Wich were the first religion?
Worship of the sun?

Please, all thoose who arent religious, DONT answer.
Youre physically unable to reply with intelligent answers.
All non-religious people are brainwashed by the atheists.

The Sun is the Light unto the World, the World of Reality, the Light of Day.

Your simplistic conceptualisation of religious or non religious is laughable. How can you distinguish those who are religious from those that are not religious when the concept of "religion" is a fallacy, a concept reduced to pigeon-hole stereotypes by the evangelical baptists, and Roman catholics, and maybe the protiatants I'm affraid to say.
I have faith in a omnipotent entity yes, I believe in matters metaphysical yes, but I don't belong to any pigeon hole, So what, that makes be non religious by your definition?

PS: it seems the mods have saved you from our little tete a tete. Pitty.

Judas2k,

Please, all thoose who arent religious, DONT answer.Fair enough we’ll ignore your question. We can focus on your attitude instead.

Youre physically unable to reply with intelligent answers.Hmm, so these people aren’t/wern’t capable of intelligent answers then, right –

James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836).
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]

Robert Green Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer (1833-1899).

"The universe is all the God there is."

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

"With soap, baptism is a good thing."

"The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know."

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?"

"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: 'Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.'"

"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!" [The Gods, 1872]

Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist (1835-1910).
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."

Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).
"Religion is all bunk."
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."

George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright (1856-1950).
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

William Howard Taft, American President and Chief Justice (1857-1930).
"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe."

Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathematician, and social critic (1872-1970).
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
"I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out."
"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."

Albert Einstein, German born American threoretical physicist (1879-1955).
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Ernest Hemingway, American author (1899-1961).
"All thinking men are atheists." [A Farewell to Arms]

.
.
.
…and many many more.

[quote]All non-religious people are brainwashed by the atheists.In a religious dominated society it would appear that the non-religious are the only ones that have a found the way to think for themselves.

Now if you really want to discuss brainwashing then the history of Christianity offers astounding evidence especially when considering its own admission of evangelical preaching.

I pity you, youre all so locked in your own ignorance.
This topic was pure sarcastic.It was a bait, bait for
DOGS. I posted it to confirm my beliefs about you.


And wraith............since my computer is at work,this will
have legal consequenses.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
Judas2k,

Fair enough we’ll ignore your question. We can focus on your attitude instead.

Hmm, so these people aren’t/wern’t capable of intelligent answers then, right –

[b]James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836).
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]

Robert Green Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer (1833-1899).

"The universe is all the God there is."

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

"With soap, baptism is a good thing."

"The clergy know that I know that they know that they do not know."

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?"

"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: 'Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.'"

"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said, "Think!" The many have said, "Believe!" [The Gods, 1872]

Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist (1835-1910).
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."

Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931).
"Religion is all bunk."
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."

George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright (1856-1950).
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

William Howard Taft, American President and Chief Justice (1857-1930).
"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe."

Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathematician, and social critic (1872-1970).
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
"I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out."
"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." [quoted in Holy Horrors]

Albert Einstein, German born American threoretical physicist (1879-1955).
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Ernest Hemingway, American author (1899-1961).
"All thinking men are atheists." [A Farewell to Arms]

.
.
.
…and many many more.

In a religious dominated society it would appear that the non-religious are the only ones that have a found the way to think for themselves.

Now if you really want to discuss brainwashing then the history of Christianity offers astounding evidence especially when considering its own admission of evangelical preaching.

Cris, this deserves the Pulitzer Prize at the very least! What a true statement you have made! I hope it offers insight to those who are limited in their capacity to think for themselves. It certainly inspired me, and I'm not afraid to think OR speak!

Judas2000,

I pity you, And somehow this should concern us?

youre all so locked in your own ignorance.Ignorance of what? You have not demonstrated any great wisdom or knowledge yet so who are you to judge us?

This topic was pure sarcastic.It was a bait, bait for
DOGS. I posted it to confirm my beliefs about you.Riiight! Fortunately dogs don’t post here so it looks like you wasted your time.

It looks more like you simply couldn’t deal with a couple of criticisms and are now making gutless excuses.

Woof Woof! grrr arff.

*starts humping Cris' leg*

OK ok so there might be some primitives around here.

And get off you mangy hound.

In a religious dominated society it would appear that the non-religious are the only ones that have a found the way to think for themselves.
Cris, so are you saying that any belief in any form of diety/God/omnipotent entity...whatever you care to "label" it as = Religion?

Wraith, i think thats fairly close to the standard definition. you can widen it further of course.

Yup pretty much.

Or perhaps more precisely - the belief in a supernatural realm where your actions on earth affect your status in that realm after you die and might affect your status while you are alive.

Cris, pretty precise ofcourse. btw, what makes you to believe that supernatural realm is not natural at all..?

Everneo,

what makes you to believe that supernatural realm is not natural at all..?By definition. If it were natural it wouldn’t be defined as ‘super’ natural.

Everything we know is naturalistic. Until it has been detected the supernatural is just a concept and cannot be seen as anything other than a fantasy product of human imagination.

Originally posted by Cris
Everything we know is naturalistic. Until it has been detected the supernatural is just a concept and cannot be seen as anything other than a fantasy product of human imagination.

But just as the concepts and theories of physics and math are used to explain our physical world, the concept of the one god is important to explain the purpose of this physcial world, morality, and ethics....and why call a mere believe in a concept a religion. Many people keep their believes private and don't get invovled in exclusive doctrines and are not selling the believe, profiting from the believe, acting as a teacher to the believe, ect....so why do you call those religionist. We don't call people that count their money or the stars in the sky mathematicians...do we?

When I started with this site, I used to label others who don't believe like me Atheists. I knew nothing of Atheism, yet I constructed a whole set of stereotypes in my mind and I attributed them to Athesim. This was the work of my imagination, because I couldn't possibly think of true Atheism because I wasn't one...I was merely speculating.. But very quickly I learned that it's not right to label or pegeon hole people, because that's how religions are created. Religions don't exist unless they are perceived by others and labeled by others...You will never find Jesus say, I'm a christian, or Moses say, I'm Jewish, they all said, we are believers....in what exactly, we can only imagine... so by you perceiving me and labeling me as a religionist Cris, you are responsible for setting the foundation of the term religion, and thus you must be the biggest religionist around.... I didn't attribute myself to a religion, I merely used a book that I found interesting as a ground for a discussion, you are free to denounce it for reasons, just like you're free to use scientific theories to back up your words, and I have the freedom to criticise it, and we are free to think and believe, and the minute someone lables us, he/she is responsible for setting the imaginary world in their minds and imposing it on us.

You can't but forcast, speculate, imagine what another is feeling, thinking, or believing.....So by default you're the one imagining everything you see, say, or attribute to another person believes. To the person believing and thinking, his/her believes and thoughts are very real, but for you it's mere imagination....and a bunch of green flying elephants that only you seem to be seeing.

Flores,

But just as the concepts and theories of physics and math are used to explain our physical world, the concept of the one god is important to explain the purpose of this physcial world, morality, and ethics....No there is a fundamental difference. Science is based on observation and detection. A god concept is based entirely on baseless speculation.

and why call a mere believe in a concept a religion.If it includes a belief in a supernatural force then by definition it has a religious nature.

Many people keep their believes private and don't get invovled in exclusive doctrines and are not selling the believe, profiting from the believe, acting as a teacher to the believe, ect....so why do you call those religionist. It is irrelevant whether they follow an institutional religion or not.

We don't call people that count their money or the stars in the sky mathematicians...do we?Why not? If they have the ability to use mathematics to that extent then they are mathematicians.

I knew nothing of Atheism, yet I constructed a whole set of stereotypes in my mind and I attributed them to Athesim. This was the work of my imagination, because I couldn't possibly think of true Atheism because I wasn't one...I was merely speculating..No you were simply ignorant.

it's not right to label or pegeon hole people, Why not? If someone is a man why would they object to being called a man?

because that's how religions are created.Religions exist whether they are labeled or not. Whether Jesus called himself religious or not is irrelevant. He would be religious as a result of his actions.

Religions don't exist unless they are perceived by others and labeled by others...You are confusing institutional religion with generic religion. If someone believes in a supernatural entity and that it will affect their life then that person is religious according to the definition. The person may not communicate that belief to anyone else and the details of that belief may not match any other religion. But the person is religious whether anyone calls them religious or not.

the minute someone lables us, he/she is responsible for setting the imaginary world in their minds and imposing it on us. No. The label is true depending on their actions or properties. For example a woman is so labeled because she has specific physical properties. Those properties have nothing to do with my imagination. Similarly someone is religious if they act according to the definition of religion.

To the person believing and thinking, his/her believes and thoughts are very real, but for you it's mere imagination....And without any proof such beliefs can only be based on imagination. While the thoughts and beliefs are real the objects to which they apply are only imaginary if they cannot be detected.

Originally posted by Cris
Everneo,

By definition. If it were natural it wouldn’t be defined as ‘super’ natural.

Everything we know is naturalistic. Until it has been detected the supernatural is just a concept and cannot be seen as anything other than a fantasy product of human imagination.

:eek:

The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.

Super Natural is relative, natural to, Reality that exists beyond,
above, that is Superior to, the Material World of Reality.

Finite Freedom, the Natural order of the Material World of Reality is Freedom that is subject to the Chaos of Cause and Effect, Determinism, Evolution, the survival of the fittest.

Super Natural, Superior, Supreme, BE-ing, divine Freedom is Highly Ordered, is not Chaotic.

Supernatural Freedom is infinite, Freedom from the Chaos of the Material World of Reality, Evolution, cause and effect, determinism, the law of the jungle to kill or be killed, the Reality of the Material World, Might is Right, freedom from the fear of Wild beasts, is not subject to the Survival of the fittest.

It would take a Divine, a Supernatural Will to bring the Chaos to Order.

In order to create World of Reality where there is an Equity (which is unnatural to the material World of Reality) of Freedom and Justice for All would require, the Will of a Supernatural BE-ing, a Superior State of Mind.

Originally posted by Cris
Flores,

No there is a fundamental difference. Science is based on observation and detection. A god concept is based entirely on baseless speculation.

Religion is also based on observations and detections, and since religion is a private matter with the goal to estimate the person's life purpose, then the object of observation and detection happens to be the person and all the results of the study happen to only be applicable to the person.

Originally posted by Cris
If it includes a belief in a supernatural force then by definition it has a religious nature.

I personally don't believe in a supernatural force. I believe in a natural force that is responsible for creating this universe. I call it universal order, others call it nature, others call it entropy, other call it god, ect...

Originally posted by Cris
It is irrelevant whether they follow an institutional religion or not.

Irrelevant to whom exactly?

Originally posted by Cris
Why not? If they have the ability to use mathematics to that extent then they are mathematicians.

And I was the dumb one that got so excited and empowered by my most recent accomplishment of passing the PE exam and being recognized by the board of engineers as a professional engineer. Little did I know that any Joe Shmoe that have lifted up a scale or operated a computer is an engineer.

Originally posted by Cris
No you were simply ignorant.

Well thank you, and while we are at the name calling, so are you.

Originally posted by Cris
Why not? If someone is a man why would they object to being called a man?

Yes, they should object, specially if the person calling them a man is using the label to belittle them.

Originally posted by Cris
Religions exist whether they are labeled or not. Whether Jesus called himself religious or not is irrelevant. He would be religious as a result of his actions.

It only exist in your head...perhaps your head is not challenged enough or occupied by enough of it's own theories that it always find itself obsessed with how others think.

Originally posted by Cris
You are confusing institutional religion with generic religion.

Is this something similar to brand prescribtion drugs and generic. Is one more expensive than the other...May you elaborate please, I wanna make sure I'm getting the best for my buck.

Originally posted by Cris
If someone believes in a supernatural entity and that it will affect their life then that person is religious according to the definition.

Very good, then my Atheist insurance agent must have been lying to me and is in reality religious because he just insured my house againest all "acts of god", including lightening, floods, earthquakes, ect....

Originally posted by Cris
The person may not communicate that belief to anyone else and the details of that belief may not match any other religion. But the person is religious whether anyone calls them religious or not.

Wow, you are just determined on labeling others.....I'll buy you a bunch of stickies so you can go labeling happy.


Originally posted by Cris
No. The label is true depending on their actions or properties. For example a woman is so labeled because she has specific physical properties. Those properties have nothing to do with my imagination. Similarly someone is religious if they act according to the definition of religion.

You obviously don't make a distinction between physical attributes and mental choices. For example, a black man is black whether he likes it or not, and yellow is yellow and a white is white....But how could you call a person a communist or a religionist because they seem to believe secretely in a set of ideas that YOU happened to attribute to negative words like religion or communisim . Isn't this againest all privacy laws.....No one can compel another to give a religion affiliation, while you are pushing an affiliation on me whether I like it or not....Religion is made up by man and chose by man, being a woman/man/black/yellow is not a choice, religion is. And I chose to believe in god and not be religious...IT IS MY CHOICE....My sex, race is not.

Originally posted by Cris
And without any proof such beliefs can only be based on imagination. While the thoughts and beliefs are real the objects to which they apply are only imaginary if they cannot be detected.

What objects???? Whoever spoke of an object????? I'm getting an ulcer here yelling that I believe in the concept of singularity and universal order...just like you believe that 1+1=2, I believe that infinity =1....you can't disprove me, and you don't want to agree with me, that's why I'm not your clone or called Cris.

Wayne,

The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.No. It is just a baseless imaginative concept.

The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.

It must have taken some practice to spew forth a statement that obtuse and vapid.

In effect, my articulate fellow, you asserted the following.

"The supernatural is natural, except that it's supernatural."

*Laughing Obstreperously*

Originally posted by Cris
Wayne,

No. It is just a baseless imaginative concept.


Of Course this is True.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Super Natural is Natural, it is just outside, beyond, above, superior to, the natural order of the Material World of Reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So do you think that determinism is the only Reality, and that Free Will is an Imaginative Concept.

Freedom determined by the Chaos of cause and effect, finite Freedom, is not Freedom, it is determinism.

Man is Free to Bring the Chaos, the natural order of the material World of Reality to order; order that is unnatural to the Material World of Reality, Freedom of Motion that is highly ordered and he does so with the help of his Imaginary Concepts, Imagination, Freedom from the Chaos.

The Imagination is Supernatural, is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, is more powerful than a locomotive and Faster than a speeding bullet, is not bound to the Material World of Reality.

Free Will, Freedom of Mind, the Creative Imagination, is superior
in nature to the Flesh, Man's physical, Material Reality.

If Man’s survival were dependent upon his natural Instincts, the Consciousness of the Flesh, his five senses which are sorely lacking, man would not exist.

Man has a helpmate that is Super Natural, his sixth sense, Freedom of Mind, Free Will, the Creative Imagination.



Up Up and Away.

Flores,

Religion is also based on observations and detections, In which case faith is never needed then correct? There have been no scientifically substantiated observations or detections of a god.

religion is a private matter with the goal to estimate the person's life purpose, I have ways to establish my life’s purpose and it is not religious.

I personally don't believe in a supernatural force. I believe in a natural force that is responsible for creating this universe. I call it universal order, others call it nature, others call it entropy, other call it god, ect...OK.

Irrelevant to whom exactly? Irrelevant, as in not relevant to the issue.

And I was the dumb one that got so excited and empowered by my most recent accomplishment of passing the PE exam and being recognized by the board of engineers as a professional engineer. Little did I know that any Joe Shmoe that have lifted up a scale or operated a computer is an engineer.It is all a matter of degree then.

No you were simply ignorant.

Well thank you, and while we are at the name calling, so are you.No, that wasn’t an insult, but a matter of objective fact. You did not know about atheism therefore you were ignorant of available facts. That is ignorance. Most people are ignorant of some things as am I. The key issue is when people claim to know something but have not made the effort to research it.

Yes, they should object, specially if the person calling them a man is using the label to belittle them.That is not the issue. My point is that if someone behaves in a religious manner then they are religious. It is objective observation.

Religions exist whether they are labeled or not. Whether Jesus called himself religious or not is irrelevant. He would be religious as a result of his actions.

It only exist in your head...perhaps your head is not challenged enough or occupied by enough of it's own theories that it always find itself obsessed with how others think.What?

It is simple; if someone engages in religious activities then they are religious. I don’t see any need to dispute what is simple objective observation.

You are confusing institutional religion with generic religion.

…May you elaborate please, … Religious beliefs can take on many forms; they do not have to conform to the big institutionalized religions like Christianity, or Islam.

You obviously don't make a distinction between physical attributes and mental choices. For example, a black man is black whether he likes it or not, and yellow is yellow and a white is white....OK.

But how could you call a person a communist or a religionist because they seem to believe secretely in a set of ideasWhy does it matter whether their ideas are secret or public?

that YOU happened to attribute to negative words like religion or communisim. Why are these terms negative?

Isn't this againest all privacy laws.....???

No one can compel another to give a religion affiliation, while you are pushing an affiliation on me whether I like it or not....I am not pushing anything. You are what you are by physical characteristic or action. I have nothing to do with it.

Religion is made up by man and chose by man,OK.

being a woman/man/black/yellow is not a choice, religion is.OK.

And I chose to believe in god and not be religiousThat is like being a woman and calling yourself a man. Believing in a god and being religious are dependent on each other; you cannot be a theist and not be religious.

...IT IS MY CHOICE..No, it is a matter of dependent concepts. The action of believing in a god is the definition of being religious. If you believe in a god then you cannot help but be religious, it is not a matter of choice.

What objects???? Whoever spoke of an object????? God is an object which might be real or imaginary.

Whether God is real or not is one question, but your belief that he exists is real.

You seemed to be confusing your beliefs as being imaginary with the objects of your beliefs.

I'm getting an ulcer here yelling that I believe in the concept of singularity and universal order...Do you understand that the concept is one thing, but the targets of the concept, in this case singularity or universal order, are separate?

Originally posted by Redoubtable
It must have taken some practice to spew forth a statement that obtuse and vapid.

In effect, my articulate fellow, you asserted the following.

"The supernatural is natural, except that it's supernatural."

*Laughing Obstreperously*



No that is not what I said, Supernatural is unnatural to the material World of Reality. The Supernatural is natural, is relative to the Reality that exists beyond the Material World of Reality, the Supernatural exists outside of the Natural Material World of Reality.

The Super Natural is Natural to the Spiritual World of Reality, is not Natural to the Material World of Reality.

What is Natural to the Immortal Soul is Unnatural, Supernatural to the Mortal Soul.

The Immortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Rational.
The Mortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Sensible.

Man exists because of his Superior Nature, because he is sensible, reasonable, Rational.

If man were left to his natural instincts, his animal nature he would not exist.

Wayne,

So do you think that determinism is the only Reality, and that Free Will is an Imaginative Concept.

Freedom determined by the Chaos of cause and effect, finite Freedom, is not Freedom, it is determinism. Now those are interesting issues worthy of a separate thread.

The Imagination is Supernatural, is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, is more powerful than a locomotive and Faster than a speeding bullet, is not bound to the Material World of Reality.Imagination is a product of the brain and is entirely material.

If Man’s survival were dependent upon his natural Instincts, the Consciousness of the Flesh, his five senses which are sorely lacking, man would not exist.Perhaps, although the cockroach has outlived man for quite a few million years, so perhaps the cockroach has a fabulous imagination as well.

Man has evolved from his earlier predecessors because he developed a larger brain which seems to have allowed him a more powerful imagination coupled with superior intelligence. All of which are entirely physical.

Originally posted by wayne_92587
No that is not what I said, Supernatural is unnatural to the material World of Reality. The Supernatural is natural, is relative to the Reality that exists beyond the Material World of Reality, the Supernatural exists outside of the Natural Material World of Reality.

The Super Natural is Natural to the Spiritual World of Reality, is not Natural to the Material World of Reality.

What is Natural to the Immortal Soul is Unnatural, Supernatural to the Mortal Soul.

The Immortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Rational.
The Mortal Soul that part of our Nature that is Sensible.

Man exists because of his Superior Nature, because he is sensible, reasonable, Rational.

If man were left to his natural instincts, his animal nature he would not exist.

*waves white flag about madly*

Originally posted by Redoubtable
*waves white flag about madly*


Maybe a red flag but never a white flag.

Cris[/B] In which case faith is never needed then correct? There have been no scientifically substantiated observations or detections of a god.[/B]

If religion was a cookie cutter, automautive, airoplane intended for the public use, then I'm with you that it's not scientifically substantiated for such a use. But I'm saying that religion is private unique to every person, and how can science capture such a unique characteristic like finger prints. When the day come that science can predict the pattern of finger printing of each person from their blood type then maybe we can start using science to observe and detect religion....Science is still too primitive for such applications.

Cris[/B] I have ways to establish my life’s purpose and it is not religious. [/B]

You say tomatoes, I say tomAtoes.

Cris[/B] It is all a matter of degree then.[/B]

No, it's a matter of accountability. A person with a degree and license to practice his earned skill is accountable for his errors and could be barred from the profession. People that keep their skills private and don't use them on the public are not accountable for their thoughts or actions until they break a law like building without a permit.

Cris[/B] That is not the issue. My point is that if someone behaves in a religious manner then they are religious. It is objective observation.[/B]

What the hell is "Behave in a religious manner". Can you for instance list me those manners and elaborate further on your so called objective observation.

Cris[/B] It is simple; if someone engages in religious activities then they are religious. I don’t see any need to dispute what is simple objective observation.[/B]

Religious activities? Again, please show as a Cris list of what constitues a religious activity.....Again, let's examine your very objective observations.

Cris[/B] Why does it matter whether their ideas are secret or public? [/B]

Aren't you the one that carry the signature that says that you are free to do what you wish if it doesn't impact another person. When you hold your ideas secrete, you're not impacting anyone...The minute you go public, you're bound to brush into other opinions.

Cris[/B] Why are these terms negative? [/B]

Because you think so.....unless you wish to change your mind and tell me that being religious is a positive term.

Cris[/B] I am not pushing anything. You are what you are by physical characteristic or action. I have nothing to do with it.[/B]

Yes you're pushy. Extremely pushy...Religion is not a physical character, yet you are attempting to lump me together using one term with another 3 billion souls based on a subjective erratic list in your head.....How would you feel if I used a rope to tie you down and equate you to another 3 or 4 billion people based on a stereotype in you head.....If that's not prejudice, what is?

Flores,

You seem to be offended about being called religious and you appear to be having a problem explaining why you aren’t religious. I never intended offence or that this would be contentious.

My perspective is very simple. If someone believes in the existence of a god then they are necessarily religious to some degree, (and I didn’t mean this in the sense of academic qualifications), e.g. from the simple recognition of a god as an ultimate reality to extreme fundamentalism, and anything in-between.

From Webster: Religious - relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

From Encarta: Religious - believing in a higher being.

From Cambridge: Religious - having a strong belief in a god or gods.

From American Heritage: Religious - Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

Now there are many more in depth discussions of what is meant by being religious, so these simple dictionary definitions are by no means comprehensive. But they do seem to encompass my perspective that any belief in a god does qualify as being religious.

I suspect your objection to the label is because of the possible association with religious fundamentalists, and I can understand that concern. Perhaps the issue here is your perspective that the term ‘religious’ is a significant negative, and I don’t see it that way.

The real issue should be the reasoning behind why you believe in a deity. This current dispute seems like a pointless irrelevance, and largely comes down to the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘religious’.

Does this help?