god, but I believe that he made the universe, looked at it, said "Great", and then moved on. He may have the power to change things, but he simply does not want to. He may want to, but simply cannot. In the end, it doesn't really change things much. In my view, I try to live the best I can with the hand I'm dealt, regardless of whether there is a god or not. I acknowledge the probability that there is a god, that he created the universe, and that his powers are infinitely above anything that we as humans have. I have humility before "god", in that respect. However, I just don't think "god" can have all the traits we ascribe to him.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by houghtam

As for me, I was born into a large Catholic family in Michigan, went to Catholic school for 13 years. Attended Mass once or twice a week. Attended Valparaiso University (Lutheran) out of high school.

While in high school, I took a Theology/Philosophy class where we studied Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, Constantine, the Mystics, etc. I also took 4 years of Latin and a year of Greek. In college I continued to study language and linguistics as well as the Roman Republic and Empire, Ancient Greece, Archaeology, Anthropology. Through that study, I came to the conclusion that the Bible, even as it stood in ancient times, was a flawed document, and therefore at the very least could not be the "true" word of God. As I've outlined before, once you add humanity to the equation, "God's Word" turns into "___'s Word" very quickly, unless you don't believe in free will.

I could not (nor have I ever been able to) reconcile myself with the thought of their being no God. Not because it would fill me with an enormous sense of sadness and despondence, which it likely would, but because it just doesn't logically work for me. I know that something can't come from nothing according to current scientific law, so...it all had to come from somewhere.

That leaves the question...what is God's purpose? With as much suffering as there is (and always has been!), all of the so-called truths about God cannot be true. All-knowing. All-powerful. All-loving. A God who has the power and desire to end suffering but does not must not be aware of it. A God who has the knowledge and power to end suffering but does not must not love. A God who has the knowledge and desire to end suffering but does not has no power.

No. To me, I believe in a god, but I believe that he made the universe, looked at it, said "Great", and then moved on. He may have the power to change things, but he simply does not want to. He may want to, but simply cannot. In the end, it doesn't really change things much. In my view, I try to live the best I can with the hand I'm dealt, regardless of whether there is a god or not. I acknowledge the probability that there is a god, that he created the universe, and that his powers are infinitely above anything that we as humans have. I have humility before "god", in that respect. However, I just don't think "god" can have all the traits we ascribe to him.

You ask a lot of good questions.

Why is it that when people want God to interfere and end suffering He is then a loving God, but when things seem great in their lives they don't want God to interfere at all? We can't have it both ways. What kind of God would He be if he just controlled everything?

In fact, God did create humans to be perfect in the beginning. Everything was right and good. No suffering, no sin, so fallenness that now represents decay. From the very beginning we were given the choice to obey God and everything would always be perfect. Unfortunately, two people screwed it up for all the rest of us, and now here we are. In a world that is far from what God had planned in the first place.

Certainly a God that created everything we see...Earth, outer space etc, has the knowledge and ability to interfere and do whatever He pleases. But that's not who or what God is. To say He is not aware is incredibly short sighted of us. He didn't just create the universe and leave us with a box of crayons to do whatever we please and maybe he will check in on us once in awhile.

One day all the suffering and decay will end...and all will be made the way He intended it to be again. He desires that. But he does not control humans. Not because he can't...but because we are given free choice. A God who sends His only son to Earth for the sole purpose of being a sacrifice for us lowly humans certainly isn't a God who does not care about His creation. Probably the exact opposite.

[BroncoInferno]

Was raised in the Presbyterian church (PCA). Starting around the age of 16 or 17 I gradually shifted from Christian to "there's a God but no one correct religion you're supposed to follow" to agnostic and finally to atheist.

[W*GS]

None.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Was raised in the Presbyterian church (PCA). Starting around the age of 16 or 17 I gradually shifted from Christian to "there's a God but no one correct religion you're supposed to follow" to agnostic and finally to atheist.

Uh oh...we have more in common than you'd probably care for...

Although I've attended a PCUSA church.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You ask a lot of good questions.

Why is it that when people want God to interfere and end suffering He is then a loving God, but when things seem great in their lives they don't want God to interfere at all? We can't have it both ways. What kind of God would He be if he just controlled everything?

In fact, God did create humans to be perfect in the beginning. Everything was right and good. No suffering, no sin, so fallenness that now represents decay. From the very beginning we were given the choice to obey God and everything would always be perfect. Unfortunately, two people screwed it up for all the rest of us, and now here we are. In a world that is far from what God had planned in the first place.

Certainly a God that created everything we see...Earth, outer space etc, has the knowledge and ability to interfere and do whatever He pleases. But that's not who or what God is. To say He is not aware is incredibly short sighted of us. He didn't just create the universe and leave us with a box of crayons to do whatever we please and maybe he will check in on us once in awhile.

One day all the suffering and decay will end...and all will be made the way He intended it to be again. He desires that. But he does not control humans. Not because he can't...but because we are given free choice. A God who sends His only son to Earth for the sole purpose of being a sacrifice for us lowly humans certainly isn't a God who does not care about His creation. Probably the exact opposite.

This is the very reason I do not believe in the Bible as a factual document. Free Will conflicts with the idea that it is God's unadulterated word.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by houghtam

which it likely would, but because it just doesn't logically work for me. I know that something can't come from nothing according to current scientific law, so...it all had to come from somewhere

Good post overall, but I have an issue with this statement. Even if we accept this premise as true (there actually have been laboratory observations of matter spontaneously generating in a vacuum), why would that "something" that was at the beginning of everything have to be a god?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by houghtam

This is the very reason I do not believe in the Bible as a factual document. Free Will conflicts with the idea that it is God's unadulterated word.

How so?

God did not force anyone to write the books of the Bible. Take Genesis for example. The most likely writer of that book is Moses. Moses was obviously not around when Adam and Eve were...or Noah for that matter. God revealed everything to Moses in order for him to write that book.

Prophecies from the OT are written hundreds of years before those prophecies are fulfilled in the NT.

[BroncoInferno]

To expand on my post above, time and again we've seen natural discoveries made to explain things that were formerly thought to be unexlainable without turning to the a god. I see no need to scramble to the supernatural for explanations on the origins of the universe. There are vasts amounts we do not know about the universe or how it operates. Like other former mysteries, I have little doubt that the the answers lie in the natural realm (surprising though those answer may be).

[Smiling Assassin27]

I was raised as a cultural Catholic but we were basically secularists. Sacraments were meaningless and nothing more than benign markers along the way. A thoughtless way to practice, to be sure. Attended Catholic middle school, high school, and college which only made me rebellious, smug, and against organized religion. The natural progression was to full blown Atheism, which I adopted as my philosophy for many years.

Unfortunately (or thankfully), i'm afflicted with severe insomnia which means I NEVER slept. I spent nights reading book after book and, after meeting a Thomist and devout Catholic, I read the Summa Theologica--twice. This had a profound effect on me, as St. Thomas' reasoning was, in my estimation, FAR beyond even the greatest Atheist writers like Feuerbach, Besant, Antony Flew, et al. I realized that the 'Catholic' education i got was a joke. It was a shallow and flat out untrue portrayal of the Catholic faith. So my goal became to read as much classic Catholic philosophy and theology, as well as the Catechisms and papal encyclicals. Once I was able to reason that God existed--absent any religious/theological influence--then things became quite clear for me that Christianity was the most coherent, sublime, and credible manifestation of God working in the world. And once the Christian bridge was crossed, the Catholic faith became the obvious view that accounted for the history of Christianity, Christian morality, social ethic and philosophy. The Atheists I had read and swore by were/are light years ahead of fools like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. But their arguments and refutations of theist--REAL theist philosophy were feeble and incoherent. I'm not talking silly and faux-scientific stuff like Intelligent Design, but legitimate and thorough premises and conclusions from philosophers that make today's crop look positively amateur.

This is a very brief account, to be sure. And so, I came home to the Catholic Church and ain't ever leaving.

p.s. The insomnia has gotten much better over time.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Free Will conflicts with the idea that it is God's unadulterated word.

Read Aquinas to understand what the most coherent Christian position on free will and inerrancy of the Bible is/are.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Good post overall, but I have an issue with this statement. Even if we accept this premise as true (there actually have been laboratory observations of matter spontaneously generating in a vacuum), why would that "something" that was at the beginning of everything have to be a god?

Simple answer to that. We can't begin to comprehend what that "something" is, so we ascribe some value to it. I feel more comfortable with calling it "god" and ascribing values and characteristics to it that I as a human being can wrap my mind around.

Originally Posted by DBruleU

How so?

God did not force anyone to write the books of the Bible. Take Genesis for example. The most likely writer of that book is Moses. Moses was obviously not around when Adam and Eve were...or Noah for that matter. God revealed everything to Moses in order for him to write that book.

Prophecies from the OT are written hundreds of years before those prophecies are fulfilled in the NT.

So what you're claiming is that something written thousands of years ago by a guy who wasn't there about something that didn't happen to him and that there was no evidence for and who claims it was told to him by God is true? Word for word?

Human nature and Free Will doesn't come on the front end of that equation, though. It comes on the back end. Even if we're supposed to believe that God came down and told the writers of the Bible a bunch of stories and that they wrote them down word for word without any mistakes (good luck with that), we're also to then believe that no one in the Bible's written history ever used their own Free Will to change what was being transmitted?

The Bible as a literal, true document, is bunk, IMO.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Simple answer to that. We can't begin to comprehend what that "something" is, so we ascribe some value to it. I feel more comfortable with calling it "god" and ascribing values and characteristics to it that I as a human being can wrap my mind around.

That's fair enough, but to me the term "god" ascribes supernatural characteristics to something that most likely has a natural answer.

[Blart]

Raised Episcopal, turned Atheist when I was 15, upon learning about Russel's Teapot (popularized by Sagan's Dragon and Flying Spaghetti Monster.)

I'm not militant about it, though. Everyone is delusional in some way, and there are a lot of good, religious people working to help the impoverished.

[TonyR]

I was raised Catholic, going to chuch every week with the family and getting all the sacraments and all that, and still consider myself "Catholic" even though I'm not a "good Catholic" because I rarely attend Sunday mass now as an adult.

Perhaps my biggest issue with religion, in the simplest of terms, is the whole thing about how Christianity is "right" while all the other religions are therefore "wrong". That means that all the Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Mormons, etc., are all basically crazy, right? I have a hard time reconciling that.

Anyway, on this topic, I thought this was a good read. Here's an excerpt:

Any belief in a supernatural world that affects the natural one is equally implausible, equally the product of cognitive biases, equally unsupported by any good evidence. Some religions contradict reality quite blatantly, flatly stating that well-established historical and scientific facts aren't true. (Young-earth Creationism does this with basic facts of evolution; Mormonism does it with basic facts of human history.) Other religions do a better job of presenting a plausible face and shoehorning their beliefs around reality. (The standard progressive Christian belief in theistic evolution is Exhibit A. Theistic evolution is entirely inconsistent with even the most basic facts of evolution, but these believers can still convincingly tell themselves and others, "No, no, we think science is great, of course we accept evolution, we're not out of touch with reality.")

But all religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. All of them ultimately rely on faith -- i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it -- as the core foundation of their belief. All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.

And by that definition, all religions are equally crazy.

Some just hide their craziness better than others.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150885...azy?paging=off

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Perhaps my biggest issue with religion, in the simplest of terms, is the whole thing about how Christianity is "right" while all the other religions are therefore "wrong". That means that all the Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Mormons, etc., are all basically crazy, right? I have a hard time reconciling that.

Well said. An all-loving god who condemns 2/3 of his children to an eternity in flames because they look at him differently than others? Riiiiiiiight.

[Garcia Bronco]

I also point out the a religion does not require the super-natural or a God. A religion can be defined as system of beliefs. So anything you put faith or belief into can be a religion. Like atheism.

[bombay]

I'm no more atheist than theist or deist. How could I know? It's no more or less likely that there is a supreme being, male or female or both or neither, than it is that man is the best that creation has to offer.

Faith is the gift you unwrap only to find yourself inside.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I also point out the a religion does not require the super-natural or a God. A religion can be defined as system of beliefs. So anything you put faith or belief into can be a religion. Like atheism.

The absence of beliefs isn't a belief in itself. Atheism can be part of a religion (i.e. some sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism, Satanism,) part of a belief system (Utilitarianism, Objectivism,) part of a philosophy (Existentialism, Secular Humanism, Materialism), but in and of itself - it's not a "system" of belief.

I agree that strong atheism (i.e. I know for a FACT there is no God) is faith, but it's just one little bit - not enough to complete a system.

[The Lone Bolt]

Devout Pastafarian.

[DenverBrit]

I was raised catholic, went to Catholic schools and attended Catholic mass.

Left the dogma and bigotry behind, and like Jefferson, took the Christian concepts to heart, but without the mysticism and miracles.

I like and admire the Christians I have frequent contact with, but then they like to feed and house the needy.......as do other faith based contributors, including Jews and Muslims.

Organized religion can be an effective force for good, but also a source of bigotry, violence and intolerance. It's easy to spot the difference.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Blart

The absence of beliefs isn't a belief in itself. Atheism can be part of a religion (i.e. some sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism, Satanism,) part of a belief system (Utilitarianism, Objectivism,) part of a philosophy (Existentialism, Secular Humanism, Materialism), but in and of itself - it's not a "system" of belief.

I agree that strong atheism (i.e. I know for a FACT there is no God) is faith, but it's just one little bit - not enough to complete a system.

The absence of belief that there is a God in-and-of-itself is a belief. You can't logically get away from that and everything is a system. You are a system comprised of smaller systems and all are a part of a bigger system that inturn is in a another system.