Amadd wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 6:41am:


Amadd, of course you can pick from Judaism, Buddhism, science, satanism et al. If you have an interest in these things, it's unavoidable. If you're a fundamentalist, however, you'll place limits on what you learn. It's up to you.

freewill, you see?

And no, my beliefs are not formed from any divine or spiritual revelations. They are just my beliefs. I don't expect anyone to practice them - practice your own beliefs.

But please practice them.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 11^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:


If you were a scientist, you might find that to be quite a lonely position to hold - the position that Science somehow replaces religion. In fact most scientists tend to be accommodationists, including those who are atheistic, and quite a few scientists are actually religious.

Accommodationists hold, for various reasons, that when defending science, such as evolution, defenders should not assert that science is in opposition to religion. Instead, they should merely defend science. It seems to me a logical stance.

To take the position that they know everything is not very scientific.  It's a common fallacy among atheists without formal scientific training.

Quote:


Well, isn't it Christianity that we're talking about?
Ergo, most Christians will not be open to truths from other religions - and by "truths", I am meaning poignant facts concerning the human condition, not mumbo jumbo superstitions which are aimed soley at increasing business.

Quote:


..And once again I hear this rubbish oxymoron "theistic atheists".

To my knowledge, there are no "atheist scriptures". Even if there were, I think that it would be more likely that atheists would find religious scriptures far more interesting as these religious scriptures do tell a story of history (mumbo jumbo aside) and the "zeitgeist" of particular cultures.

Personally, my own definition of "an atheist" is one who will not feel threatened by the so-called word of God.
Most atheists will understand that these are merely the words of men. And yes, historically, they are but the words of men, not women...and certainly not some supernatural being.

IMO, an atheist does not fear the written or spoken threats of "historical or present time men or women" concerning supernatural forces which may or may not exist. An atheist acts as if these threats are non-existent, ie: those threats hold no power or control over the mind in the realistic world of an atheist.

However, all of that stuff about wanting to control your fellow being belies to a great extent the word "spirituality".
IMO, spirituality involves something that can be learned from various religions when reading with the right attitude, or it can be devalued if reading with the wrong attitude.
Similarly, an atheist can also fall into the same trap (or be in the same trap to begin with) of devaluing spirituality.

I thought christianity was the only jesus religion ?

muso wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 9:54am:


mormons are a subset of christianity.
islam are mohammadians, not christians.
They have nothing to do with him, despite their rhetoric.

christian refers to "Christ In."

muso wrote on Oct 12^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:



And a considerable number scientists appear to be coming around, to believe that evolutionary theory is a crock.






http://christiannature.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-scientists-being-persuaded-by.h...
http://creationmoments.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ef70e621be0fb33b32fc8d9...

muso wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 10:19am:


ah right.
So a belief that "names" Jesus, but not necessarily believe in him, as such ?

Most US xians prob want to dissociate from mormons due to mormons ..... "cultish" ways. Same as the bretherens.
Some parts of the NT they breech, some they don't.
it's a fine line I guess.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 13^th, 2011 at 12:45pm:


That recent case in Texas was hilarious.  (Pastor Robert Jeffress v Mitt Romney). The Southern Baptists calling the Mormons a cult is like the pot calling the kettle black. Of course the political candidates all did a good job of side-stepping the issue.