Do you believe in a God? I am a...

"   @calidan777 said:

" @Suicrat said:

" @Claude said:

" @TheGreatGuero said:

" I don't believe in God or Heaven or Hell or anything like that, so yes, I am an athiest. However, athiests seem to often be viewed as anarchists or something, which isn't really true. Just because I don't believe in God, it doesn't mean I'm a bad person. I still have a lot of morals and always try to do the right thing in life. Heck, man. I think I'm generally a better person that most religious people. Not that I'm saying that religious people are below me or anything of that sort, but I think I follow good morals better than a lot of religious folks. Personally, I just don't believe there's some greater controlling force or some magical place that there's no evidence of.  "

I like the story of Jesus, and I like the history of the bible. That's another misconception. I probably read the bible more than some Christians. "

Seriously? How anyone could embrace the ethical conceptions of Christianity without the metaphysical conceptions is beyond me.
 
So total selflessness is ideal? Even if you don't get any reward? Not even in death?
 
You like the history of the Bible? You like the fact that the Roman Empire was split in two by a debate as to whether Jesus was actually divine? You like the fact that entire gospels were omitted because they preached a form of religious and sexual freedom that isn't found in the rest of the texts? The fact that the entirety of the Jacobian Bible is a political document is something you 'like'?
 
What the fuck? "

lol, you like this shit don't you, religious debates I mean. "

I like debating in general. I like conflict in word form. It's far less bloody than conflict in physical form. Not only that, in word-conflict, both parties learn something. For instance, I have a feeling I'm about to learn how and why I over-stated Claude's preferences, and what particular aspects of Christian morality he likes, and why these aspects are perfectly acceptable. "

" @Suicrat said:

 
You like the history of the Bible?
 
What the fuck? "

Like should have been love. I love the history of the bible. But that accounts for my understanding of where the bible came from, how it was manipulated. The history of the bible goes beyond the words for me, but more how the words became what they are. The mystery of searching for the truth. You have to start somewhere. I like our human history. Some authors and their scribes lived a long time ago, to say we can't learn from them is arrogant and naive.   As for Jesus, good story. Shoot me. "

" @Suicrat said:

 
You like the history of the Bible?
 
What the fuck? "

Like should have been love. I love the history of the bible. But that accounts for my understanding of where the bible came from, how it was manipulated. The history of the bible goes beyond the words for me, but more how the words became what they are. The mystery of searching for the truth. You have to start somewhere. I like our human history. Some authors and their scribes lived a long time ago, to say we can't learn from them is arrogant and naive.   As for Jesus, good story. Shoot me. "

Agnosticism is indeed a contradiction, spazmaster666 is right about that. Gnosis is knowledge. Sure, those who claim agnosticism are right that no one can honestly claim to have knowledge of something supernatural (like a God, for example) but the logical conclusion of that clause is not "I have no knowledge" -- which is logically what you are saying when you say "I am agnostic" -- the logical conclusion of that clause is actually "There is no God".

 
So I ask again, how could one possibly embrace the ethics of Christianity without a hope of an afterlife? "

" @calidan777: I make no claim to be prescient ;)  But here are the things most people take as morally good from The Passion of the Christ:  -Helping the poor  -Aiding the sick and injured  -Rejecting false values (i.e., the story of the money-changers is essentially a metaphor for people who obtain value through the disparity in notions and facts)   But the problem is, these 3 positive facets are not unique to any religion, and they certainly are not unique to religiosity; and they are ultimately contradicted by the demand for blind faith, and the supremacy of death. (Jesus' noblest act, according to the text of the Bible, was dying.) "

The Bible is not history. The Bible is not a scholarly text. It is a political document. That you love it and know its origins strikes me as odd. It is not a reliable source of information, and it is not an intellectually honest 'search for the truth'. It is an attempt to evade truth and evade honesty. Certainly we can learn from the history surrounding the Bible. But what is there to learn from the Bible itself?

A.  for me

" @Suicrat said:

 
So I ask again, how could one possibly embrace the ethics of Christianity without a hope of an afterlife? "

The human mind will be a strange journey when the blood stops flowing for each and every individual. Oh look, I'm in heaven and they have beer. I'm done. "

" @Suicrat said:

 
So I ask again, how could one possibly embrace the ethics of Christianity without a hope of an afterlife? "

The human mind will be a strange journey when the blood stops flowing for each and every individual. Oh look, I'm in heaven and they have beer. I'm done. "

@Suicrat
Many people are drawn to the acts of Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone.

I guess I'm a Strong Agnostic, that's only because I can't 100% prove there is no god. It's not a big deal at all to me though, I've never been interested in religion and even when I was a little kid I thought the whole idea of God was a bit stupid.

" @Suicrat said:

" @calidan777: I make no claim to be prescient ;)  But here are the things most people take as morally good from The Passion of the Christ:  -Helping the poor  -Aiding the sick and injured  -Rejecting false values (i.e., the story of the money-changers is essentially a metaphor for people who obtain value through the disparity in notions and facts)   But the problem is, these 3 positive facets are not unique to any religion, and they certainly are not unique to religiosity; and they are ultimately contradicted by the demand for blind faith, and the supremacy of death. (Jesus' noblest act, according to the text of the Bible, was dying.) "

Blind faith isn't faith at all though and it certainly isn't the reason why Christians believed that Christ was God. The reason why the early Christians believed in Christ was because of what he did while he was on earth. The entire foundation of Christianity is based upon historical events, not arbitrary mysticism. If the events that occurred in the New Testament never happened (i.e. if Christ never died on the cross and then resurrected three days later), then Christianity would be no different from paganism or any other type of religion. Talking about morality is great and all but no amount of moral teaching would have made the people of first century Jerusalem believe that Christ was the messiah, let alone God. Yes his moral teachings attracted followers but it's ultimately his actions that convinced his followers that he was not only the messiah but physical incarnation of God himself. "

" @Suicrat Many people are drawn to the acts of Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone. "

" @yeahno said:

" @Suicrat Many people are drawn to the acts of Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone. "

I'm not sure of what that is apropos. Care to provide some context? "

"
@Suicrat said:

" @yeahno said:

" @Suicrat Many people are drawn to the acts of Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone. "

I'm not sure of what that is apropos. Care to provide some context? "

 You seemed freaked out that an atheist was really interested in the Bible.  It's really not unusual. "

You mean that widespread mistaken belief is scientifically impossible?  This is the fallacy ad populum.  Jesus did not rise from the dead, there is no documentary evidence of that, only anecdotes. "

"Blind faith isn't faith at all though and it certainly isn't the reason why Christians believed that Christ was God."

I am Jewish, the one true path.  We are the chosen people. 

" @yeahno said:

"
@Suicrat said:

" @yeahno said:

" @Suicrat Many people are drawn to the acts of Charles Manson, but that doesn't mean they are going to kill anyone. "

I'm not sure of what that is apropos. Care to provide some context? "

 You seemed freaked out that an atheist was really interested in the Bible.  It's really not unusual. "

His implication was not his interest in the Bible. His post was in response to the axiom of ethics minus divinity, which means that he derives ethics from The Passion of Christ without the metaphysics. Which I inferred that he worships death nakedly, which would be pretty fucked up, were it true. Which Claude has insisted that it is not.  I find the Bible fascinating too (academically and textually), but that was not the implication from his first post. "

Does anyone else see the "peace, the old fashioned way" stickers on folks cars where you live? I see them all the time here (I live close to an airforce base) and they are usually accompanied by the "fish" symbol ( age of Pisces symbol, usually used by Christians to represent Jesus). I always give myself a great big 'ol face palm everytime I see that. I am a Christian myself, but sometimes I have to wonder if other "Christians" have actually read Jesus' teachings.
 

" @spazmaster666: They had no evidentiary reason to embrace the concept of the resurrection (But they might not have embraced the resurrection in the first place). Early Christians embraced Christianity by choice, but many of the Christians of Europe became Christians politically, pagans and heretics were slaughtered and persecuted throughout the first millennium after Christ.  The Bible was not written by early Christians though, so their beliefs are not reflected in it. The Bible was written by the Roman Empire. "

I find religious stuff to be really interesting, especially the architecture, but I remain Atheist. I try to distance myself from most religious discussion in general because I feel that it gets heated, and fast.

I'm an Atheist.

" @Suicrat said:

" @spazmaster666: They had no evidentiary reason to embrace the concept of the resurrection (But they might not have embraced the resurrection in the first place). Early Christians embraced Christianity by choice, but many of the Christians of Europe became Christians politically, pagans and heretics were slaughtered and persecuted throughout the first millennium after Christ.  The Bible was not written by early Christians though, so their beliefs are not reflected in it. The Bible was written by the Roman Empire. "

The bible was written by Romans? Hmm, are you sure you're talking about the same New Testament that I'm talking about? (though I suppose first-century Jews would probably be considered Romans since their land was a part of the Roman empire ;))  But yeah, those Romans really loved Christianity, especially Nero. "

Wow, I didn't know there was so many Atheists on the site. Now that I thought of it I'm more of a Agnostic or a strong Agnostic. I'm not a religious person at all, but I can say I have a religion. 

Apatheist. a.k.a. I don't give a shit either way.

Shucks! Where are my deists at?! I've known since reading about the deists that formed this country back in middle school that I was going with that. Look into it, it's the happy medium of both sides.

I love being in the minority. F.

" Where is my don't care option? "

" I think both A and E are dumb choices. You can't know if there is a god or if there is not a god. That's why I go with C.  But by the modern definition, I'm an atheist. The definition in this poll is wrong, because not all atheists claim there is no god. They just simply have no reason to believe in one. "

I'd say I don't really care. I think what matters is being a good person, and that since there have been countless good people both religious and non-religious, I have little reason to take a side. 
 
I, like Claude I suppose, like and adhere to many Christian ethics. I don't adhere to all of them; the parts about homosexuality being evil and such I don't care for and it's things like that which have stopped me from actually becoming Christian. I think that altruism is a positive thing, and that there is virtue in selflessness. I support altruism partly because I see a sort of intrinsic beauty in it, and because I think that is the way a good society is built.

D, but I question the naming so I based it on the description. D is what I've seen referred to as de facto atheism and E is strong atheism. Qualifying the degree of agnosticism doesn't really make sense, though I have seen strong agnosticism defined as the position that the existence of a deity is unknowable.

You missed one, The Trinity(God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

" You missed one, The Trinity(God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit). "

" @Gregomasta said:

" You missed one, The Trinity(God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit). "

That's monotheistic. Judeochristian. "

I don't really think any of those choices apply to me. If anything, I believe in Karma. 

I'm an atheist.

I think there might be a greater power, because shit it just WAY to complicated to just have happened. But...there is no way to absolutely prove anything...so I'm agnostic. 

agnostic. it's a endless debate. people argue over something that they think is real but cannot be proven right before my eyes.
 
rock and roll is my religion.

" @spazmaster666: I call bullshit on that.  While, you're technically right, it's totally valid for somebody to claim they haven't decided if there is a God or not.  The question is, do you believe in a God?  "I haven't worked that out yet,", "I used to, but now am not sure,", or "I don't really care either way," are all very valid answers that people may have.  Calling somebody's reality invalid based on a definition of a word that's chosen to collect a broad range of experiences is ridiculous.  Of course somebody can not know what they believe.  I can not know if I believe in Santa Claus.  I can have evidence towards his existence and evidence opposed to it, and both sides can be equally speaking to me.  If the evidence you have gathered is contradictory to you towards the existence of Santa/God, why wouldn't you describe that as not knowing if you believe, at least until you find further information to tip the scales?  So yes, you're right in that technically the term agnostic doesn't cover these people in the middle, but there are still people in the middle, whether there's a word for them or not. "

@Sucrait said:

Christian Jews did not write the New Testament. Christian Christians did. The first Christians had nothing to do with The Bible's New Testament. As I said earlier, many of their works were omitted, and a few were included, on political grounds.  I did not say that the Bible was written by Romans. I said it was written by the Roman Empire. There is a distinct difference. Have you ever heard of Emperor Justinian or The Eastern Roman Empire? They split with the Western Roman Empire (what later became the Vatican) partially on the subject of Jesus' divinity. Orthodox Christians do not believe the same things Catholics and Protestants do. "

Attention all people in this thread:

I was an ignostic when I was a kid, which later turned into G. (ignostic = maybe there is a god, maybe not, I don't give a fuck)

I'm just going to say Athiest. As much as I find religions interesting I can't say I believe in them.