GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by corsair
This is a question for the athiest- Let's say you know 1% of everything the universe has to offer, isnt it possible that because you dont know the other 99% that there could be a God? If you answered yes, then you are truly an agnostic. Its just something I wanted to point out.

One could even argue the surest sign of intelligent life in the universe, is that they haven't tried to contact us. But, it's merely a statement with no logical backings. As CE stated, because we do not see it, doesn't mean it exists (Wow. Thats sort've a reverse Ostrach theory).

I may answer yes to that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to run out, and practice any particular religion, simply because I only admitted the possibilty, and humoured the question. To me, God(s) does not exist. Never has, never will. I do, however, think whoever first talked to God (Which I reckon, was actually talking to themselves, and had one fine conversation) did happen to lay done some good morale guide lines.

Originally posted by fable
The analogy doesn't quite fit. Buddhists and Christians don't have a belief system or a dogma in common. Mormons and Christians do, just as both groups do with Islam and Judaism. They're all monotheistic faiths that are rooted in the biblical OT. While Judaism claims this represents the final written revelation, Christians say it's expanded into the NT, and the Jesus was the final prophet, and also god. Islam and Mormon claim that Jesus was a very high type of prophet, but that the last prophet was Muhammed or Brigham Young, respectively, and that the final divine revelation continued on from the OT and the NT, into the Quran (Islam) or the Book of Mormon.

These religions form a family group, as it were. Buddhism, by contrast, is in part a way of transcending the planes of existence, which are illusions created by hatred, anger and desire. These planes include all humans, gods, and demons. Very different kind of stuff than anything monotheistic or polytheistic.

Actually, The Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God, that is the same as the Catholics and Protestants believe. The do not believe that Brigham Young was the last prophet. They believe that we remain in the age of prophets and a living prophet heads the Church today. His name is President Gordon B. Hinckley, and is called and appointed by the elders of the church.

To put this in a frame of context easiest to understand it is best to compare it to the Papacy in the Catholic Church. The Pope interprests scripture and diseminates the official position to the body of the Church. In the Mormon Church, the Prophet, or President acts in the same way, interpreting scripture and disiminating it to the body of the Church. The Pope in performing his duties is blanketed by a concept called "Papal infalabitlity', which simply put, means no matter how flawed the man, God will not let him err in directing his flock. The Mormons Prophet opperates under the same pricipal, that no matter how imperfect he may be as a man, when he is acting in his office, God will not allow him to make a mistake in judgement. In this way, both the Catholic Church and the Mormon church have kept the tradition of prophecy alive in our times.


Rather or not I personally believe they are right or wrong is irrelevant. It is what they believe, and so I do respect that

Originally posted by Kayless
Personal opinion, I guess. I just find Catholic beliefs to be close enough to my own (Protestant beliefs) to consider us all part of the same group, while Mormons are bit too far out there for my tastes. Listing Mormons as Christians puts all in the same group, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. Again, there’s nothing wrong with being a Mormon, but if someone said Buddhists and Christians were one group I’d object to that too (since it implies that I believe something I don’t).

Since millions of Mormons will tell you themselves, that they are Christians, Baptized by water, Recieved of the Holy Ghost, and accept Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of Yaweh the God of All, as their personal Lord and Savior. They read the same Bible as you do, take communion, and pray for forgiveness of sins for themselves and others that they may enter Heaven at the Second Comming of Their Lord and God Jesus Christ....And Honor the Apostolic Creed...

What is it that make you feel they are not as worthy as you are to call themselves Christian.?

All I know is, from a technical stand point- for me, Mormons have always been part of Christianity. I've never really known (or cared, frankley) the difference between the different sects or parts of christianity, except for the basic one (Catholics vs. protestants).

Originally posted by Scayde
Actually, The Mormons do believe that Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God, that is the same as the Catholics and Protestants believe.

Never meant to imply otherwise, @Scayde, if you got that from my post. I was only focusing on a very few elements that are held in common among a group of today's more popular monotheistic religions. But there's this to say about Mormonism and Christianity: was the latter accept the divinity of Christ (well, all except some pentacostals, Sabellians, and the like), the former doesn't. It's more akin to a branch of Christianity in this respect that has otherwise long since faded from the scene, Arianism. (Not to be confused with Nazi Arian pseudo-racial beliefs.)

However, we're getting a bit off-topic, here. Those Mormons I've known (largely through previous jobs) have generally expressed themselves as more comfortable with Jewish rather than Christian beliefs--and I have to wonder whether this wasn't due in part to Young's OT emphasis, as well as the zealously reforming nature of the latter books of the OT.

IMO, Mormons have certain ideas that are a bit radical to be considered Christian. I guess on the poll i should have put Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthadox, and Mormon instead of just Christian. If you really want to get down to it though, the Church of Latter Day Saints does promote Jesus as the Saviour.

@CE- I was not trying to get you into a relegion or anything, but merely prove that it is possible that there is a god out there. For example: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan yak? Didnt think so. This shows that it is impossible to know everything. IMO a learned person would not call theirself an Athiest because they would except the fact that they dont know EVERYTHING and that there is a possibility that a god or God exsist. That is what an Agnostic is, correct? Someone who excepts the fact that there could be a god or God but thinks that it can never be proven.

Originally posted by corsair

@CE- I was not trying to get you into a relegion or anything, but merely prove that it is possible that there is a god out there. For example: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan yak? Didnt think so. This shows that it is impossible to know everything. IMO a learned person would not call theirself an Athiest because they would except the fact that they dont know EVERYTHING and that there is a possibility that a god or God exsist. That is what an Agnostic is, correct? Someone who excepts the fact that there could be a god or God but thinks that it can never be proven.

Thats not entirely correct. And Agnostic person is someone who could go either way. They aren't sure if God, or a god exist, and thus are open to the notion of possiblity.

An Atheist flat out does not belive in God. Also, by saying that a learned person cannot call themselves Atheist is bit insulting, to be honest. I happen to be, among others here, an Atheist, and quite learned (though I pale in comparison to the lovely CE, and the Decript Fable ( ) ). If anything, it is often the learned person who is the Atheist, as trend has pointed towards (not to say that people who believe in God or Religion are not in anyway learned ). But, you do not often see someone who is hardly aware of their surroundings and soceity that is Atheist, as they tend to follow the mainstream thought process of society

Anyone up for digging up 'Theological Quandries: 101'?

Originally posted by fable
Never meant to imply otherwise, @Scayde, if you got that from my post. I was only focusing on a very few elements that are held in common among a group of today's more popular monotheistic religions. But there's this to say about Mormonism and Christianity: was the latter accept the divinity of Christ (well, all except some pentacostals, Sabellians, and the like), the former doesn't. It's more akin to a branch of Christianity in this respect that has otherwise long since faded from the scene, Arianism. (Not to be confused with Nazi Arian pseudo-racial beliefs.)
.

It may interest you to note that the Mormons do infact recognize the divinity of Christ...and in some ways are more akin to a poly-theistic belief system in that they see the Trinity a bit diffeerently in that God the Father, God the Son, and The Holy Ghost are three distinct and seperate entities bound in purpose as one god-head

Originally posted by fable
The analogy doesn't quite fit.

Perhaps not, but you get the gist of what I'm saying (perhaps I should have used Islam as an example instead, but oh well). Yes, we're all conected, but just as Islam and Judaism are not Christianity, I don't believe Mormons are either, despite certain comonalities.

Originally posted by Scayde
What is it that make you feel they are not as worthy as you are to call themselves Christian.?

I don't want to go to the trouble of listing all of all Mormon beliefs I find questionable and un-Christian but here is a web page that covers the issue pretty well.

God does not exist

There seems to be some misconceptioon as to what Budhism is.

I am a practicing Theresavartnan (SP) Budhist and one of the central tenants is that there is no god.

Does the other Budhist believe in god?

Curdis

Re: God does not exist

Originally posted by Curdis
There seems to be some misconceptioon as to what Budhism is.

I am a practicing Theresavartnan (SP) Budhist and one of the central tenants is that there is no god.

Does the other Budhist believe in god?

Curdis

I was under the impression the following of Budha's path replaced the worship of a God. Though, I may be mistaken.

No, Aegis; it's pretty much as Curdis wrote--and myself as well, earlier in this thread: "These religions form a family group, as it were. Buddhism, by contrast, is in part a way of transcending the planes of existence, which are illusions created by hatred, anger and desire. These planes include all humans, gods, and demons. Very different kind of stuff than anything monotheistic or polytheistic. "

Aegis wrote: I was under the impression the following of Budha's path replaced the worship of a God. Though, I may be mistaken.

Well that is sort of what I wrote. Budhism seems to mutate to fit the culture it encounters but following the teachings/path of the Budha is sort of the main vibe. Not all Budhism is directly this clear on god/heaven etc (e.g. Monkey Magic). Therisvartnan (sp) Budhism is pretty much being an unbeliever but still following a prescribed code of some sort. - Curdis

P.S. I have NOT read any of Budha's teaching 'directly'.

Originally posted by corsair
IMO a learned person would not call theirself an Athiest because they would except the fact that they dont know EVERYTHING and that there is a possibility that a god or God exsist.

Whether or not one accepts the possibility of the existence of a god is not really relevant, if you are just talking about possibilities without any proof. If there is no way of knowing either way, then the only thing that makes any difference is what you believe...

Originally posted by Kayless
Perhaps not, but you get the gist of what I'm saying (perhaps I should have used Islam as an example instead, but oh well). Yes, we're all conected, but just as Islam and Judaism are not Christianity, I don't believe Mormons are either, despite certain comonalities.


I don't want to go to the trouble of listing all of all Mormon beliefs and questionable and un-Christian but here is a web page that covers the issue pretty well.

I am not an appologist for the Mormon Faith, but it would seem that the link you have provided is very much in conflict whith the official position of their church...Here is a link to their official site if you are interested.


As far as I am concerned, if they believe they are Christians, I have no right to judge them otherwise, anymore than I do those who follow Jerry Fallwell, and I disagree with his teachings far more than I do theirs.

I know several people who consider themselves both Jewish and Buddhist at the same time. They say Judaism gives them the guidelines, but Buddhism is more a frame of mind.

It might be advantageous to break out separate threads on Buddhism and Mormonism, since neither is really well known or understood outside its own followers.

Originally posted by corsair
@CE- I was not trying to get you into a relegion or anything, but merely prove that it is possible that there is a god out there. For example: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully grown male Tibetan yak? Didnt think so. This shows that it is impossible to know everything. IMO a learned person would not call theirself an Athiest because they would except the fact that they dont know EVERYTHING and that there is a possibility that a god or God exsist. That is what an Agnostic is, correct? Someone who excepts the fact that there could be a god or God but thinks that it can never be proven.

Oh, I didn't think you were trying to get me into religion Still though, the reasoning you use, ie the "argument from ignorance", has little to do with religion IMO.

Nobody knows how many hairs there are on the back of a Tibetan yak. What is the connection to religion, or the existance of a god?

Any learned person may call themselves atheist if they do not believe in any gods or any religion. Just an any learned person may choose not believe in Santa Claus although he may theoretically exist in an alternative timespace or on another planet in another universe, one may choose not to believe in what cannot be objectively demonstrated. By the same standard, any learned person may choose not to believe in gods.

The term atheist could be defined in two ways, the most correct as I understand it from the religion researchers I know, is that it means a person who rejects the idea of a god. It could also simply be defined as a person who does not believe in a god, without specifying exactly whether that person would never believe in a god regardless of circumstances, or not. That's why I prefer to use the term scientific atheist to describe my own view, ie I reject the idea of any gods (and Santa Claus, and pink unicorns as well) until it is scientifically demonstrated that such phenomena exist objectively.

Originally posted by C Elegans
I am a scientific atheist. ie it must be possible to demonstrate scientifically.

That's where the old faith issue comes in of course. I don't really hold to any religion but then I don't actually consider myself agnostic either. I have a belief in a creator but then don't hold to any religion and I don't believe in the original sin or any of that.
In CE's case I would say it is impossible to prove since religions rely, to a large degree, on faith.

As with life my religious beliefs are entirely on the fence where I'm most comfortable, so when the revolution comes I can say, none of the above!