Why are there religious people?

[KCfromNC]

Understood, I assume Atheist or honest doubters are sincere. Lukewarm belief can sincerely change and become lukewarm disbelief. A strong belief could fall apart and become a strong disbelief.

Are your religious beliefs grounded in your sincere lack of belief in Odin, or are you wishy-washy about his existence and not sure if he is real or not? That's the false dichotomy you're setting up for atheists, and it makes as little sense as my quesiton.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes with reservations



Religion on it's own has been periodically improved by revelations great and small which has been tumultuous in itself apart from the influence of the age of the renaissance.

Yes, I agree that science and sincere questioning has sped up the mortality of false Gods, false concepts etc., but I object to throwing out the God of Love altogether

If "the God of Love" has any merit, then surely it should be able to withstand scrutiny? Think of all the false gods that have been slain, and how many of their believers said, "I agree that sincere questioning has sped up the mortality of false gods, but I object to throwing out the God of X, Y, and Z."

and replacing that with the presumed values of secular totalitarianism.

I don't know what that is. 'Presumed' seems to be the key word.

I'm a skeptic of claims but also religious. I'm a reformer not an abolitionist. The difference should be clear.

It's a fine line indeed.

 

[Colter]

Are your religious beliefs grounded in your sincere lack of belief in Odin, or are you wishy-washy about his existence and not sure if he is real or not? That's the false dichotomy you're setting up for atheists, and it makes as little sense as my quesiton.

I don't think I understand your question.

Frankly I find atheist to be people who are no longer doubtful or skeptical or questioning, they have already decided and then proceed. The problem with this is that it stops "purposive potential" at a given point and denies further progressive evolution.

 

[quatona]

Understood, I assume Atheist or honest doubters are sincere. Lukewarm belief can sincerely change and become lukewarm disbelief. A strong belief could fall apart and become a strong disbelief.

That´s nonsense. Disbelief is neither hot, cold or luke-warm. This is exactly where you draw false conclusions. It is, however, probable that a zealous believer in A will become a zealous believer in B (which doesn´t make him a zealous disbeliever in A).
If by all means you want to search for hot beliefs in non-theists you would have to look for their beliefs, not the beliefs there are lacking.
That´s why you don´t get far down that road with the term "atheism", no matter how hard you try.

I'm not accusing people of insincerity, just that it is belief of one sort or another.

Not believing something is not a belief. That should be obvious.

In my theology (psychological world view) Lucifer was a very high and trusted administrator who fell into disbelief in the unseen Father. He literally became and Atheist.

So in your theology Lucifer didn´t believe that God existed?

But I think you have by now derailed the thread long enough with your contemplations on atheism (or what you mistakenly picture it as). Actually, it is about reasons to be a theist.

 

[Colter]

If "the God of Love" has any merit, then surely it should be able to withstand scrutiny? Think of all the false gods that have been slain, and how many of their believers said, "I agree that sincere questioning has sped up the mortality of false gods, but I object to throwing out the God of X, Y, and Z."



I don't know what that is. 'Presumed' seems to be the key word.



It's a fine line indeed.

I do agree with you and would support the critical analysis of religious dogma because for the most part its some man or group of men's interpretations with concerning certain events in history, converted into "The Word" by church authority and used as an authoritative foundation for their social institution.

But there are obvious limitations to the finite analyzing the infinite; I trust my heavenly parents.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I concede that point, I see it as a religion of doubt.

whoa. Noooooo.

 

[Colter]

That´s nonsense. Disbelief is neither hot, cold or luke-warm. This is exactly where you draw false conclusions. It is, however, probable that a zealous believer in A will become a zealous believer in B (which doesn´t make him a zealous disbeliever in A).
If by all means you want to search for hot beliefs in non-theists you would have to look for their beliefs, not the beliefs there are lacking.
That´s why you don´t get far down that road with the term "atheism", no matter how hard you try.


Not believing something is not a belief. That should be obvious.


So in your theology Lucifer didn´t believe that God existed?

But I think you have by now derailed the thread long enough with your contemplations on atheism (or what you mistakenly picture it as). Actually, it is about reasons to be a theist.

Yes, Lucifer knew his creator brother The Son as well as a myriad of other universe personalities but he lost faith in the Unseen Universal Father. He then launched a rebellion effecting our world and many others.

You don't agree with my characterization of Atheist who I claim have decided and with willful intent work against faith in God/religious belief in God. We will just have to disagree then.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

How could anyone not love pink unicorns?

By not loving them. BA-ZING.

Fearful? Oh, you are precious! Why would you imagine anyone would fear a silly screen name?
You are not "Death"...although you might be a little "grim". You certainly are not frightening.
A little confused, perhaps.
As for the face...you've used some sort of filter or something. You do not look like Death...I've seen death, and you ain't it. Grim, maybe. You look like one of those old old old black and white movies...all grainy. Not scary at all.
Mostly sad.

That confuses me. The face was never meant to be scary. Just striking.

Yeah, I saw that. Not impressed. Today's just an ordinary day, and you aren't frightening anyone.

It's mostly just a cool allusion

You've been busy, I see. Getting many hits on all those sites?
Just curious.

Yes, a fair amount. Could be so much more, but life gets in my way. Maybe when i finish up school I'll be more active.

You're young yet.

My severe storms are over.

Yes, I noticed that. I think that's why I'm interested.

When reality keeps not making sense because what you believe just doesn't come to fruition, no matter what situation that happens, it's just not working the way your belief says it would.

Do you change reality or your belief?

Not really. Should it?

Holy trinities

God of the sun. Yeah, I do love summer.

Don't insult my lord Helios.

Yeah, I got the concept. Obviously I don't agree...

So if I turn into a Muslim now, reality itself will change?

Ahh. OTOH, how quick are you to blame "religion" for things like witch burnings, for instance? And, of course, everyone knows that religion is what causes war, right? *rolls eyes*

If religion was the REASON not the MEANS. Anything that is a REASON to commit murder, mass genocide, mass destruction is a bad thing. You didn't understand the statement so you set yourself up for that.

God can use even the most reluctant. I love the story about the elderly Christian lady who prayed for something to eat. Her atheist neighbor went and bought her some groceries and left them on her porch...when she found them, she praised God for His benevolence. Of course, the neighbor told her that he had bought the groceries...God, he said, had nothing to do with it. She smiled, thanked him, and raised her eyes to heaven and added, "And thank you, Lord, for using this man to do Your will."

Creepy.

You are aware that Al Capone was a Catholic? S'true.

You're also aware that he was a dangerous man, see? I doubt he did much for religion. But even Tony Soprano was a devout Catholic.

Are you serious? Dear man, that is hardly "secret knowledge". I've been hearing it all my life.

Obvious.

??

All kids deserve fist bumps, not doing so is child abuse.

Truth is truth....

42 bears?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, Lucifer knew his creator brother The Son as well as a myriad of other universe personalities but he lost faith in the Unseen Universal Father. He then launched a rebellion effecting our world and many others.

You don't agree with my characterization of Atheist who I claim have decided and with willful intent work against faith in God/religious belief in God. We will just have to disagree then.

It would appear, you find it difficult to accept others may disagree with your faith and that causes a level of anxiety for you and maybe even a little fear, so you need to label those who disagree, to ease this anxiety.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

In my theology (psychological world view) Lucifer was a very high and trusted administrator who fell into disbelief in the unseen Father. He literally became and Atheist.

Whet? How would Lucifer disbelieve in his own father? The guy he straight up backstabs and takes a few angels with in the process. I don't think you fully understand disbelief... or Satan

 

[quatona]

Yes, Lucifer knew his creator brother The Son as well as a myriad of other universe personalities but he lost faith in the Unseen Universal Father. He then launched a rebellion effecting our world and many others.

Rebellion against whom?

You don't agree with my characterization of Atheist who I claim have decided and with willful intent work against faith in God/religious belief in God. We will just have to disagree then.

Except that you are not in the position to tell me what my intents are.

 

[Colter]

Whet? How would Lucifer disbelieve in his own father? The guy he straight up backstabs and takes a few angels with in the process. I don't think you fully understand disbelief... or Satan

Lucifer could disbelieve his own supposed Father (God) the same way you disbelieve in God. Just like one would think God would be a rather obvious reality to Lucifer, one might also think that God would be a rather obvious reality to man. "The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic." UB 55

In my theology the Paradise Sons, created by the Father, are the creators of their own respective universes. They are the Fathers to their subordinate beings such as Lucifer. Lucifer was in the authoritative chain of command all the way down to the inhabited worlds. He had powers and authority entrusted to him, else he could never "fool the whole world".

So for Lucifer, even though he clearly knew his creator Son, aka Jesus Christ, the Universal Father was a matter of faith. Lucifer launched an insurrection against the rule of the Son who rules in Fathers name.

 

[Colter]

Rebellion against whom?


Except that you are not in the position to tell me what my intents are.

Rebellion against the creator Son, Michael, aka Jesus of Nazareth. Lucifer took our evolutionary world into darkness and confusion. It is a matter that is still being rectified according to the all wise administration of the universe government.

While the Son was on earth Lucifer, Satan and the rest of the unrepentant rebels were taken into custody awaiting trial and likely destruction.

 

[TheBarrd]

By not loving them. BA-ZING.

Anyone who doesn't love pink unicorns would have to be pretty grim.

That confuses me. The face was never meant to be scary. Just striking.

You said the name was supposed to scare devout Christians. I'm a devout Christian, and it doesn't scare me a bit. Just makes me chuckle at the childish effort to scare me.
The face...not striking, just grainy.

It's mostly just a cool allusion

What are you...like 15?

Yes, a fair amount. Could be so much more, but life gets in my way. Maybe when i finish up school I'll be more active.

I meant, are other people checking out your sites. I did pull up your Smash Words site, and as far as I could see, you have no comments, so I wondered.

My severe storms are over.

And you know that because?
Well, well...I hope you're right, but seriously...I doubt it.

When reality keeps not making sense because what you believe just doesn't come to fruition, no matter what situation that happens, it's just not working the way your belief says it would.

Do you change reality or your belief?

So, let me guess. You said the magic incantation, and God didn't poof the solution you wanted Him to, so therefore, He does not exist, right?
Hun...it doesn't work that way.

Holy trinities

Ahh, I see. Hun, the trinity is probably one of the most common things in nature. If you look for them, you'll find them everywhere.

Don't insult my lord Helios.

Insult? Hardly. I need him to come out and warm up my little above ground pool...
I do love to swim.

So if I turn into a Muslim now, reality itself will change?

Depends. Do you plan on moving to somewhere like Pakistan?

If religion was the REASON not the MEANS. Anything that is a REASON to commit murder, mass genocide, mass destruction is a bad thing. You didn't understand the statement so you set yourself up for that.

I see. So if someone, or some organization sets up a homeless shelter, for instance, because they want to honor Jesus Christ, who said that if we do these things for the least of them, we do it for Him, that is just men doing it.
But if someone shoots a gay person because the Bible says it is an abomination and their blood shall be on them, then his religion is to blame, is that right?

Creepy.

If one believes in an omnipotent God (as I do), believing that he can use even an atheist such as Richard Dawkins himself to do what he wants done is not out of line. Why would it be? Dawkins, and you, are no less His creation than I am...

You're also aware that he was a dangerous man, see? I doubt he did much for religion. But even Tony Soprano was a devout Catholic.

All I know about him is what little I've read. Same as you.

Obvious.

Right.

All kids deserve fist bumps, not doing so is child abuse.

I bump fists with my grandson all the time.
Pinky swear....

42 bears?

Skin cancer?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do agree with you and would support the critical analysis of religious dogma because for the most part its some man or group of men's interpretations with concerning certain events in history, converted into "The Word" by church authority and used as an authoritative foundation for their social institution.

But there are obvious limitations to the finite analyzing the infinite; I trust my heavenly parents.

We can only know what those limitations are by questioning and exploring. It seems like a giant cop-out to say that a certain doctrine is just "mysterious" and that we are too limited to understand it, but must believe it nevertheless. Maybe it is mysterious, or maybe the doctrine is untenable and should be discarded. We have, in many areas, exceeded our supposed limitations. Go back a hundred years, and how many would believe you if you said that one day a man would set foot on the moon? Our limitations are not always an impenetrable wall; with the right knowledge, they are often surmountable. But we don't know unless we try to make the climb, however steep it seems at first.

 

[TillICollapse]

We can only know what those limitations are by questioning and exploring. It seems like a giant cop-out to say that a certain doctrine is just "mysterious" and that we are too limited to understand it, but must believe it nevertheless. Maybe it is mysterious, or maybe the doctrine is untenable and should be discarded. We have, in many areas, exceeded our supposed limitations. Go back a hundred years, and how many would believe you if you said that one day a man would set foot on the moon? Our limitations are not always an impenetrable wall; with the right knowledge, they are often surmountable. But we don't know unless we try to make the climb, however steep it seems at first.

Agreed.

The "We cannot know that, we are limited and fallible" is what I would describe as a cop out as well. One of the ironies to me, is that books are often appealed to (scriptures, etc) which DO show human beings receiving knowledge, experience, extraordinary events ... often building upon one another, getting more and more extraordinary as more revelations are revealed to those involved ... and those accounts are trusted and believed. Yet the average believer still tries to find some limit and claim that "We just can't know, etc". When the very accounts they often reference, if they are to be believed, reveal the opposite.

I think what the believer who often says such things actually means, is that, "You can't know what I don't think I know," ...

 

[quatona]

Rebellion against the creator Son, Michael, aka Jesus of Nazareth.

So he did believe that God existed, and hence was not an atheist?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Anyone who doesn't love pink unicorns would have to be pretty grim.

So says the name

You said the name was supposed to scare devout Christians. I'm a devout Christian, and it doesn't scare me a bit. Just makes me chuckle at the childish effort to scare me.
The face...not striking, just grainy.

You may not find it striking, but I do. Did you just call me childish? I AM NOT!

Also I'm not trying to scare you nor have I attempted to. I had concerns of using my main name on a heavy religion forum. Whether these concerns register with you doesn't concern me, but I do take in consideration the name I choose to present myself with. I felt GKG was less of an alarming name.

What are you...like 15?

Gonna get my mom on you if you don't stop.

And me alluding to DaG is just fun for me. Again how does that make me childish if I entertain myself?

I meant, are other people checking out your sites. I did pull up your Smash Words site, and as far as I could see, you have no comments, so I wondered.

Smashboards? No, I'm absent there.

And you know that because?
Well, well...I hope you're right, but seriously...I doubt it.

Future is unpredictable, but I'm capable of handling my mind.

So, let me guess. You said the magic incantation, and God didn't poof the solution you wanted Him to, so therefore, He does not exist, right?
Hun...it doesn't work that way.

Darn you've figured me out. I did believe in abra-kadabra but because things didn't just poof and become flowers and roses I realized that Abra-Kadabra doesn't work. Now I sad.

You toy with someone who enjoys being entertained.

Ahh, I see. Hun, the trinity is probably one of the most common things in nature. If you look for them, you'll find them everywhere.

Um. I guess?

Insult? Hardly. I need him to come out and warm up my little above ground pool...
I do love to swim.

Sweltering where I live.

Depends. Do you plan on moving to somewhere like Pakistan?

Exactly how does that make a difference in reality? The same circumstances exist.

I see. So if someone, or some organization sets up a homeless shelter, for instance, because they want to honor Jesus Christ, who said that if we do these things for the least of them, we do it for Him, that is just men doing it.

Correct. And religion was the reason. Not the means.

But if someone shoots a gay person because the Bible says it is an abomination and their blood shall be on them, then his religion is to blame, is that right?

Man does that too. And religion was the reason. Not the means.

You don't understand that?

If one believes in an omnipotent God (as I do), believing that he can use even an atheist such as Richard Dawkins himself to do what he wants done is not out of line.

But he can't make me see him?

Why would it be? Dawkins, and you, are no less His creation than I am...

Tampering with "free will" is something he's done before, isn't it?

All I know about him is what little I've read. Same as you.

You don't know this for sure.

Skin cancer?

Yea, which one of those scenarios actually happens?

 

[Colter]

We can only know what those limitations are by questioning and exploring. It seems like a giant cop-out to say that a certain doctrine is just "mysterious" and that we are too limited to understand it, but must believe it nevertheless. Maybe it is mysterious, or maybe the doctrine is untenable and should be discarded. We have, in many areas, exceeded our supposed limitations. Go back a hundred years, and how many would believe you if you said that one day a man would set foot on the moon? Our limitations are not always an impenetrable wall; with the right knowledge, they are often surmountable. But we don't know unless we try to make the climb, however steep it seems at first.

Sure, questioning church doctrine is fine, but Just like scientific inquiry isn't finished, neither is growing in understanding of God. Certain things in both science and religion will remain beyond our understanding and even our capacity to understand. I don't see that as a cop out, rather it's the acknowledgment of limitation.

Children may question adults about life, but lacking adequate conceptual frames adults are forced to simplify, dumb down answers to questions to satisfy curiosity about things that they frankly are not ready to understand. The same is true of God and the truth. Those things that we do not understand in time we will come to understand in eternity.

Consider this:

.

THE SUPREMACY OF PURPOSIVE POTENTIAL ​

"Although the establishment of the fact of belief is not equivalent to establishing the fact of that which is believed, nevertheless, the evolutionary progression of simple life to the status of personality does demonstrate the fact of the existence of the potential of personality to start with. And in the time universes, potential is always supreme over the actual. In the evolving cosmos the potential is what is to be, and what is to be is the unfolding of the purposive mandates of Deity.

This same purposive supremacy is shown in the evolution of mind ideation when primitive animal fear is transmuted into the constantly deepening reverence for God and into increasing awe of the universe. Primitive man had more religious fear than faith, and the supremacy of spirit potentials over mind actuals is demonstrated when this craven fear is translated into living faith in spiritual realities.

You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin. Human morality may recognize values, but only religion can conserve, exalt, and spiritualize such values. But notwithstanding such actions, religion is something more than emotionalized morality. Religion is to morality as love is to duty, as sonship is to servitude, as essence is to substance. Morality discloses an almighty Controller, a Deity to be served; religion discloses an all-loving Father, a God to be worshiped and loved. And again this is because the spiritual potentiality of religion is dominant over the duty actuality of the morality of evolution." UB 55'
​

 

[Colter]

So he did believe that God existed, and hence was not an atheist?

Lucifer denied Jesus was a "God" or "of God."

The Lucifer Manifesto​

1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father’s name. He denied that personality was a gift of the Universal Father....

2. The universe government of the Creator Son — Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.....

3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound. He protested against the agelong program for preparing the mortals of space for some unknown destiny and pointed to the presence of the finaliter corps on Jerusem as proof that these mortals had spent ages of preparation for some destiny of pure fiction. With derision he pointed out that the finaliters had encountered a destiny no more glorious than to be returned to humble spheres similar to those of their origin. He intimated that they had been debauched by overmuch discipline and prolonged training, and that they were in reality traitors to their mortal fellows since they were now co-operating with the scheme of enslaving all creation to the fictions of a mythical eternal destiny for ascending mortals. He advocated that ascenders should enjoy the liberty of individual self-determination. He challenged and condemned the entire plan of mortal ascension as sponsored by the Paradise Sons of God and supported by the Infinite Spirit......

And it was with such a Declaration of Liberty that Lucifer launched his orgy of darkness and death." UB 55​