Ot; new religion on the rise; possibilians

[zk]

[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.

To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]

I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.

1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.

Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]

“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.

I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”

My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”

My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”

My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”

My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”

[zk]

[quote=Rustico]

Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]

I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”

My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”

[NotCranky]

No problem ZK. Don’t even think about it. Thanks though.

Schismatic:
The way I understand it as it applies to religion is that under pressure one is a believer and might even cry out to God for help, they are losing their minds but fight back to something less “faith” based because of actually having found that they aren’t comforted at all by the old convictions or systems that built and support said convictions. In more stable people it could be very little traumatic at all, but why wouldn’t it be better to get off that cycle once and for all?

I suppose someone could also grow deeper in their commitment to some “faith” to restore themselves from being schismatic.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to get through it that they start to describe themselves as “intentionally schismatic”, it is very empowering to take responsibility for it.

[NotCranky]

No problem ZK. Don’t even think about it. Thanks though.

Schismatic:
The way I understand it as it applies to religion is that under pressure one is a believer and might even cry out to God for help, they are losing their minds but fight back to something less “faith” based because of actually having found that they aren’t comforted at all by the old convictions or systems that built and support said convictions. In more stable people it could be very little traumatic at all, but why wouldn’t it be better to get off that cycle once and for all?

I suppose someone could also grow deeper in their commitment to some “faith” to restore themselves from being schismatic.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to get through it that they start to describe themselves as “intentionally schismatic”, it is very empowering to take responsibility for it.

[NotCranky]

No problem ZK. Don’t even think about it. Thanks though.

Schismatic:
The way I understand it as it applies to religion is that under pressure one is a believer and might even cry out to God for help, they are losing their minds but fight back to something less “faith” based because of actually having found that they aren’t comforted at all by the old convictions or systems that built and support said convictions. In more stable people it could be very little traumatic at all, but why wouldn’t it be better to get off that cycle once and for all?

I suppose someone could also grow deeper in their commitment to some “faith” to restore themselves from being schismatic.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to get through it that they start to describe themselves as “intentionally schismatic”, it is very empowering to take responsibility for it.

[NotCranky]

No problem ZK. Don’t even think about it. Thanks though.

Schismatic:
The way I understand it as it applies to religion is that under pressure one is a believer and might even cry out to God for help, they are losing their minds but fight back to something less “faith” based because of actually having found that they aren’t comforted at all by the old convictions or systems that built and support said convictions. In more stable people it could be very little traumatic at all, but why wouldn’t it be better to get off that cycle once and for all?

I suppose someone could also grow deeper in their commitment to some “faith” to restore themselves from being schismatic.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to get through it that they start to describe themselves as “intentionally schismatic”, it is very empowering to take responsibility for it.

[NotCranky]

No problem ZK. Don’t even think about it. Thanks though.

Schismatic:
The way I understand it as it applies to religion is that under pressure one is a believer and might even cry out to God for help, they are losing their minds but fight back to something less “faith” based because of actually having found that they aren’t comforted at all by the old convictions or systems that built and support said convictions. In more stable people it could be very little traumatic at all, but why wouldn’t it be better to get off that cycle once and for all?

I suppose someone could also grow deeper in their commitment to some “faith” to restore themselves from being schismatic.

I would recommend to anyone who wants to get through it that they start to describe themselves as “intentionally schismatic”, it is very empowering to take responsibility for it.

[briansd1]

[quote=zk]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.

I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?[/quote]

I’m a 7 in that I operate with the assumption that God does not exist. I have better things to think about and spend energy on.

But that doesn’t mean that I’m not moved by religious service. When my auntie died, my cousin had a service for her mom at the local church, outside of NYC in the Hudson River Valley. It was very beautiful.

BTW, that small local catholic church does good work. They are not a wealthy, ostentatious church like the vatican, or the Crystal Cathedral.

[quote=njtosd] there are quite a few well controlled studies that support the contention that those who identify themselves as having a religious faith tend to be more physically healthy and (mildly) more emotionally healthy. Rather than inducing passivity, religion seems to be associated with people making better choices. (Or, people who make better health choices also identify themselves as being religious – sort of a chicken/egg issue.)
[/quote]

My cousin goes to church every weekend and she volunteer at church.

Her husband is buddhist by choice and she volunteers him to tend the catholic church’s rose garden. He does it to make her happy.

I agree that religion is a motivator for a great many. Religion can motivate people to do good things; so I don’t believe that religion is useless.

I personally don’t need to believe in God to be motivated. If others want to believe in God, that’s fine by me.

But I think that it’s wrong that our society encourages religion and provides special benefits to religious organizations. That a bunch of bull, IMHO.

Edit:
While religion does good, it’s done a lot of harm also.

[briansd1]

[quote=zk]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.

I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?[/quote]

I’m a 7 in that I operate with the assumption that God does not exist. I have better things to think about and spend energy on.

But that doesn’t mean that I’m not moved by religious service. When my auntie died, my cousin had a service for her mom at the local church, outside of NYC in the Hudson River Valley. It was very beautiful.

BTW, that small local catholic church does good work. They are not a wealthy, ostentatious church like the vatican, or the Crystal Cathedral.

[quote=njtosd] there are quite a few well controlled studies that support the contention that those who identify themselves as having a religious faith tend to be more physically healthy and (mildly) more emotionally healthy. Rather than inducing passivity, religion seems to be associated with people making better choices. (Or, people who make better health choices also identify themselves as being religious – sort of a chicken/egg issue.)
[/quote]

My cousin goes to church every weekend and she volunteer at church.

Her husband is buddhist by choice and she volunteers him to tend the catholic church’s rose garden. He does it to make her happy.

I agree that religion is a motivator for a great many. Religion can motivate people to do good things; so I don’t believe that religion is useless.

I personally don’t need to believe in God to be motivated. If others want to believe in God, that’s fine by me.

But I think that it’s wrong that our society encourages religion and provides special benefits to religious organizations. That a bunch of bull, IMHO.

Edit:
While religion does good, it’s done a lot of harm also.

[briansd1]

[quote=zk]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.

I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?[/quote]

I’m a 7 in that I operate with the assumption that God does not exist. I have better things to think about and spend energy on.

But that doesn’t mean that I’m not moved by religious service. When my auntie died, my cousin had a service for her mom at the local church, outside of NYC in the Hudson River Valley. It was very beautiful.

BTW, that small local catholic church does good work. They are not a wealthy, ostentatious church like the vatican, or the Crystal Cathedral.

[quote=njtosd] there are quite a few well controlled studies that support the contention that those who identify themselves as having a religious faith tend to be more physically healthy and (mildly) more emotionally healthy. Rather than inducing passivity, religion seems to be associated with people making better choices. (Or, people who make better health choices also identify themselves as being religious – sort of a chicken/egg issue.)
[/quote]

My cousin goes to church every weekend and she volunteer at church.

Her husband is buddhist by choice and she volunteers him to tend the catholic church’s rose garden. He does it to make her happy.

I agree that religion is a motivator for a great many. Religion can motivate people to do good things; so I don’t believe that religion is useless.

I personally don’t need to believe in God to be motivated. If others want to believe in God, that’s fine by me.

But I think that it’s wrong that our society encourages religion and provides special benefits to religious organizations. That a bunch of bull, IMHO.

Edit:
While religion does good, it’s done a lot of harm also.

[briansd1]

[quote=zk]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.

I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?[/quote]

I’m a 7 in that I operate with the assumption that God does not exist. I have better things to think about and spend energy on.

But that doesn’t mean that I’m not moved by religious service. When my auntie died, my cousin had a service for her mom at the local church, outside of NYC in the Hudson River Valley. It was very beautiful.

BTW, that small local catholic church does good work. They are not a wealthy, ostentatious church like the vatican, or the Crystal Cathedral.

[quote=njtosd] there are quite a few well controlled studies that support the contention that those who identify themselves as having a religious faith tend to be more physically healthy and (mildly) more emotionally healthy. Rather than inducing passivity, religion seems to be associated with people making better choices. (Or, people who make better health choices also identify themselves as being religious – sort of a chicken/egg issue.)
[/quote]

My cousin goes to church every weekend and she volunteer at church.

Her husband is buddhist by choice and she volunteers him to tend the catholic church’s rose garden. He does it to make her happy.

I agree that religion is a motivator for a great many. Religion can motivate people to do good things; so I don’t believe that religion is useless.

I personally don’t need to believe in God to be motivated. If others want to believe in God, that’s fine by me.

But I think that it’s wrong that our society encourages religion and provides special benefits to religious organizations. That a bunch of bull, IMHO.

Edit:
While religion does good, it’s done a lot of harm also.

[Author]

Posts