Jump to content

What religion are you?


  

66 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

I wasn't intending to, just trying to point out that your statements over what you think I should be classified as are incorrect.

 

On a separate note, how, when you quote someone, do you get the whole conversation to show up, not just what the other person last posted sans context? That's an open question, not just to Kasanova King, by the way. Surely I don't have to scroll up and down multi-quoting everything.

You don't anymore. "Nesting" a ton of quotes causes some pretty big formatting issues (especially for mobile), so they overhauled how it works.

On topic - I was baptised Catholic, but am most definitely an Atheist nowadays.

I guess by KK's interpretation you could see me as Agnostic; like Pappy I don't presume to "know" everything about everything.

Edited by highvoltage
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PappyTron said:

It may not be subtle, but it is no less inaccurate for it; the core Christian belief is that Jesus was both Human and God in the same body; God given Human form, as it were. As such he retained his innate divinity whilst also having human form: For in him all the fullness of Diety dwells in bodily form. I'm not sure why you believe that God choosing to take on Human form would invalidate his crucifixion, by the way. The Resurrection already demonstrate the inherent flaw of the argument that the crucifixion was a Godly sacrifice; you cannot sacrifice an eternal form that remains eternal.

I see the Nicene Creed, along with the various Diets, less as the LBW rule and more of a Mankad.

 

Can you imagine Apollo et al. submitting to the crucifixion. For the crucifixion to have had any relevance Jesus must suffer in a human capacity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Can you imagine Apollo et al. submitting to the crucifixion. For the crucifixion to have had any relevance Jesus must suffer in a human capacity!

The whole thing is a nonsense, to be frank. God gave the world sin and then sent his only son (who is actually God) to wipe away the sins of man by taking them onto himself. Only sin remains in the heart of all men for we are all born with it and Jesus, who is also God, wasn't a true sacrifice as he is immortal. So, God sacrificed himself to himself to show the people that he cursed with eternal sin that he loves them and doesn't want them to go to Hell through their sin, with Hell being a place where he has the power to stop people going in the first place. Honestly, the Bible reads like the diary of a madman. I wish that Helios would crash his sun chariot into the Vatican.

25 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I thought that was Ant and Dec? :lol:

Chuckle Brothers.

 

49226742.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The whole thing is a nonsense, to be frank. God gave the world sin and then sent his only son (who is actually God) to wipe away the sins of man by taking them onto himself. Only sin remains in the heart of all men for we are all born with it and Jesus, who is also God, wasn't a true sacrifice as he is immortal. So, God sacrificed himself to himself to show the people that he cursed with eternal sin that he loves them and doesn't want them to go to Hell through their sin, with Hell being a place where he has the power to stop people going in the first place. Honestly, the Bible reads like the diary of a madman. I wish that Helios would crash his sun chariot into the Vatican.

Chuckle Brothers.

 

49226742.jpg

"From me, to you! From me to you!"

Said the priest to the choirboy. :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheist but willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence.

BTW, most people who call themselves agnostics are atheists.    gnosticsm is concerned knowledge, theism is concerned with belief.     So if you are saying you are agnostic, you are saying you don't have any knowledge of there being a god (btw this should apply to everyone).    If you are saying you are atheist, you are simply saying that you lack belief in a god/higher power.   

So unless you have a belief in a god, you are an atheist.   (i.e. you lack belief).    It doesn't have anything to do with knowing for certain there is no god.   That would be basically impossible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Well, I did go to the same college as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, though arrived at Atheism years before that. I think that with something so important and widespread as religion it is important to understand it, even if you disagree with it; I'm more than able to debate Christianity from an historical, moral, social, psychological, or philosophical position.

I learned what Mammon was off an episode of Steptoe and Son...y'know the one where the old man gets found out as an ex star of a What the Butler Saw Machine? :lol:  I didn't know it made you clever, i feel all special now, i might have a mid-morning wank on the strength of that! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

I learned what Mammon was off an episode of Steptoe and Son...y'know the one where the old man gets found out as an ex star of a What the Butler Saw Machine? :lol:  I didn't know it made you clever, i feel all special now, i might have a mid-morning wank on the strength of that! 

Let Mrs Trewellyn have the pews! Let her have the pews, I said!

Edited by PappyTron
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CardinalGunner said:

Atheist but willing to be convinced otherwise by evidence.

BTW, most people who call themselves agnostics are atheists.    gnosticsm is concerned knowledge, theism is concerned with belief.     So if you are saying you are agnostic, you are saying you don't have any knowledge of there being a god (btw this should apply to everyone).    If you are saying you are atheist, you are simply saying that you lack belief in a god/higher power.   

So unless you have a belief in a god, you are an atheist.   (i.e. you lack belief).    It doesn't have anything to do with knowing for certain there is no god.   That would be basically impossible. 

Don't let Kasanova King read this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

To each their own.  You classify yourself as being atheist and I would consider you agnostic.  Again, you said you are open to being "wrong" and most atheists are not.  Open to being wrong is the equivalent of not really knowing.  Not knowing = being agnostic.

Not really. You are mixing domatic and non-dogmatic. I am open to the possibility of being wrong about anything. Bring on the evidence! I say. But I consider the chance of being wrong on atheism incredible small, almost as small as the possibility of the earth not being round, of mass not attracting mass, of me not loving my kids, etc. But I am definitely open for being wrong on all these; I will certainly not reject any evidence suggesting I am wrong. But the fact that I am open to being wrong doesn't make me an agnostic rather than an atheist. I am an atheist because I consider the chance of gods' existing so small that for all practical purposes I know they don't exist. Just like I know the earth is round (even if I am open for being shown to be wrong). Or, to quote Bertand Russel, like I know there are no teapots orbiting Alpha Centauri. An agnostic, on the other hand, is more sitting on the fence on this issue, or believes there are no gods but hasn't completely ruled them out, yet. I find it strange to adopt such a wishy-washy position on something where the absence of evidence in favour of godly existsnce is so glaring. You either underdtand no gods exist, you are mentally ill, or you have adopted that religion as a little child when you had little resistance to mumbo-jumbo.

This also connects with the fact that it is very few things we can with 100 % certainty know doesn't exist. Because of this near impossibility, atheism as defined as knowing with 100 % certainty, because pointless. No one would fall in that category if the criteria was that strict. That is why the modern definition is rather to be completely convinced there are no gods.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion is a cancer. Best removed. Time to move forward, but don't think it's gonna happen in the next 1000 years, if ever which is tragic really.

Don't mean to offend religious people around here, but it's a blatant lie and society is held back because of it imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...