As you can see I'm new to this forum and I've been reading a lot through the latest topics expecially in this area.
Before everything I would like to underline that as you can see from my username I'm an healthy skeptic and I usually have fun in this forums, not making conjectures about conspiracies or discussing wether the Mayas did or did not have sex with aliens, but dismantling the other people's arguments. yeah I'm wicked
However in the past year I have suffered a reconvertion.

That convertion was given not to a personnal experience but to research. Yes. While many believers become skepticals after getting out of ignorance and discovering facts about his or her religion/belief with me it worked the all way around.

Many other threads discuss the existence of Jesus or God or other puntual questions where believers and skepticals crash one into the other.

So this thread is supposed to be a debate between skeptics and believers about all the issues and not only one that regard this subject: the existance or not of a God, Jesus or miracles, is the church corrupt, is it not, materialism/racionalism vs religion/spirituality, and so on.

Just state wether if you are a believer or a skeptical and present arguments - empiric proofs, philosofical arguments, personal experiences, whatever - to defend your point of view.

Let it start (or should I kick off the first subject?)

PS- Sry for my bad english (not a native speaker)
PSS- Plz try not to verbaly offend someone else in this thread

First of all Welcome! . I'm afraid this topic is too "broad" to get many responses, basically it will be people repeating themselves as to what they've said in numerous other; more specific topics. I will answer your question though quickly enough.

First and foremost i am a firm believer in God/Higher Power.
I am a Unitarian (Christian sect) that basically believes God is great and that no "religion" has it exactly right. I believe theres more than one path to God. As for proof? There is none exactly. Yet proof to some is ridicule to others. All i have to do is look outside and feel the presence of God. I find God in nature and things untouched by man.
A personal experience in the mid 90's half way through high school really opened me up to a stronger belief structure. A bloodied cross appeared on my hand on the bus trip to school as we passed a church, (No i didnt cut myself)i saw it as a sign- i wont get more detailed as i've done it before. I cant get a stronger personal proof...I wasnt really looking for a sign at the time, but God convinienced me. I believe in evolution and that evolution is a part of Gods changing process of the world. The world changes, hence we change with it in order to continue life, it makes perfect sense to me.

People arrive at a place of wisdom in a way that works for them, a way they can understand, , why do we need to have lables or definitions or I'm this" your that" its all redundant to me, I'd like to see a time where we honor diversity and tradition, where as a whole we have weeded out what doesn't work for us, Our main concern wikll be what willl benefit the most, hurt the least. IMO to much time is spent convincing another of why we beleive what we beleive, I say whats the point? how is it working for you? Whats your message based on your discoverys? Namaste Sheri

One can argue that there is no point to discussing religious beliefs, but one can also argue that there is no point to anything, as we will all die eventually, and out solar system will cease to exist. But I choose not to look at things this way, as it also is pointless, because it does nothing but make our stay here less enjoyable. Ignorance is bliss my friends. In order to keep this thread alive however, I will identify my belief, which is that there is a non-personal higher being that created life somewhere in the universe. From that it reached Earth and evolved into humans. This is my belief because I do not see how sentient life can evolve from non-living matter, which suggests a creator is responsible. I suppose it is also possible that life has always existed, and the universe is infinite, but I see no other logical explanation for human existence other than evolution.

I recommend the book "The Eureka Effect: The Art of Breakthrough Thinking" for learning about the this topic, for it has long section on the capricious adaptations responsible for biological diversity.

I barely know why I bother. I am a sceptic, in that I don't believe anything I haven't experienced myself, but I have seen a lot of things. I found out a long time ago that I could see things that others couldn't. This is known as "second sight". I don't care whether you believe in it or not; I go by my experiences. In college I ran into people called "Occultists", and they took me in and trained me in many fields. Since I am an initiate, I can't reveal a lot, but I will relate what I can. As part of my initial training, I was required to study a number of different religions, magical systems, and the like. Some were required study, others were elective. The only major western religion I do not know a lot is islam; no real interest. I have been on experiences that were externally verified, so there was little left to imagination. You can accept this, or not; I have seen immediate effects of "magic" (others might call it prayer, it doesn't matter). I was not raised in religion. My ancestors were Jews, and I respect the religion more than anything else, although Buddhism is a very close second. I just love those chubby little statues! I know, among others, Archangels Michael and Raphael, and the Goddesses Kuan Yin and Bridgett personally. I still do readings for people with tarot, i ching, etc., and have studied the belief systems behind them. I am not a Christian, nor do I like to be referred to as a non-christian. I have attended xian services with friends or relatives. Since i am not baptized, I would not, for example, accept xian communion (baptism is an initiation.p.s.-the jews invented it and still practice "mikvah"). Since everyone here is so gungo on opinions about you-know-who, I will state the following: Per the n.t., which I have read, the man never claimed to be god, or to be teaching anything new. He was preaching to jews about judiasm, and is recorded as refusing to speak to gentiles. He was, if he existed (I have many doubts), a very nice, well-meaning man. The n.t. is basically almost 100% a rewrite of mithras, osiris, and dionysius, written, or rewritten, in the fourth century. the proponents of this man's gentle teachings have been torturing, murdering, and otherwise brutalizing the rest of us for about 1500 years. Moses was probably a real person. He saw something on the mountain, but it is unclear whgat exactly. Buddha was definitely real. We have literally countless documents of him visiting rulers of various countries. Lao Tsu is probably a lot like Jesus; there is a grain of truth in his biography, but he is probably a combination of at least two historical men.none of this, for me, negates someone's teachings, as to whether they were real. as above, so below.

I'm sorry that I wasn't explicit when I posted here.
I didn't start this thread in order to promote my personal view of the world or claim myself as the weilder of truth, as a prophet coming here to teach his findings (I'll leave that for the guys at the conspiracy section )
Neither did I want to convince anyone about anything.
However I disagree when you say there is no point trying to convince another of why we beleive what we beleive, I say whats the point? I think that's a short-sighted cliché. If people like Galileo or Einstein didn't try to convince others that what they believed was right where would we still be? (and no, i'm not comparing myself to them ) If you trully believe in something then it is your duty to convince other people of it.
Although, as I've said before thats not the goal here, I'm just a world spectator, not a wiseman, I'm not all that arrogant
Why I really started this forum is because I'm a passionately curious person and I just wanted to know peoples beliefs, and more important, what makes them believe it. And debate does not interfere with diversity or comprehension towards other points of view, it's all the way around.




I tought it had already been proven and accepted by the historicians the existence of Jesus. There are several official documents that proof his historic existence, wether he did or was what is described in the N.T. is another story. And yes it is truth Jesus didn't want to create Christianism, and he was not teaching anything new, he was just trying to remember the people about the true willings of god. (so theoricaly the christians are in fact 'pure jews', ironical isn't it?)

"the man never claimed to be god"

However if my memory doesn't fail me neither did god. When they asked god in the A.T. who he was he used to say "the Lord"or "the Lord of the Mountains" or the Lord of this or the Lord of that (for he was all that existed) but never did he say "god". When Poncius Pilatus asked Jesus if he really was the son of god I'm not sure but i think he said "i'm the Son of Men" and many other times he only said "I Am" (for he was all that existed) [ye, I think the beggards is that how u say it in english?) were right till some point ]

"Moses was probably a real person. He saw something on the mountain, but it is unclear whgat exactly. Buddha was definitely real. We have literally countless documents of him visiting rulers of various countries. Lao Tsu is probably a lot like Jesus; there is a grain of truth in his biography, but he is probably a combination of at least two historical men.none of this, for me, negates someone's teachings, as to whether they were real. as above, so below."

Are you trying to emply that Jesus is but a copy of Buddha and Lao Tsu? I'm not saying you are but there can't be any connection since Buddhism or Confucionism had no influence in the roman world.

"The n.t. is basically almost 100% a rewrite of mithras, osiris, and dionysius, written, or rewritten, in the fourth century."

You guys at this forum should know better than anyone else that you can make connections between almost everything, it's the law of probabilities go to a bookstore and pick up a random book and if you are cretive you'll find at least 1 connection between it and let's say... mayan mithology. There are high probabilities that you'll find a connection between the number of 'a's and the pyramids of Gize, but did I base this post on it? no. now multiply those chances by many since it is said that chrystianism has features copy/pasted from the celts, mithras, cult of osiris, isis, dyonisius, the stories of hercules, ahura mazda, etc.

Please we hear about the religious people talking all the time why do they believe but I would also love to see post about what makes people not to believe. (for me it was mainly because of science)

i disagree. it is not my duty to convince people of anything. This sounds like a salesman's approach. "get out there and pitch it". The end result being if enough people buy it (or the right people buy it), it is then a success. No thanks. If i DESIRE to present my work, i will. I am not bound to do it though.

If you don't feel like it is your duty to convince others of what you believe is right (and I said convince, not force) then you are, in that matter, and please don't be ofended, being selfish. Of course you are not obliged to do it but you should do.

"This sounds like a salesman's approach. "get out there and pitch it"."

It is not a salesman approach because you are doing it altruisticly, without expecting anything in return.

"The end result being if enough people buy it (or the right people buy it), it is then a success."

Exactly, and how can that be a bad thing if the product is of good quality and people get it for free? (well, this is iluminism base line of thinking)

"If i DESIRE to present my work, i will."

Indeed. And you are you are doing so

I knew it was a mistake to respond to this thread. I explained how I studied many different religions, and gave my opinion on a few. rollseyes, you just blew me off. I was comparing them, in my opinion, based on years of study. Why do you ask a question when you don't want an answer? It is my conclusion that, although there may have been an historical Yeshu, most probably the writers of the n.t., in the fourth century, just combined whatever details they could into an amalgum acceptable to their pagan audience. They were not writing for the jews, who had already rejected him and his teachings. Whether or not he existed is irrevalent. the comparison to lao tsu, since you didn't follow it-there were at least two historical personages that later became the amalgum of lao tsu, just like the jesus we have today is a combo of elements of mithras, osiris, etc. when you have more than one story, and one is much older, that resemble each other, the later one is a plagiarism. The jews could care less about a virgin-born god-king that is sacrificed for their sins, since it doesn't correspond with their beliefs. Human sacrifice was banned in the time of abraham, so it would be completely unnecessary. even the virgin birth is based on a deliberate or ignorant misreading of isaiah's prophecy about his third son, who was named immanuel. Immanuel was not the messiah. the church council wanted to justify a virgen birth, so they picked something they thought would match.there are two divergent geneologies for Yeshu, both terminating with joseph, who, it is stated, was not even his father. so he was not the king unless Joe was his dad. whatever. you didn't even read my whole original post, just picked apart what caught your eye, so i will stop typing.

What kind of $H!+ is that?! Why not educate others? I really think you would love to study the illuminati. They teach there followers that they are special to, and that they are supposed to keep secrets also. The illuminati is all about the occult. All of the worlds leaders at the top of the social order are involved in the occult.

honestly, not that many wantm to study the real stuff. Most believe if is evil or imaginary. If you wanted to study, i'd be more than willing to help, but not in a public forum.it would serve no purpose. btw, i am not in the illuminati. I am also not in the golden dawn, but used to know a couple of members. they were pretty down to earth, quiet folks. in the u.s., a select few are in the "skull and crossbones" the occult fraternity that originated at yale. this is no new knowledge. if you have a specific question in an area that i might know about, i.m. me. if i know of can find it I will tell you.

To clarify...

There is not a single shred of hard evidence that Jesus existed. The same applies for Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Joshua, Noah, Joseph, Lot, Ezekiel, Esther, Samson, Job, Mary, Magdalene, David .... and by "hard evidence," I mean tangible proof that would stand upon its own merits and meet the standards of credibility.

You forgot to put god in that list.

Well, "Rollseyes," I am a non-believer and I think you will find most of us on the UM website to be also. I have my own personal reasons as to why I am, but if you are already a "healthy skeptic," then there is no way you're going to even consider mine! One thing to keep in mind in regards to the general public as a whole, however, is that statistics show that as intelligence goes up, belief in God goes down. Just something for you to consider.

I want to see those stats, if you have them.

People will still believe even if they were educated in my opinion.

The whole only "stupid people" believe in God is a river thats run dry. Theres nothing to back up such a ludicrous statement. People that dont believe in a God are said to be bigger fools than those that do. Seeming were talking about "Intelligence" I can make all sorts of 1D "facts" to consider about non believers- but it would only make me look stupid, see what i mean?

check out the harris survey/report for the US. It showed a relation between education and beliefs (more educated, less beleif in creationism). I can dig it up and post specifics if you are interested.

76% of doctors say they believe in God

59% believe in an afterlife of some kind
Posted on Thu, Jun. 23, 2005

"CHICAGO — A survey examining religion in medicine found that most U.S. doctors believe in God and an afterlife — a surprising degree of spirituality in a science-based field, researchers say."

read the rest:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...on/11961253.htm

do you happen to have the stats for the error rates of doctors in the US as well?

Doctors (especially Medical Doctors) are only one very small segment of the educated masses. Not to mention, 76% and 59% respectively, is still low compared to the 90% of the entire world's overall population that believe in a higher power(s)/deity(ies).

Besides, I may not believe in God, but I do believe in an afterlife. Now figure that one out.

I hear alot of biologists believe in God also. Not exactly sure =P. Anyone have any ideas?

I am skeptical of essentially all the known, dogmatic religions (like Christianity, Islam, and so forth). Why?

1. There is no need for a creator in explaining the origin of life. Evolution does a fine job, and is much too vast for me to explain here; I recommend this site. Although we have not fully discovered the most likely way that life arose (abiogenesis) yet, we have some very plausible leads that can be scientifically tested.

2. There is no proof for a God, and no way to prove, ipso facto, that there is one. Historical claims made by organized religion, Judaism being a prominent one, tend to be dubious and distorted to serve religious purposes.

For example, we know from archaeological research conducted in modern day Palestine (much of which is outlined by researcher Israel Finkelstein in his book The Bible Revealed) that, contrary to Old Testament claims, the two Hebrew Kingdoms actually originated separately, in three different waves before the last one in 1000 B.C. Each time, they centered around the same centers, so that the center of highland settlement in the wave before the one that became Judaea and Israel, the center of the southern highlands (Judea) was in the location of Jerusalem. It also shows that semitic people had been crossing to work in the Nile Delta for a long time, and travelling back and forth.

we have greek Mythology and we will one day have and with some now have christian mythology, examples speak louder than convincing others IMO Namaste sheri

Evolution doesn't explain what started evolution, therefore doesn't explain how life started. Whatever started evolution is responsible for starting life in my opinion.

I'm a major Atheist.

Was spoon fed christianity when I was younger like most kids but I didn't believe it back then ,not by my parents but by school etc.
I wasn't just going to beleieve in a god because I was told it existed I had an open mind.
I'm a pesamist which has a big impact on my beleifs and I happily live thiking once I die thats it.
If there isn't evidence I won't beleieve it,and seeing as there isn't a shroud of evidence for a god of any kind I can't believe it.
I personally find it odd people of each religeon believe in their certain god becuase people in the past have and have said other people should,I mean if the Bible had never been written or no one had ever said there was a god,would people still claim to have conversations with or see a god?But then again people say they believe in a god because they can't answer things or hope there is a larger power who will make things alright and if things do get better they can easily just say something like God made my son better etc even if he got rid of his cold with soup and rest.

About those statistic on how "only ignorant farmboys believe in god":

I would say about 90% of the Nobel Prize awarded are believers.

Most physics and cosmologists believe in some god too.

It is true that science has overcome religion (and has I've said before that's the main reason why I didn't believe in god most of my live). It's like realising that Santa doesn't exist, however there are things that even by the scientists can only be explained as "there's a god". Examples?

- The Big Bang theory is probably right but was there before?
- The flatness problem. You have probably already heard about this. This is the deal: the big bang was a random explosion of energy and matter, but the gravitation attracts all the matter and energy in the universe thus making it to collapse while the cinetic energy of the Big Bang + the antigravitational force of the void would free themselves from the gravitational force thus making the a freezed void. For nothing of this happening the quocient between the 2 previously described forces would have to be =1. Now cosmologists have calculated what would have to be the quocient between the two forces having in mind that we are still here, that number was 1,(write 76 pages of zeros here)1. This number is so close to '1' that probably the Universe is flat meaning that there is an equilibrium between the expanding forces and all the gravitational forces in the Universe, just a grain of dirt out of place 1 billion years ago and the Universe would have perished.
- I don't believe in creationism as almost all the catholics, but even that there are no doubts about the evolutionary theory scientists still can't fully understand how could life begin from matter.
- Miracles and other coincidences

I also grew up in a christian society, altought my parents were both atheists (but not too much), I never believed in god for the same reason, "if you really exist then come here and introduce yourself you rude, give me a proof you old fool", but, in fact there are proofs of god existence, they are everywhere, however some of those proofs can also be explained by science which seems to debunk them. I actually admire, instead of labeling them as ignorants those people who believe without requiring any proofs, sadly I'm not like those people, I can't commit myself to something without any proofs of it.



if it is all about education/creationism then I would be surprised if not 100% of the people who attended to the 4 first years of school (I don't know how you call it in America, primary school? where u learn to read, first maths and social studies) did not believe that the man evolved from other species. But it is true that most 'ignorant' people from the country believe in god and most cosmopolitan 'educated' people don't. Those are no news



do you know why is it called "greek mythology" and not "greek religion"? Because no one believes it? No. It's because it is a mythology NOT a religion. I won't have the work to explain you the difference, find a dicionary and help yourself.

Do you believe in Tolkien mythology?

c'mon people, I'm not trying to be obtuse just try to bring up better arguments

PS- I never said god exists, I just said I believe he does so. The same way no one has the right to say for example this political regime, or this car, or that perspective is the right one.

rolleyes:

my·thol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-thl-j)
n. pl. my·thol·o·gies

A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: “A new mythology, essential to the... American funeral rite, has grown up” (Jessica Mitford).
(dictionary.com)


The origins of the word "religion" have been debated for centuries. Some explanations for the origin of the word are:

re-reading--from Latin re (again) + legio (read), referring to the repetition of scripture.
treating carefully--from Latin relegere (Cicero's interpretation)
re-connection to the divine--from Latin re (again) + ligare (to connect, as in English ligament). This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur, but probably originated with St. Augustine.
to bind or return to bondage--an alternate interpretation of the "reconnection" etymology, possibly also originating with Augustine but emphasising a sense of servitude to God. However, the bondage interpretation, while popular with critics of religion, is often considered imprecise and possibly offensive in many modern religious contexts.
concerning a gathering--from Latin ablative res (with regard to) + legere (to gather). More emphatically, religion concerns an organization.
What is clear about the word "religion" is that the religious connotations (in the sense of gods, morality, afterlife, etc.) were not a part of the term's Latin precursors.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)


As you can see, religions are an example of mythology.

As for the Harris report on beliefs in the US, you have it backwards. It is with increased education that belief in creationism drops off.
edit: the harris report i was refering to is online(i have the paper version). i looked it up for you. take a look: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=581

Aw the ole i'll pretend i'm not religious, blind side em, its been done before, the hostility the pounce the kill, but IMO there is only mythology. the exposure!!! oh the Drama!!!!! Its part of the construct, mythology called religion. namaste Sheri

How is this for mythology?

Source


Do you?

EDIT: fixed link

remeber at one time it was religion, and those same gods came affect your precious Christianity.
All myths have bases in Legends, all legends are based on a shred of Truth.