What's Your Religion?

[Chupperson Weird]

Zarkan's post seems to invoke way too many ideas for the sole purpose of discounting them, i.e. "this is the only possible solution you can come to", which only works when that's actually true.

For my part, I think Jesus must have been a pretty hip and cool guy, but I have major problems with the church.

[Markio]

I claim to be a Christian, although I don't practice very often in terms of going to church.  I actually liked reading along in the missalettes, as well as recognizing my shortcomings and proactively thinking of how to act in the future.

I'm Christian because I was raised that way.  I believe there is a God and Jesus was probably a sort of "avatar"(see Hinduism), and I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to understand the truth through most or all religions.  I don't believe Christianity is the right religion and the others are wrong; rather, I think of religions as variously forged paths through the forest that we call this life: paths are created and taken by many different people, but aren't we all trying to get to the same destination?

Religion is hard to talk about, because it ought to be lived rather than just discussed.  Like love, you shouldn't just say, "I'm Christian" or "I love you" without following through and acting out such statements.  That's why I feel guilty about claiming to be a Christian when I haven't gone to Church for quite a few months.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

Smart guy.

(If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.)

Firstly, did I say that Einstein was a Christian, or that he believed the bible? No - all I said was that he believed in the idea of an inteligent creator, which you just proved through your second quote. He was fine with the idea of some powerful being or force starting the universe - just not the God of the Bible.

Secondly, you skipped over the other two examples I gave. If Newton was an idiot for believing in God, than you're saying that the guy who came up with the Law of Gravity is a fool. If Pascal was an idiot, than you're discounting the guy that did amazing things for modern math. So, are you saying that?

Zarkan's post seems to invoke way too many ideas for the sole purpose of discounting them, i.e. "this is the only possible solution you can come to", which only works when that's actually true.

For my part, I think Jesus must have been a pretty hip and cool guy, but I have major problems with the church.

Yes, very nice - discard my entire post without actually taking time to even make counter arguments. If you want to try to pick my argument apart piece by piece, fine - but ignoring it like this only seems to show that you don't care about actually coming up with a defense.

[Turtlekid1]

If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.

Prove Darwinism/Atheism isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt to not be held accountable by a higher power).

[The Chef]

They guys who thought up Darwinism actually spent plenty of years studying animals and the fossils of the animals that existed before them in order to justify the idea that perhaps some animals change over several hundreds of years to adapt to specfic environments.

You on the other hand say man was put on the Earth just because of an old book that's been adapted six ways from Sunday without any discernible reason.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

They guys who thought up Darwinism actually spent plenty of years studying animals and the fossils of the animals that existed before them in order to justify the idea that perhaps some animals change over several hundreds of years to adapt to specfic environments.

And here we come to one of the biggest misconceptions in modern science. The process you are describing is called "natural selection," where animals change in minor ways (ie. the length of their fur, or the size of their paws) to adapt to their current environment. This process, also known as micro evolution, is NOT the same as Darwinism, or Macro Evolution. You can't say that just because a cat can change into a different breed of cat, that it could also change into a fish or monkey - even given supposed millions of years of time. Genetical variation that causes natural selection is already contained in every animal - but in order for an animal to change into a completely different species, the animal's systems would have to create new genetic code. This confusion and interchanging of two completely different processes really gets on my nerves.

Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity. The reality is that there are other written accounts, specifically historical ones, that line up with the bible - despite being from foreign nations. There is archeological evidence, including cities and locations that match the location of events mentioned in the Bible. And there is apolegetics - countless books have been written explaining Christianity through the same logic system that people try to debunk it with. In summary: don't assume that Christians blindly follow the lead of other Christians without even thinking it over and researching it.

[Lizard Dude]

If Newton was an idiot for believing in God, than you're saying that the guy who came up with the Law of Gravity is a fool. If Pascal was an idiot, than you're discounting the guy that did amazing things for modern math. So, are you saying that?

No, people aren't binary. They can do both dumb and smart things.

Prove Darwinism/Atheism isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt to not be held accountable by a higher power).

Prove the Bible isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt by ancient man to understand a world they didn't have the tools to yet as well as an excuse to support their behavior and wars).

[The Chef]

don't assume that Christians blindly follow the lead of other Christians without even thinking it over and researching it.

I can already tell you that Turtlekid is not one of those Christians. If he is, he certainly doesn't show

[Glorb]

And don't get me started on the lack of Pastafarians here.

[Chupperson Weird]

Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity.

I'm totally confounded by this statement.
Secondly, I don't think you'll get any argument that the Bible does contain records of historical events. It also contains things that were made up to illustrate a point.

[Lizard Dude]

Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity.

True, this is a common misconception. In fact, there is no proof of Christianity.

[ShadowBrain]

And don't get me started on the lack of Pastafarians here.

RAmen, my friend. Alas, I never dress as a pirate... though I do enjoy spaghetti and Maruchan noodles.

[Turtlekid1]

No, people aren't binary. They can do both dumb and smart things.
Prove the Bible isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt by ancient man to understand a world they didn't have the tools to yet as well as an excuse to support their behavior and wars).

Every country/society founded on Biblical principles has been successful and wealthy with a stable economy and social system, until they've been ruined by communism or liberalism.  And you didn't answer my original question.

I can already tell you that Turtlekid is not one of those Christians. If he is, he certainly doesn't show

How can you tell?  Please enlighten me.

[Nintendoobsessed]

Every country/society founded on Biblical principles has been successful and wealthy with a stable economy and social system, until they've been ruined by communism or liberalism. 

People are unified by the idea of a "Great One", something they all have in common.

BTW, was there any country EVER to be completely established by Atheists

[Glorb]

Sadly, no.