Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I cannot understand why people adopt or convert to other religions. If you believe in God why should the religion matter? Is it for the feeling of congregation? Sense of belonging?
thats exactly right. when you realize that its about "something more, but its not a god thingie," the religion doesn't matter. It only comes down to doing the best we can.
Carlin said, Most people are stupid, half of them are dumber than that.
but they believe in the basic. how can changing to another sect make it any better? it is no longer about faith or belief, is it?
not really. its about have faith in describing the best truths we have. Doing that allows for self correction.
this "something more, not god" is great example.
that is the best we got. and if new data shows it wrong we will self correct so long as we are logical over emotional. That is not to sy remove emotion, we need it.
Its good that it offends me when churches say "gay is an abomination of god". That should get a visceral reaction because it is so wrong. but to deny something more, not god, based on that is deceitful.
to go along with a priest saying that in the name of "faith" is flat wrong too. maybe more so.
but they believe in the basic. how can changing to another sect make it any better? it is no longer about faith or belief, is it?
I have often criticized the divisions within christianity, much as you indicate. I think it depends a lot on how deep those divisions are. That, for example, Methodists and Presbyterians can't simply join together is a disgrace. I grew up as a Methodist, and have been to Presbyterian services, and the differences here ought to make no difference. I can't see it as much more than stubbornness over dogma. When you talk about the differences between Methodists and Mormons (which we certainly felt in my home town of Palmyra, NY)...pretty broad differences. Or between Catholic and Baptist...pretty broad differences.
I guess my main criticism of the differences is not that there are differences, but frankly, how can you pray for world peace between warring nations when you can't even pray together? (As one example).
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.
Sure, but the post that revived it, post number 12, basically just asked a question pertaining to his personal beliefs/situation that kind of started the thread anew.
A well informed Atheists should be familiar with Aquinas. Sadly most are not!
Some book I read over the past couple years, I believe it was Gary Cox's 'The God Confusion' ('confusion' rather than 'delusion'--get it), spent a few chapters refuting Aquinas' major arguments one by one. Good stuff as I recall it, but about the extent of my familiarity with Aquinas, despite the fact that the last Mass I ever attended was at a church called St Thomas Aquinas in South Buffalo, NY, before deconversion occurred at age 18, heh. I have a vague understanding of/appreciation for the fact that Aquinas was a huge figure in Medieval Christianity for his 'reconciliation' of Aristotelian thought with Christian thought, but I couldn't elaborate much more than that--guess I'd have to go back and consult 'The God Confusion'. Also took an intro to ethics course freshman year of college from a professor who was something of a devotee, opening one class boasting to an unmoved audience about how he'd managed to find an impressively printed copy of Summa Theologica at a garage sale over the prior weekend.
1. Depends on how you're using the word "enlightened".
2. If the word "atheist" means one who does not believe in god, then my grandfather was an atheist. He was a good man, but in no way could I consider him to be enlightened, in any sense of the word.
You're originally from Palmyra or somewhere just a bit east of me, right? Your grandfather sounds like he was the 'village atheist' of his time, which is now something of an antiquated term. A professor from I believe Washington U in STL wrote a book called 'Village Atheists' relatively recently that I wanted to read but it didn't last long on the shelves of my local B&N--I suspected it was pulled for customer indifference as opposed to it having flown off the shelves, heh.
ETA: Given only 5 Amazon reviews 3 years after publication, I'm sticking to the indifference hypothesis:
I did read the following posts but am going back to this one which will include all the others (Sartre, Hobbes or Leibnitz, Anselm, Nietzsche or Aristotle?) suggested.
I have a mind of my own, as I'm sure so many others do also. Why do you think it's necessary to read what
others have written or proposed that might be considered 'confirmation bias" and/or arguments against some things I figured out on my own?
Is whatever "they" had published somehow more valid or important than lowly, little ole' me figured out by myself?
Anselm offered the most cited 'defense' of the existence of god of all time. One of my best friends is now a philosophy professor at Villanova (we went to HS together; he returned to Buffalo to do his philosophy PhD at SUNY Buffalo), and he (a theist, I might add--we went to a Jesuit HS together and he's retained his religious belief through completion of a doctorate in philosophy, somehow) occasionally Facebooks me with some student's creative refutation/attempted refutation regarding Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, which is taught dependably at the PHI 101-level.
You're originally from Palmyra or somewhere just a bit east of me, right? Your grandfather sounds like he was the 'village atheist' of his time, which is now something of an antiquated term. A professor from I believe Washington U in STL wrote a book called 'Village Atheists' relatively recently that I wanted to read but it didn't last long on the shelves of my local B&N--I suspected it was pulled for customer indifference as opposed to it having flown off the shelves, heh.
ETA: Given only 5 Amazon reviews 3 years after publication, I'm sticking to the indifference hypothesis:
No, hardly the village athetist, and basically a good man who never talked about god, never in all the years I ever knew him ever went into a church (but certainly went into many a bar and even tended bar), and was probably the world's greatest "swearer". I don't remember him ever going to a funeral in a church, although I do remember him going to funeral parlors. And you have to remember, he and my grandmother raised me, so I lived with him for about twelve years until his death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
