Faith and Religion

[Chimera]

Raised Cathiolic

Now Pagan....Whatever that means in Public anymore

 

[BreakfastSurreal]

are you a true practicing pagan? or are you using the term to describe what the bible calls
"non believers"? Paganism in itself is a religion

 

[Chimera]

are you a true practicing pagan? or are you using the term to describe what the bible calls
"non believers"? Paganism in itself is a religion

Though I no longer follow the Path of Wicca or Druidish practice, I still refer to myself as NeoPagan in most respects. Paganism, is a very vague term, which encompasses many differing faiths thus not qualifying (in my opinion) as a religion per se. There is no one God to pray to, nor is there an easily explained stereotype of the Pagan......they come in as many forms as there are people within the grouping.

I could very easily be called a Pagan by The God Fearing christians of the world, Just as I would be an infidel, or kafir to a muslim. These labels do not explain in any way what I believe though, and so have limited appeal to me. I just dont follow the abrahamic belief system, and in fact hold it in a small measure of contempt (though not neccessarily the followers of it), thus I have chosen a label as far from it as I can.

 

[Reaver]

Was raised a christian. I narrowly dodged the bullet of being Mormon, since everyone on both sides of my family, except my mom and dad are Mormons. Thank God (haha) because Mormons are fucking insane. Really, I would have to say the term that describes me best is a Harsh Skeptic. I don't believe that there is one true God. As for myself, I believe in logic, and organized religion is not something logical. Most organized religions today are based on fear: the fear that if you do not adhere to a certain set of beliefs, stories and morals, that you will burn in a firey torment of Hell for all eternity. Real uplifting. I have done my research, and have decided I don't want to be so pretentious as to say that what I believe is right, and those who don't agree will all go to hell. I believe all people should be their own moral compass, not some books that were written hundreds of years ago. Attempt to do good while you're on Earth, live your life, take things as they come, and don't push your beliefs on others... These are the things I try to do everyday. And if I do happen to somehow be rewarded after death, so much the better... but I don't need to go sit in a building once a week to know my values and what I believe in. I also know that if I'm wrong and there is a God, that he should know full well my intentions to try to live a good life for myself and my loved ones, based on my own beliefs. Those are the standards I live by, and I didn't need to read them in a book, or have them taught to me as a child to realize they were good ideals.


I feel it is only appropriate to end my little piece with a quote, this one from Thomas Jefferson:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

 

[Scooter]

I was born and raised Traditional Catholic (Roman Catholic) and have not truly questioned my faith, as the priests I ask are very precise and unified in their explanations. Many people think that Traditional Catholics are schismatic but are completely mis-informed. If anyone knows what I am talking about and thinks differently (not to argue but to inform), the truth is, when Archbishop Levebrve consecrated the four bishops they were excommunicated... (the bishops were) and later on re-admitted into the church. The whole thing about being excommunicated is bogus. Anyway, my father and mother are both traditional cathloic, both of whom converted from various religions and sects. I can prove that God exists and that the Catholic church is the true church.

 

[sharpies]

I can prove that God exists and that the Catholic church is the true church

Please do so, by all means.

Allan

 

[Scooter]

My proof comes directly from reason and needs no faith of any God or "gods" to begin with. There are several ways of prooving God's existence. One by cause and effect, another through the argument of design (design meaning a plan) and others which, I might add, are a bit lofty. In this case I am going to use the argument from cause and effect (causality).

Firstly: A cause is that which contributes in any matter to the effect.The realation of a cause towards its effect is called causality. Causality is in everything we do. To say it is not means we could say: to the doctor, Why are you giving him that medicine, there is no effect from it. to anyone, Why are you eating, there is no effect of eating. to the train-engineer, why are you blowing your horn - No one can hear you. Again, if someone says that there is no cause and effect in the world today (as some people do say) then ask them to park there car on a railroad and wait for a train since obviously (if there was NO cause and effect) the train would not hit him.

Secondly: There are two types of general causes: Formal Cause and Efficient Cause. Formal Cause - determines a thing to a particular mode of being.
Efficient Cause - agent/one who brings the effect about. Therefore, everytime you see something you know it exists because of sufficient reason. The Efficient cause produces the effect, makes it exist, produces this effect, makes it exist in a particular way (a rocking chair is a rocking chair and not a tabke chair).

When we see an object we know that: a) That object is so perfect (not in actual shape or form but in being itself) that it MUST exist. We call these objects necessary. (whenever I use the word necessary, I use it meaning - necessary as far as it/anything else would not exist if it changed... it has to be that way). That is probably the trickiest part of the whole argument. b) That object has received its existence from another object (from the cause that the object gave to another object).

So, everything must have a cause. And effect cause has an effect which in turn produces another effect. For example: A seed is planted, the seed is watered and therefore it grows, the seed grows into a tree, the tree is watered and therefore it grows, the tree is chopped down and therefore it falls, the tree chopped into logs for a train engine, the engineer throws the wood into the fire, the fire burns, smoke is given off due to its burning, the smoke rises up through the chute to the open air because it is lighter than air, the smoke is taken up by the wind and is blown towards a wind-turbine field, it helps turn the turbines, the turbines make electricity, the electricity is sent down to your house, this electricity turns on the bulb, the bulb gives off light, the light lets you see, you see because of your eyes... AND ON AND ON AND ON... Therefore we can say that 1) everything has a cause that in turn produces an effect, and 2) we can regress to infintiy with the million and a half causes and effects that have happened since the beginning of the world. Therefore once you get the idea that there have been cause and effects since the beginning and can be traced back to if you really have the time to waste, then we come to the logical conclusion that there must have been a driving force that started this chain of events. There must be a first cause that existed by itself through no other cause other than itself. This cause, caused the chain of causes and effects, as anyone who has taken any science course knows what happens with any subatomic cause and effect. This first cause we call God.

 

[Scooter]

I will post the proof from motion if anyone is interested and if I have time. I will also post the proof that the Catholic church is the true church once the flood of questions and criticisms are answered and I hope everyone understands my argument. I would like to see anyone else's argument on the same subject.

 

[sharpies]

So still no actual proof, just a whole lot of words that basically thank God for trees, so that trains can run on time.

So, everything must have a cause

Very simple question, if everything must have a cause (your words), what is the cause of God??

Allan

 

[Scooter]

You must not have read that one carefully.

God is His own cause. He is the first cause. The first cause needed to start things off. That is what makes Him God.

 

[sharpies]

Oh right it's all so clear now - God caused himself to be & then became the first cause that started everything else.

Your arguement for the proof of God is so elegant - we can see things around us & therefore they must have a cause, which, of course, is the proof that God exists.

Allan

 

[Darkstar]

I am a Pagan. I believe in nature, and the power there of.

I was raised Christian... Methodist. Once I moved out of home, I started questioning, and found Pagan beliefs and principles made a lot more sense to me.

What she said. EXACTLY what she said.

 

[andcuriouser]

I don't even know what I believe anymore. But I will say this:

On the phone with my dad we were talking about this same sort of thing. My dad is a Buddhist and has been for years. He visited Asia and there he witnessed some of the great things that Buddhists are able to achieve. These men and women can wrap themselves in soaking wet sheets, and by meditating they can actually raise their body temperature such that the sheets will actually start steaming. That's amazing, and I'm not sure how to explain it beyond the power of our own minds. I thought it was an interesting thought...

 

[OUZBnd]

I don't understand the miracle in causing a wet sheet to steam? All through high school I witnessed wet athletes steaming on the sidelines of the soccer field.

 

[andcuriouser]

I never said it was a miracle. I just said it was interesting.

Of course you witnessed wet athletes steaming. That's not exactly the same thing as meditating, but okay.

 

[sharpies]

If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe.

This is a very interesting quote from an article here
Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times
(beware it's 11 pages).

Basically it puts forward the arguement that the belief in a higher power has evolved as a by-product of our complex brain & that there could be strong reasons why religion may have been important to man's survival - although probably not today.

Allan

 

[Chimera]

I will post the proof from motion if anyone is interested and if I have time. I will also post the proof that the Catholic church is the true church once the flood of questions and criticisms are answered and I hope everyone understands my argument. I would like to see anyone else's argument on the same subject.

I would recommend you actually place something bordering on Logical Proof for your first argument, before taking on another. It would seem we can condense your theory into one statement:

"Therefore once you get the idea that there have been cause and effects since the beginning and can be traced back to if you really have the time to waste, then we come to the logical conclusion that there must have been a driving force that started this chain of events. There must be a first cause that existed by itself through no other cause other than itself. This cause, caused the chain of causes and effects, as anyone who has taken any science course knows what happens with any subatomic cause and effect. This first cause we call God."

The above is conjecture at best, and desperate justification at worst. As for Quantum Theory (I assume your final lines refer to such) Very few in the field consider this a proof of Gods Hand. Secondly, if we do indeed take this Idea seriously, I fail to see how it proves Catholisism as the "True" church....particularly as the documented history of The Catholic Faith does not place it in anything approaching a favorable light as far as Godly Guidance. It is in fact, the most currupted by Mankind of all the major religions that still claim to Own Gods Insight.

Try Again.

 

[OUZBnd]

Faith it God is all relative. Whats the point in trying to prove whether God exists of not? If you believe, then he exists to you, and to you that's all that matters. If you don't believe, then he doesn't exist. The argument is as simple as that. There's no reason to attack what others believes (BOTH sides of the story). No one will ever provide proof enough on either side of the debate to sway one person to the other side.

 

[Chimera]

Faith it God is all relative. Whats the point in trying to prove whether God exists of not? If you believe, then he exists to you, and to you that's all that matters. If you don't believe, then he doesn't exist. The argument is as simple as that. There's no reason to attack what others believes (BOTH sides of the story). No one will ever provide proof enough on either side of the debate to sway one person to the other side.

The Reply was meant as debate, in answer to a claim of proof for something unprovable by definition. You are most certainly correct though, in the relativity of faith. I personally gave up long ago in any attempt to sway faith, and instead simply enjoy debate. If my post came off as an attack, it wasn't meant as such. Rather it is a style of discourse meant to intimidate within debate, leading to dismissal of an opponents viewpoint in the eyes of an audience.

 

[Tim]

My proof comes directly from reason and needs no faith of any God or "gods" to begin with. There are several ways of prooving God's existence. One by cause and effect

This therory has so many holes I don't know where to begin.
First, the biggest hole is that if everything stated in this were true, it only points to an external force that starts a chain of events. It does not prove the existance of God.
Second, modern physics is rife with examples of 'movement without any mover', seriously undermining the first premise of the cosmological argument, that every object in motion must be moved by another object in motion. Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying it is easily dismissed by the laws of conservation of mass and energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He quotes one of many examples - "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving." According to Kaku, these particles could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.
Third, who is to say that there was a first cause for anything? When taking this view, you are only thinking within the bounds of the laws of our own universe. You don't account for the unknown universe and the infinate possibilities. This theory is based on the notion that cause and effect needs a starting point since the universe is finite and had a starting point to begin with. Why? You do realize that time is a law of our universe, right? Outside the bounds of our universe, time does not exist as we know it, if it exists at all. To see that, just take for instance what happens to time as you enter the event horizon of a black hole. Time stops from the perspective of the traveler, but continues on from the observers point of view. That traveler will be trapped at that point on the event horizon for infinity yet our time proceeds as normal. Time is all relative to the perspective of the viewer. So what is infinite and was is not?

I have sooo much more on this topic, but so little time. I will add more as time permits.