I will discuss my religious faith with any who asks.

[Gilhelmi]

I am Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who sent His Son to Earth to save us of our sins.

I enjoy debate, debate is good, it is how we come to understand ourselves and others. As Iron sharpens Iron, debate sharpens ourselves. But, I have rules.

1) If you repost something from an "anti-religion" site. You must first read the passages of the Bible you are posting. They are almost too easy to argue against just because they take 2 verses out of context. 90% of my argument will be typing the chapters surrounding the verses. (I like easy brain teasers from time to time, but "anti-religion" site are almost too easy.)

2) I like things light-hearted. I say nothing in hatred or anger, it should not be taken as such.

3) I usually post around 0300 US central time (-0600 GMT, can you tell I played EVE online for too many years?)

4) I love you all, as God loves you. Yes, He truly loves the world

To start, I view "religion" slightly differently. More in an Anthropologist type of thinking.
World View - "Major religions" (example. Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist) (gee, I hope someone asks me if I think Atheism is a religion )
Religion - "sects of World Views" (from the Christian heading. Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Mormon (yes, they are Christians, but they are also their own Religion too)) Too snip this in the bud, I think all Christians go to heaven. The Bible also says, Children and the mentally handicapped (or all thous who were never able to make a decision) go to heaven as well Hint, I am setting up a perfect discussion topic here.
Denomination - Gets complicated, Methodists, Church of Christ, the dozens of orders the Catholics have, ect.

I have my tea now, let us begin. (always with tea)

[siead_lietrathua]

i don't understand your... request i guess?

are you wanting people to talk about religion in general, or debate your particular flavour? are you looking for people to toss athiestic quips at you to refute for shits n giggles?
are you wanting to debate a particular passage, philosophy, religion as a construct, a tool, or the vagueness of faith?

i'm only asking because, usually when i see a thread on religion it has more specific topic than a generic 'come at me bro'.

oh, and to the "gee, I hope someone asks me if I think Atheism is a religion", you would open yourself to that question after posting it in a group headed with the title "major religions". if you don't think it is, but more of a philosophy thing, then you should state that outright instead of muddying it up form the start.

[Kheldarson]

As a note, the various Catholic orders are not the same as Christian denominations.

Christian denominations (which I'm not entirely sure how you're separating them out from "religions" since you included Lutherans as a religion when they fall under the Protestant heading) have variations in belief: they have differences in interpretation of Scripture and dogma.

The Catholic orders have variation in purpose. The Franciscans were formed to reteach the Church humility (St. Francis of Assisi was called to "repair My church"); the Dominicans were formed to combat heresy and teach at a more intellectual level (according to tradition, St. Dominic was called by Mary and taught the rosary by her as a devotion to spread to the people); and the Jesuits were formed to combat the new Protestant churches by evangelizing in Europe and abroad. All still adhere to Catholic Tradition and dogma and have many of the same practices, unlike Protestant denominations.

[Gilhelmi]

snip

I am not intending a "come at me bro" type thing. I am more thinking of an open debate. Similar to the "Fireplace" discussions of various topics that the academics of olden days had. Something more like if CS Lewis and Mary Shelley. Two relatively opposite but still respectful people, both of whom came from a Scholarly back ground.

For instance, I can debate with myself *insert bad pun here, you know the one *.

Personality 'A' (PA for short) think that Atheism falls under the heading of "religion" because it has an innate sense of faith to it as well. They have "faith" that there is no supreme being (or God).

Personality 'B' (PB) disagrees. PB says that Atheism is without this "Faith". While agreeing to the fact that it is a "world view" (PB disagrees with my definition of "world view), they have no organized force driving the Atheist belief.

PA points out that there is in fact organized group like the "Freedom From Religion" organization who constantly sues cities whenever they so-much put up a "Nativity" scene at Christmas.

*PB looks up FFR* I concede the point. Well played. However, Atheist groups are also not a religion because of ............

I am stopping there, mainly because I still hope to have a debate on the rest of the subject and do not want to use all of my points .

Not just Atheist v. Christian either. I am willing to debate/discuss any religious topic. Abortion, to the Conflict in Iraq, to the persecution of Muslims and Christian in (formerly called) Burma.

I honestly believe that peace will never be achieved, unless we are willing to openly and peacefully sit down and discuss our problems. Only then might we find some compromises and peace.

[Gilhelmi]

As a note, the various Catholic orders are not the same as Christian denominations.

Christian denominations (which I'm not entirely sure how you're separating them out from "religions" since you included Lutherans as a religion when they fall under the Protestant heading) have variations in belief: they have differences in interpretation of Scripture and dogma.

The Catholic orders have variation in purpose. The Franciscans were formed to reteach the Church humility (St. Francis of Assisi was called to "repair My church"); the Dominicans were formed to combat heresy and teach at a more intellectual level (according to tradition, St. Dominic was called by Mary and taught the rosary by her as a devotion to spread to the people); and the Jesuits were formed to combat the new Protestant churches by evangelizing in Europe and abroad. All still adhere to Catholic Tradition and dogma and have many of the same practices, unlike Protestant denominations.

I have a confession to make. I love studying World Religions. In my youth, I thought about becoming a missionary, as Paul taught us. But, I focused more heavily on the "Non-Christian" religions (except for Mormon, until I realized that Mormons were still Christian). These days, I do study Christian groups as well (I was surprised by the variety at first, but their 'cores' were still the same).

I have a long list of groups that I want to study. Sadly, it takes me 3 to 6 months to study each group. So it might be awhile to get to Catholics.

Thank you for the information.

[siead_lietrathua]

well on your athiest VS christian thing you were posting, your proponent of athiesm was kinda wording things wrong.
see, athiesm isn't even technically a worldview. it's a response to a worldview.

theist says : "i belive this god exists!"
athiest says: "huh, well, can you show me what it's about?"
theist: gives their data
athiest: "hmm, well that's interesting, but i don't find anything in there compelling enough to belive, so i won't."

as to athiests having groups means they're a faith, that's just silly. athiests having groups together =/= a religious group. you can have people with common intrests getting together without it having to be religious. they could be a political group, for example. after all, athiests tend to be secularists. heck, there are theists that also vehemently support secularism. there are also some groups that gather because they are a minority, so gathering is the only way to have their voice heard.

aidenote: hubs made me laugh last night with this one: "claiming athiests are religious is like calling "the tv is off" a television station.

[SkullKing]

theist says : "i belive this god exists!"
athiest says: "huh, well, can you show me what it's about?"
theist: gives their data
athiest: "hmm, well that's interesting, but i don't find anything in there compelling enough to belive, so i won't."

Isn´t this agnosticism? I was under the impresion the Atheism was actively afirming god does not exist.

[Rapscallion]

My understanding is that it's shades of grey on what people are defined as, and there are probably about as many definitions as there are people.

After having looked at various topics here and there, the view I like to follow is that there are four basic grades of opinion on religious matters.

Strong atheist - doesn't believe in any divinities.

Agnostic atheist - doesn't accept any proof yet presented that there are and on the balance of probabilities doesn't believe.

Agnostic theist - accepts the current proof, but retains an open mind.

Strong theist - wholeheartedly believes in a divinity.

There's also a huge swathe of people who are just trying to get to the shops and hoping the person shouting at the crowds from the top of a crate in the middle of the pedestrian precinct doesn't pick on them for questioning.

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

theism/ athiesm is a stance on belife. theists believe there are gods, where athiests do not believe the evidence for god(s) is compelling.

gnostic/ agnostic is the stance on knowledge. it's what someone claims to know or not know.

all people, if they are honest, are agnostic about the existence of god. there is no way to know with 100% certainty (well, until you're dead)

they can be at diffrent places along the theism/athiesm slider, but anyone who claims to be a gnostic theist or athiest better have some good evidence behind them.

edit:

beliefs and knowledge do overlap.

ie: AA believes the sun will come up tomorrow. AA bases this belief on the knowledge he obtained over his life (knowledge of the solar system, proven to happen every day, etc). so it's a belief, with empirical evidence as it's foundation. for the sun to not rise, something supernatural would have to happen.
BB believes in dragons. there is no empirical evidence for dragons. however, BB finds the mythology of dragons compelling enough to belive in. they are basing their belief on faith (not requiring proof) in the supernatural.

while both can say they believe in something, only AA can say they actually know their beliefs are reasonably true.

[crashhelmet]

(gee, I hope someone asks me if I think Atheism is a religion )

I've started this very debate here on this board in the past. I think it ended with both sides talking to the bulkhead.

*EDIT*
Found it. Started on 02JAN2009.
What is a religion?

*EDIT #2*
I was wrong. It was either a different thread or a different board. My bad.

[Kelmon]

Sadly, most people seem to get it wrong when it comes to what agnosticism/atheism means, using agnosticism as a sort of "halfway point" between theism and atheism.
That's when I show them this picture.

The notion that atheism is a religion is, of course, absurd. Insert "baldness is a hairstyle", "not collecting stamps is a hobby", "going hungry is a kind of food"-arguments here.
As to organizations - as has already been said, just because some (like-minded) people organize for a common cause doesn't mean it's a religious organization. Besides, there's no reason an organization protesting, say, organized prayers in school can't include Christians (, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,...)

[Gravekeeper]

This cannot end well. It never does. >.>

[siead_lietrathua]

This cannot end well. It never does. >.>

but it COULD end hilarious.
which, in the end, is all that matters. :P

[cindybubbles]

beliefs and knowledge do overlap.

ie: AA believes the sun will come up tomorrow. AA bases this belief on the knowledge he obtained over his life (knowledge of the solar system, proven to happen every day, etc). so it's a belief, with empirical evidence as it's foundation. for the sun to not rise, something supernatural would have to happen.
BB believes in dragons. there is no empirical evidence for dragons. however, BB finds the mythology of dragons compelling enough to belive in. they are basing their belief on faith (not requiring proof) in the supernatural.

while both can say they believe in something, only AA can say they actually know their beliefs are reasonably true.

I'm a Catholic, and also a realist, too.

And AA can only say what AA knows is true, as long as the facts hold true where AA lives.

AA, therefore, cannot believe that the sun will rise tomorrow if, for example, AA lives in the Arctic North or Antarctic South. That's because there, the sun may not rise for 28 days! I have a link to this "polar night" right here.

[siead_lietrathua]

I'm a Catholic, and also a realist, too.

And AA can only say what AA knows is true, as long as the facts hold true where AA lives.

AA, therefore, cannot believe that the sun will rise tomorrow if, for example, AA lives in the Arctic North or Antarctic South. That's because there, the sun may not rise for 28 days! I have a link to this "polar night" right here.

just because the sun is not rising in that location doesn't mean it does not rise period. hence why i made sure to include the "knowledge of the solar system" in brackets, along with the "happens every day" (which should be enough of an implication that he isn't someone living in the polar ice caps). Also, if the only way to deconstruct the idea is to change his location, then you might as well say "well what if he lived in a cave with the molemen?". if his knowledge is based on multiple sources of empirical data, it doesn't matter where he lives. he still can present the data to back up his beliefs.

if you have to change the scenario to form an argument against it, you're no longer arguing the scenario.