The definitive SL religion poll.

Did anybody look over at www.extropy.org yet?

Here's a brief summary of the Extropian Principles:
(can be found here: http://www.maxmore.com/extprn3.htm )

1. Perpetual Progress — Seeking more intelligence, wisdom, and effectiveness, an indefinite lifespan, and the removal of political, cultural, biological, and psychological limits to self-actualization and self-realization. Perpetually overcoming constraints on our progress and possibilities. Expanding into the universe and advancing without end.

2. Self-Transformation — Affirming continual moral, intellectual, and physical self-improvement, through critical and creative thinking, personal responsibility, and experimentation. Seeking biological and neurological augmentation along with emotional and psychological refinement.

3. Practical Optimism — Fueling action with positive expectations. Adopting a rational, action-based optimism, in place of both blind faith and stagnant pessimism.

4. Intelligent Technology — Applying science and technology creatively to transcend "natural" limits imposed by our biological heritage, culture, and environment. Seeing technology not as an end in itself but as an effective means towards the improvement of life.

5. Open Society — Supporting social orders that foster freedom of speech, freedom of action, and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power. Preferring bargaining over battling, and exchange over compulsion. Openness to improvement rather than a static utopia.

6. Self-Direction — Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom, personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem, and respect for others.

7. Rational Thinking — Favoring reason over blind faith and questioning over dogma. Remaining open to challenges to our beliefs and practices in pursuit of perpetual improvement. Welcoming criticism of our existing beliefs while being open to new ideas.

I guess I must have made this poll for indecisive freaks. Yes, I'm sure that I did actually. Long live indecisive freaks! I wanted to allow people as much room to express themselves as possible, belief is a complex subject and for some only one option just won't do. For example what if someone is Jewish by birth but Buddist by choice yet still partakes in Jewish rituals out of respect for their family? Forcing them to choose only one option would oblige them in a small way to betray either their beliefs or their family.




This sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html Which is, I think, a pretty cynical way of arguing that belief in God is a matter of expediency and is more like buying insurance against the possibility of an afterlife than anything else.

For me belief is not a choice, it is what the sum of all my experiences tells me is most likely to be true. Even if I felt that belief in a god would be a comforting or blissful experience I could not simply decide to do so.

Well, if there is a "God", and he/she/it is this way, I suppose I'd agree. As Milton said, sort of, "Better to [live] in Hell than serve in [such a] Heaven."

But I can also envision a "God" who provides humanity with all the tools necessary to build an earthly paradise, and then tells them to go to it. And they screw up, even those Christians who distort "God" into a totalitarian disciplinarian and the point of existence into "hellfire and damnation."

In other words, I can envision a "God" who is subtle and far more understanding of human character than most of us are. A "God" who can conceive of plans more complex than many of us can perceive. And a "God" who leaves our fate largely in our own hands. A "God" who is something more than the cardboard cut-out monarch-of-the-universe that most western religions portray, or the sadistic jerk that many non-believers set up for straw-man arguments.

Actually the above is not true, occasionaly I pretend to believe in Dionysis as an excuse to get drunk. It's alot of fun and I'm sure Dionysis doesn't mind.

That's an interesting take on it (essentially a Deist view), but I have problems with that also. If there is a "creator god" responsible for creating the universe and all of us, then the "hands off" approach amounts to lousy parenting. If you bring children into this world and then leave them to starve, kill each other, not know whether or not you exist, and so on, social services would be at your doorstep to take them away. How can any god be considered magnificent if we hold it to a lower standard than we hold ourselves?

Yes, it is Deistic. And I understand your point, too. But when you use terms like "lousy parenting" and characterize human beings as "God's" children, it seems to me that you are giving anthropomorphic qualities to the Creator concept. And that's a huge assumption without much underlying evidence, one that colors the way we think about the issue, perhaps unfairly or inaccurately.

If "God" is a human-like parent and we are his or her children, then yes, by all means, apply human standards and judge accordingly. But as I said, I can imagine a "God" who goes beyond the human. By what standard shall we evaluate "it"?

Ok I have an interesting question. Define Belief!

is the word Belief subjective to understanding or is it merely an existing definitive that encompases all human fears to define a method of expression?

Shadow

In Regards to Christianity:

Why would god care if we worshipped him?

What does he get out of it?

And if you've read the old testiment, how come him or his angels were constantly and directly involved with human affairs back then, but he doesn't even send us Christmas cards these days..

Why did Jesus have to die? I mean did it make us sin less? I sure didn't ask him to. I'll take my punishment for my own sins. I don't need anyone to fill in for me. Is it just so folks can live horrible, greedy, cruel lives and repent at the last minute and recieve a "Get out of hell free" card?

Where do the dinosaurs and cavemen fit in?

How did Adam and Eve's children have children?

If a child is born in a non-christian country and is taught another religion by his well-meaning parents, and grows up to live a very good life, and then dies, does he go to hell because he never accepted Christ as his savior?

THe bible was written a long time ago by men and has been messed with lots of times since. It has some wonderful lessons but alot of inconsistancies and unanswered questions. How can people take it so literally as the word of God if it wasn't written or even signed or edited by god?

Why do human beings feel the need to worship anything? Why not just teach compassion and love and kindess and get on with our evolution?

-Sorry to ask mainly questions of christianity, but I don't know enough about other popular religions to ask the right ones.

Sorry I could not reply, there was no "other" box

Actually David the Vatican has over 200 unpublished books of the bible.
The King James version was created to instill fear and forced worship of humanity.
When and if those other books correlating to the actual teachings of Christ and God were every published the "Church" structure as the world knows it would crumble.

As Mulder would say..."The Truth is out there!!"

Shadow

Also there are the "Lost Books of the Bible" as well as other documents found from that era. The Lost books were supposedly originally part of the bible as a whole, and told about the missing years of Christ's childhood. But they showed him as very "human" but gifted with incredible powers and he did some rotten, spoiled and childish things during that time.

Also, the bible has indeed been edited, re-written, and translated in many different ways over the centuries, including some major revisions during the Dark Ages (500AD-1500AD). At least that's what I've read and heard...

Can we say... "Topic Drift?"

I can respect the Deist view, but I have to wonder... isn't imagining God as some kind of entity, beyond the human or not, already an anthropomorphism? if God is simply everything beyond what is known about the universe, how we got here, and where we're going, then it's just the unknown... no more, no less.

Yeah, that's the problem with these kinds of debates. We can very easily demonstrate the fallacy of everything by taking every idea to an extreme. And, nearly every argument is based on initial assumptions that can be challenged. So perhaps we're arguing about degrees.

To imagine "God" as an entity is to endow the entity with a human point of reference, yes. Personally, however, I could never make the argument that "God" is everything we don't know about the universe, because in the end I do make the very human assumption that "God," if "God" exists, is an entity I might be able to communicate with, at least on a rudimentary level. And the only justification for that assumption is hope.

We're all speculating, of course, but I think my first point was valid: If there is a "God" of any sort, that "God" may not conform to our very human expectations. Knowable? Perhaps. Infinitely surprising? I think so.

I just noticed, but why is "Bhuddist" in italics? Is it because I selected it?

I think it all boils down to what I quoted above for me. I don't think we know enough about the nature of the universe yet to frame the question in the first place, so any sort of god notion is too presumptive. Actually I'm a bit like Billy in that respect. When we were talking about heaven and utopias he pointed out the futility of ascribing human characteristics to it. The difference between he and I is that I think because we are so limited in perception that it's premature to ask the questions for which notions of God are the answer. If that makes any sense



That's the fun of things we can't know. Anyone's speculation is as good as everyyone else's

Yes, the option you check will appear to you in italics afterwards. This is a divine signal manifested through computer code that each of us have chosen correctly.

Thought that some of the contributors to this thread might be interested in knowing about the following website:

www.the-brights.net

LOL

and shhh! Don't tell the fraggles.

Hmmm… Interesting to look at the results so far. They pretty much mirror the other thread’s results if you assume that pretty much everyone who answered Atheist, Agnostic or Vague Higher Power voted no in the other one. That is 53.72 percent who at best only believe in God as some vague higher power or not at all.

Yes Chip, I do realize that Agnostic could neither confirm nor deny God’s existence but given the choice I am making an assumption that they would answer no before yes.

The other poll’s results again were what, 51% answering no when questioned “Do you believe in God”?

Wouldn't "vague, undefined, higher power" mean "Yes?"

Just because you don't know anything about it doesn't mean you don't believe in it.

Buddha wasn't a christian but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist....There is a big difference between the perversion of religious smoke and mirrors and the actual philosophy of the dudes who we name our religions after. In all reality, they were not so different from Plato who spoke of his nemisis as a singular God. The only difference is that people do not build mini malls of Plato's nemisis as they do the mini malls of god that spring up as fast as star bucks looking for your buck in their sunday tithe tray. Most of the philosphies started out as excellent blueprints for a good and honorable life only to be contorted like an asian circus girl by a bunch of dudes in collars and sweaty ties.

Well, damn, I’ll take this one, since no one else is apparently jumping up to the mic.






Actually, we worship God (in whatever way gets the job done) for our own benefit. By remaining in connection with God, we gain some very powerful energies that just make life easier - in most cases. “Faith,” for instance, can give someone a power (warranted by logic or not) that provides many advantages in their day-to-day interactions with society. Also, I am convinced that it matters a great deal how you feel about yourself, life, and God, when it’s time to die.





Frankly, I’m not convinced of either of these points. I’m not sure what an “angel” was - perhaps it was a manifestation (or way to explain a manifestation) of the way God DOES work in our life: through subtle and outrageous, delicate and monstrous, loud and silent motion.

And I often do feel that I can see God around me. There are some awesome (original meaning) aspects of God’s existence that can take your breath away - if you’re open to that, of course.





We all have to die. The message is not about Jesus’ death. It’s about his life. Christ was 100% man while he was alive. He had no advantages (except the relationship with God I mentioned above) that we don’t have. Christ’s life was an example of what we can and should become. His death was the least important aspect of His life - except as a warning, perhaps, that wise people don’t follow Christ because it’s safe, comfortable, and popular.

The part of Christ’s life that astounds me the most, by the way, is how much “magic” we are capable of.

There is nothing in the teachings of Christ that says you get to be an asshole if you tell people you’re with Jesus. Duh. In fact, you’re safe in assuming that anyone who lives that way has serious spiritual, ethical, emotional and mental issues that only professionals should deal with. Stay away from anyone who believes he’s joined some sort of club with special privileges for members.

As for last minute repentance, I would advise against people relying on that as a way to game the system. At the end, it isn’t what you say that makes the difference. What really matters is who you’ve become. In the end, there really IS a “judgment day.” But it isn’t some large white dude on a throne that puts you up for review. The real final judge is the judge who knows you the very best: you’re tried by your own soul. In the end, you get to spend eternity with the most knowledgeable and honest evaluator possible. For better or worse

So, you can TRY to lie you’re way out of responsibility for what you’ve done and become, but you can’t lie to the one who knows the truth.





Well, the dinosaurs were really big animals that walked funny and appeared in really bad movies Cave men evolved into the current Social Conservative movement.

Sorry

Actually, I don’t see any real problem with evolution (which I think is your point) and the Bible. Some do, I suppose. If you look at the Bible as not only consistent but complete, then that would preclude ... well ... just about everything But, as Gödel says, that kind of approach just leads to a lifetime of trying to sell contradiction. If you believe that the Bible is the results of men speaking with “that which is of God” within themselves, then it’s safe to say there may have been many other things going on that just didn’t come up in the conversation.





Sorry. I’m not sure I understand this question. They had all the parts, as far as I know. In fact, besides a nice place to live and a job in wildlife conservation, I think those parts were about the only “wedding” gift they got from God

I figure they were boffing like mad, everywhere and in every way, and didn’t bother to do it at 500 meters in the air





He goes where he is prepared to go. If he is ready for Peace, he spends eternity there. I haven’t the time or skill, right now, to explain it all, but let me give you enough overview to get myself in trouble.

When you die, an incredible thing happens to time and space. Since you can no longer perceive the passage of time, it effectively stops. Since, once you die, you can not perceive the end of life, you are essentially trapped in the last moment. So, time becomes eternal, and death never occurs. Without delving into this too deeply, I would recommend that you try to make peace within yourself before this moment in your life.

To answer your question more directly, let me point out that acceptance of Christ’s teachings is not a ID badge for the security doors of Heaven. We follow Christ for our own benefit - to bring us more in line with the truth of the world, to teach us to have compassion and sincerity for our neighbors, and to expect it in return. We follow Christ to see how much power humans can really have to interact with the energies of God, and to create magic and hope and love with that power.

We have the ability to remake the world, and ourselves. We can do it by opposing God at every turn, or by augmenting God’s power with our own Will. Our state of live - or death - is determined by our choice.





As I said above, the Bible is a record of men’s conversations with God. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. I have to trust that the important thing is not that the conversation was reported to me exactly. It’s good enough to me that I am told what the speaker feels is important about those conversations. I am also wise to have my own conversations with God so that I can understand what the authors of the Bible have passed down, and so that I can understand my own particular relationship with God. There really is no difference between what God said to them and what God says to me. There may be differences in the hotel room Bible, or even in what I want God to have said to me





I don’t believe you CAN worship God unless you DO teach compassion and kindness. If you don’t then you haven’t been listening to God - or Christ. Yes, I’m aware that that says something strong about the current “morality” being pushed by the folks in Washington and most of the “red states”, but so what? It would be dishonest for me to speak otherwise. I suspect that there are quite a few folks who are going to have to account for a lot when that final eternal moment of truth arrives for them.

But, it’s not like they weren’t warned.

I agree with you Billy. I wouild guess that most agnostics are agnostic atheists. Those who claim belief in a vague higher power but would claim agnosticism about trying to define what that higher power is are technically theists. Those who do not necessarily believe in a higher power but don't rule it out due to agnostic reasons are technically atheists (no matter how much they try and squirm out of it).

Belief is binary. It's a two position switch.

I've stayed away from the mic because, IMO, it's inherently futile to "argue" beliefs. To describe one's own, yes; to describe the history of thought of such-and-such a religion, yes, these can be done. Beyond that is a realm of frustration and folly however, since one of sincere faith in his or her beliefs is not to be swayed in them by argument or discussion.

I will note two things, because I think they're interesting. First -- there are those who believe Jesus Christ was a manifestation of the Buddha. There is even a whole religion, whose name escapes me at the moment (unless it's Bahai? Ba'ai??), whose adherents further believe the Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and their religion's founder (another name that escapes me) are all manifestations of the same "higher power," the same God, who came to Earth in a sort of continuing education function. Sorry that I can't recall the particulars, I blame the decongestants. x_x

Second -- Christians are far from the only ones who cultivated in some circles a "last minute redemption" idea. There is a sect of Buddhism whose followers believe that a sincere utterance of the Amida Buddha's name will gain one entry into the Western Paradise, where one may then devote an eternity to achieving Nirvana. If one reads the Tale of the Heike one finds some dozen or more characters who, in their very last moments, turn to the West and invoke the Amida's name. Of course, the modern-day followers I know point out that there is some emphasis on sincerity, and it takes a lifetime of preparation for that moment.

Actually, I'll mention a third thing while I'm at it -- just to point out that no one religion is more immune to twists and turns in its interpretation. In 16th century Japan, for example, monks and warriors alike justified the work of their swords by emphasizing the "emptiness" of existance; a sword was a karmic instrument, and it is not the wielder's will that causes it to pass through flesh, but the karmic destiny of its so-called "victim."