what are your religious views?

[Space Toast]

I believe and put all of my faith in Knowledge and the power behind it.
Philosophies, like Nihilism, and Anarchy are interesting to me, but not enough to belive in something that can cause so much destruction, besides i like making my own choices.

[mjm1189]

I'm an unwavering atheist. I think religion has done some good, but the hate/judgement/separation/repression, etc. it causes outweighs any good. I think that in a million years, if the human race is still around and, hopefully, most people have come to their senses and lose their "faith", it will be a better world, imo.

[jacecat]

I'm christian... I <3 God and Jesus... yup that's it =)

[theotherone]

I'm a Mormon, and through my faith I have learned to rely on Jesus Christ and let Him heal me. With my experiences, the things that I have felt and seen, I have learned that God does exist and that Jesus Christ is our Savior.

[piratenetradio]

glad to see some atheists up in this bitch.

[Blue Screen of Death]

Atheist but I think the bible Does have some good teachings like don't Kill a person. In other words I am an Atheist who thinks Besides the holy stuff that some of the stuff in the bible is just common sense.

[Space Toast]

Originally Posted by Jorvette

Atheist but I think the bible Does have some good teachings like don't Kill a person. In other words I am an Atheist who thinks Besides the holy stuff that some of the stuff in the bible is just common sense.

In no way does being Atheist mean yo have to kill people, it is a will to believe that there is no higher power. You learn not to kill as a moral Value, parental teachings.
What you said I am an Atheist who thinks makes me think you think Atheism is more about Anarchy than what it actually is.

[deathnote0]

I refuse to believe there is an outside force that you call "God" exists. There is a perfectly logical explanation for everything that happens and has happened, whether or not this explanation has been explored yet is another thing. Do you really believe in this "Creationism"? I believe in something logical, I believe it's called evolution. Also, what is this proof of the existence of "God", of which you speak? Whatever the reason, I can guarantee it is nothing other than a mere coincidence.

[JulianDave]

I think everyone should remember that at the time religions were forming, we knew nothing about the world and how it worked. Without science to say "No, those are just meteors raining down on earth" you can see that it would be very easy to come up with alternate explanations. Egyptians believed that the sun was carried across the sky on a chariot. Native Americans believed that the moon was a disgraced son that has the image of a rabbit on it. No, we don't believe these things any more, but many other ideas about our existence remain.

Is science perfect and all-knowing? Of course not. But what science is is a collection of knowledge BASED not on what we've been told, but what can be observed. Observations that have been made by many people over and over. As technology changes and new discoveries are made, our knowledge changes, evolves (pun intended!).

In a nutshell, I would much rather put my "faith" in something that has been verified over and over through observation. That has to occasionally say, "Oops, we got it wrong" and that changes as our understanding of the universe expands.

Dave

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JulianDave

I think everyone should remember that at the time religions were forming, we knew nothing about the world and how it worked. Without science to say "No, those are just meteors raining down on earth" you can see that it would be very easy to come up with alternate explanations. Egyptians believed that the sun was carried across the sky on a chariot. Native Americans believed that the moon was a disgraced son that has the image of a rabbit on it. No, we don't believe these things any more, but many other ideas about our existence remain.

Is science perfect and all-knowing? Of course not. But what science is is a collection of knowledge BASED not on what we've been told, but what can be observed. Observations that have been made by many people over and over. As technology changes and new discoveries are made, our knowledge changes, evolves (pun intended!).

In a nutshell, I would much rather put my "faith" in something that has been verified over and over through observation. That has to occasionally say, "Oops, we got it wrong" and that changes as our understanding of the universe expands.

Dave

http://www.zuneboards.com/forums/rel...ess-proof.html

[Sonos]

IMO
Where there is religion there will be war.
Thousands of Men and innocnece have died in the name of a "god"

Therefore i dont support or follow a religion.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sonos

IMO
Where there are people there will be war.
Thousands of Men and innocnece have died in the name of a "god"

Therefore i dont support or follow a religion.

It's a human flaw. Also, even Secular Humanists follow a "religion," just not one with a theistic head.

[birdman]

Atheist.

'God' is the worst story ever told.

[Gow616]

Originally Posted by Sonos

Where there is religion there will be war.
Thousands of Men and innocnece have died in the name of a "god"

While the assertion might seem well grounded and based in history, it is not. Such a sweeping generalizing statement tosses aside all the mitigating and other strong factors to war.

Let alone, if it was only religion as a cause for wars, why would chimpanzees go to war against each other? Do we think chimpanzees have a rudimentary religious system or is it over other deeper factors that hold more powerful sway?

Humanity is the cause of war itself, putting assertion forward as statement puts forward the notion that "God" has something to do with wars. When in a non-religious mind, "God" does not exist in any event and humanity kills itself over just another word in a long list of words, right?

[Netrix]

Originally Posted by Gow616

While the assertion might seem well grounded and based in history, it is not. Such a sweeping generalizing statement tosses aside all the mitigating and other strong factors to war.

Let alone, if it was only religion as a cause for wars, why would chimpanzees go to war against each other? Do we think chimpanzees have a rudimentary religious system or is it over other deeper factors that hold more powerful sway?

Humanity is the cause of war itself, putting assertion forward as statement puts forward the notion that "God" has something to do with wars. When in a non-religious mind, "God" does not exist in any event and humanity kills itself over just another word in a long list of words, right?

Religion was still a large factor in several wars in history. That is not enough to claim that there will always be war where there is religion, but that does not undermine the fact that many people have died because of religion (which is a part of humanity).

What you are saying is similar to saying that it is not guns that kill people, but people kill people, therefore guns are perfectly fine, and everyone should be able to use them. Obviously, that is not the case. While some guns can be used for recreation, in the wrong hands, guns can also be used to kill people. The same goes for religion.

[Gow616]

Yet, it would still boil down to people kill people. Tools shall remain tools, no matter how much one goes anthropomorphizing them into being a reason for people killing people.

Every war that can be pointed to as religion being the large factor can also be pointed to as the basic animal instincts being the root cause.

Food, Mates and territory.

The association of tools being more than just what they are is often one built upon generalization that would hold no basis if looked at from a complete historical prospective.

Axes, swords, rifles, all tools originally created for one purpose. To make life easier. They had to be adapted into the use of killing people by whom? People. After all, a trigger does not pull itself, an axe does not cleave a skull by itself and a sword does not lop off an arm by its own volition.

(Further elucidation on the rebuttal of Sonos's Assertion - below)

The point being that the generalized sweeping assertion that a tool is the cause of all wars or several major wars is faulty and fails to address that the root cause is the three basic animal factors.

Which that was the whole reason a group of male chimpanzees went to war with another group of male chimpanzees. One group broke off from the main group but resided in the same territory (Territory). This splinter group took with them some females (Mates) and by shortening the amount of territory, they were infringing on the food supply (Food) of the larger group.

The larger group set up ambushes and killed the 7 males of the splinter, one by one, until all were gone. Great anthropological study on the behavior of chimpanzees and how similar to humans they act.