For the sake of clarity, and understanding, why don't we just all stand up and say

[MarkCharles]

whether we believe in a god or subscribe to a religious belief system, and what exactly we do believe?

It would make argument so much more rational here if we knew some people come at religious discussion be simply saying they are atheists, Catholics, Jews, some form of Protestants, Unitarians, others.
It MIGHT actually make discussion here a lot more respectful and courteous!!! Just because we know where each other is, and we don't have to take anonymous swipes at each other.

I'll start: and I hope at least 50 of the most frequent posters have the courage to say what they wish to describe themselves as.

I think something as bold and up-front as this could simply clear up any misconceptions and save a lot of computer time for us all.

Agree? No? Why not?

I am: (surprise to no one here) an elder retired former member and baptized protestant who has spent 40+ years not believing a single thing coming out of a Christian faith, done some reading in Buddhism, (don't find it convincing, but provocative), and find no reason on Earth to believe in a supernatural entity, nor a "creator", nor any reason to think that our time on this planet is anything less than the time before we were born onto this planet, a wonderful, non-miraculous but awesome thing that we have been given, but hardly a reason to believe in anything happening after our few instants of existence on this planet in this galaxy are here. We are here for a few instants in time. Make the most of it.

Now, religious believers, tell us YOUR story, or hide and choose not to reveal. The absence of a response here tells us more about you than any response could do.

[lazarus]

1. gnostic atheist

since the supernatural can't exist, there are no gods. I would go further and say that I think religion and all other forms of magical thinking hurt our society much more than they help.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. Also a gnostic atheist

Damn, I didn't know there were any others in the world.

I consider the idea of a deity "knowable", if such a thing existed, thus the gnostic label I give myself. If a deity is completely unknowable, then there's no point to having a god.

My definition may be slightly different than others, but I'm pretty comfortable with it.

[MarkCharles]

3. "If a deity is completely unknowable, then there's no point to having a god. "

Pretty much how I think.

Of course, only the atheists dare get this out there.

So I doubt many religious believers will make their points here on a thread like this.

[cbayer]

4. Frankly, I think this question is way too simplistic.

Individual beliefs or lack of beliefs are generally complex. In addition, they are often private.

Your question seems to seek to classify individual participants in this group into distinct factions. I am not sure how that would move us towards the goal of making this a group for lively and civil debate about issues of religion and theology.

[lazarus]

5. we're pretty much already factioned

[cbayer]

8. Agree that there are some who clearly identify themselves as part of a distinct

group, but I haven't seen most of the participants do that.

I don't consider myself a part of any particular group or faction here.

[tama]

59. To me it seems

that there is only one clear faction on RT using exclusive "us" to refer to themselves and attack "them others". I'm not sure that all participants on RT calling themselves atheists are part of that group-sentiment, probably not.

Rest of the gang seem to act more like individuals than members of a faction.

[darkstar3]

6. Would you like us to put it in our signatures?

oi.

[MarkCharles]

7. Actually, I'd like having non-believers NOT subject to ridicule here

And people who cannot be bold enough to ever state their own beliefs, and insist upon their own fantasies of mental torture upon non-believers.......

Wouldn't it be more humane if they simply came right out and said that they had an irrational bias?

[cbayer]

9. Herein lies one of the biggest problems with this group, imo.

You have just called people with whom you have a different POV cowards, fantasists, torturers, inhumane, biased and irrational.

Now, I have to ask you why anyone would want to share their personal beliefs with someone who takes this position from the outset?

[MarkCharles]

11. I called no one that, but you took it personally, now why is that?

You think fantasy is equal to science? You think people who condone torture are humane because they do it for their religion? You think people who already hold a viewpoint and choose to fire off their bias in anonymous posts where they are never held responsible are brave people you and I should respect?

Tell me how "rational" that is. I doubt you can.

[cbayer]

15. I didn't take it personally at all. And my answer to all your questions here are no.

My post was only meant to point out that it is highly unlikely that someone would share their POV with you in light of the tone of your post.

I think most of the participants in this group are not interested in fighting or picking sides. For those that do want to do that, they can go for it as long as they follow the guidelines for this group and this site.

[skepticscott]

17. Well, that's been the point all along

The religionists here just want to declare their beliefs and tell each other how wonderful the wonderfulness of each others beliefs is and how wonderful it is that they can all hold different beliefs of equal wonderfulness and still join hands and sing Kumbaya. But many are truly shocked and offended when called upon to defend or justify their statements of belief that involve questions of fact and evidence. So shocked and offended, in fact, that one gets the feeling that this is the first place theyve ever had their beliefs challenged.

[cbayer]

19. I have not really seen what you describe.

Granted, during my years of moderating, most of what I saw in R/T was a result of alerts and represented problem areas.

I feel no need to defend or justify my POV or beliefs. I don't feel any need to necessarily share them either, particularly if someone appears to be hostile to POV's other than their own. I also do not think that all things must be justified by fact and evidence. I love my husband. I can't really give you facts or scientifically based evidence as to why I feel that way. If you challenged me to do so, I would just have to tell you I know it to be true.

Like I said, those that wish to fight each other to try and prove that their own perspectives are correct and that the "other" is wrong can go for it. I am much more interested in how perspectives differ and how individuals reach their own conclusions.

[snagglepuss]

22. Perhaps this forum needs to be split into Religion and Religion Slugfest.

The Religion Forum would be for people of all stripes to discuss religious topics, atheists would be welcome but would need to be on their best behavior. A Religious Slugfest Forum would be where believers and atheists go head to head.

[dmallind]

26. There are several theist only groups. Near ignored, but available. nt

[snagglepuss]

68. I wasn't thinking so much of a theist only group rather a group where profound disagreement about

god, belief etc would be permitted but not sarcasm such as the terms sky fairy and whiny atheist. The suggested Religious Slugfest could be for no-hold barred arguments could be waged.

[dmallind]

119. God would have had to have designed human nature intelligently for that to happen

When there are knock-down arguments on any topic from choice of car to dress sense whenever disagreement is permitted, how would they be avoided on topics about the meaning of life and nature of the universe? That would take a human nature designed to be biased towards utility and progress, which any creator with the wit of a 7 year old scrote would have included. Since WYSIWYG, an inference should be simple.....

[EvolveOrConvolve]

27. I think we already have that situation

With the specific subgroups for believers and nonbelievers alike. This Religion group IS the "Religious Slugfest" group.

[snagglepuss]

69. True dat.

[iris27]

33. You assume incorrectly that it's only the atheists

who are showing less than stellar behavior here.

[cleanhippie]

40. Why would Atheists be the only ones needed to be "on good behavior?"

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

That kind of bullshit IS the problem.

[snagglepuss]

70. No different than my saying religious types should mind their p s and qs in the atheist forum.

ie not patronize atheists.

[laconicsax]

71. This isn't a safe haven group

The atheist group is, as are the handful of believer groups.

This group is the equivalent of R/T in DU2 and is a place for both believers and non-believers to discuss issues. The statement of purpose is quite clear:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

[snagglepuss]

75. SOP says discuss, it says nothing about hostile putdowns. I'm not even against venting hostility

when it comes to religion, I simply think that given that there is no longer an ignore function a separate forum would keep some discussions on track.

[skepticscott]

34. Gee, another attempt to cast doubt

on whether something has occurred because it does not fall within the personal experience of the poster. Where in the world have we seen THAT before?

And who ever said that "all things must be justified by fact and evidence"? Certainly not me. Whether you love you husband is not a matter of objective fact, but whether a god has a physical existence independent of the imagination of his believers IS. Hence the big difference .

[smile....xenu luvs u]

136. What's with all the secrecy? I, for one, would LOVE to know what you believe in

based upon my observations of your behavior on DU. Do tell, honey...

[humblebum]

45. You are like one of the blue men trying to convince people you are green. So much

so that you believe it yourself.

[LARED]

36. Would this comment

and insist upon their own fantasies of mental torture upon non-believers....... Wouldn't it be more humane if they simply came right out and said that they had an irrational bias?

fall under "respectful and courteous" discussion or an "anonymous swipe"?

[Leontius]

10. Why not just ask a simple question instead of trying to make it into some kind of challenge?

This and the attitude shown in your latter posts makes me want to respond by just saying, Piss off. Not exactly respectful or courteous but sadly appropriate.

[MarkCharles]

12. If you are not brave enough to step up to the plate with your beliefs, I can understand how

challenging that must be, if you wish to keep insulting others, why do it with full disclosure?

I disclosed mine, so why not take a swipe at me for attempting to get the really BRAVE people to come forward.

You, obviously are NOT one of the brave ones. You love to insult, and then hide.

[Leontius]

16. You really don't get it do you, a simple question would have been enough to get some responses

but you could not resist the chance to insult and belittle believers after claiming to want a more courteous and respectful discourse, somehow that doesn't actually seem like an honest attempt to reach such a commendable goal. When confronted with questions as to your beligerent and condescending way you desemble and deflect, again not showing that you honestly seek what you claim as the purpose of your op.

[struggle4progress]

13. In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with G-d; and the Word was G-d.

The same was with G-d from the beginning. All things were made by Him; and nothing, that was made, was made without Him. In Him was Life; and that Life was the Light of humanity. And the Light still shines in darkness; and the darkness has never understood it

[cleanhippie]

41. What is G-d?

[TygrBright]

43. ummm... General Discussion, I think.

I'm sorry! I'm sorry!!

If I have a character defect, that's it: A constitutional inability to refrain from the cheap ones...

apologetically,
Bright

[struggle4progress]

66. !

[cleanhippie]

96. So just what does G-d mean?

[LeftishBrit]

97. Religious Jews (and possibly some other groups) consider it wrong to use the Deity's name in full

Hence they will use indirect references such as HaShem ('the name') or will use partial spellings, such as G-d.

[cleanhippie]

98. Ahh, you mean like in Harry Potter, where they can't bring themselves to say Voldemort's name?

Like that?

[tama]

101. In Finnish language

we don't call bear by it's true name, but use many other less provocative names to refer to our mythical ancestor. In Finnish it's also considered distasteful or impolite to use personal pronoun 'you' or first name in most situations. There is preference towards a-personal (cf. a-theist) grammatical structures, that don't exist in English and other Indo-European languages.

[cleanhippie]

106. So just like Harry potter. Got it, thanks.

[tama]

108. You're wellcome! nt

[LeftishBrit]

167. Not exactly; but I would guess the taboo on Voldemort's name is indeed based on actual religious

taboos on the names of supernatural beings. But not exactly the same as God, more like the Devil.

I have been told that some Protestant groups, though prepared to use God's name, won't say that of the Devil - apparently for fear that he might appear. People from such groups also won't say the word 'Hell' but speak of it as 'the Other Place', so the Devil becomes 'the one who lives in the Other Place'. Such expressions as 'Old Nick' and 'Old Harry' also stem from such taboos (though I don't know why the Devil would be thought to be a Nicholas or a Henry!)

[ChadwickHenryWard]

148. Isn't "G-d" equally a representation of the Lord's name as "God?"

Why should one be blasphemous and the other not?

[cleanhippie]

172. Not sure. Struggle4progress seems to not want to answer.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

175. Well, I know that speaking or writing the tetragrammaton is supposed to be blasphemous,

a violation of the Third Commandment. But when that idea was current Hebrew was thought to be the language of god himself and those letters in that permutation was the actual objective name of god, that he used to refer to himself in heaven. But "God" is just a placeholder for that name. So either only those four letters are sacred, or any placeholder in any language that acts as the "name of god" is blasphemous. "G-d" is equally a representation of the name of the deity as "God." There's no logical difference.

Although, it's not like S4p came up with it himself, so I don't really think it's incumbent upon him to defend it.

[cleanhippie]

176. Yeah, I know. The really, REALLY irrational beliefs are the hardest to defend.

This being one of them, so I understand anyone's reluctance to try, as it just opens up a whole can of worms about defending the myriad other irrational beliefs, too.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

177. Well, it's not like he got in my face about it.

"No, dude, it's totally the will of god." I don't even know if that's why he wrote that, so I won't push it.

[uriel1972]

14. I don't believe in the supernatural

I believe everything that exists in the universe exists within the universe, if you get my drift. However if someone can muster up convincing evidence otherwise, I could change my mind. I have yet to see convincing evidence.

I am an Atheist by attrition, after following the logical pathways of investigation, I have concluded there is not enough evidence to believe in any of the gods so far presented. Again provide me with convincing evidence and I'll go about changing my mind. And again, I have yet to see convincing evidence.

[The Straight Story]

18. Well, I think most all humans (but me and some friends) are all idiots

Jews, People who believe in Shintoism, Buddhists, Agnostics (how can people be on the fence and not like me??), Humanists (humans are not special, just a bunch of chemicals walking around - very much like the sun and such. Oh, and those Christians and Muslims.

Billions of people are wrong and believe in fairy tales (or higgs boson like things, string theory, etc) - so my belief, since you want it, is that unless I believe it, your ideals are silly and I should ridicule them and try to demean you so that you will see things my way.

[ZombieHorde]

52. "humans are not special, just a bunch of chemicals walking around -very much like the sun and such."

I know you meant this as snark, but I think it is beautiful.

[The Straight Story]

78. Not fully meant as snark

In some ways that is all we are on a basic level. There may well be more to it (just like folks like me create computer programs and they 'exist' - so there might be someone else up there and we are all just a program, etc).

The only thing we can CURRENTLY 'prove' is that we are just a bunch of chemicals. But as we learn more we might see that we are more than just that. We could not prove many things before and we are currently doing things that folks (scientists) once would have thought impossible.

In many ways humans are special - we can create things and send probes to Mars, etc - fish and deer cannot and never will do such things. Is it because a roll of the dice or is it more based on the programmer who created things to be as they are?

[LAGC]

156. Well, if there is a cosmic "programmer"...

...he must have been drunk when he coded us into being.

[rrneck]

20. Weeellllll,

Most people would consider me an atheist. The more literal their interpretation of a deity the more likely they are to think so.

Most days before around noon I consider myself an atheist. Afternoons and evenings not so much.

Take yer pick.

[GliderGuider]

21. I'm practicing discarding all beliefs altogether.

That includes any belief in the supernatural, the natural, the subnatural, and the unnatural. Religion, science, even the reality of existence itself - no belief in any of it. No belief in my self, none in you. No belief in any isms or ologies. So no theism or atheism, no humanism or epistemology. And since disbelief is simply the inverse of belief, I am discarding all disbelief as well.

Instead I propose to dedicate the future use of my consciousness to the direct experience of what is, filtering my experience through as few beliefs as possible. It promises to be an interesting trip.

I don't know what stick that will leave for MarkCharles to beat me with, but if he believes a beating is necessary I'm sure he will find something he can use.

[rrneck]

28. Can't beat a hole in water. nt

[GliderGuider]

29. True that. nt

[LARED]

73. Even though you are attempting to discard all beliefs

there is one thing you believe.

I don't know what stick that will leave for MarkCharles to beat me with, but if he believes a beating is necessary I'm sure he will find something he can use.

[GliderGuider]

74. Touché... n/t

[FarCenter]

23. OK

The universe, comprised of matter and energy, objectively exists and is not an illusion.

The mind is an information theoretic object which is an emergent property of electrochemical processes in the brain.

The mind does not continue to exist after death, and during life it is not in communication with any other mind.

There may or may not be a cosmological diety, but it doesn't matter, since there is no way to detect its presence.

[Odin2005]

24. I'm a Agnostic Atheist Buddhist.

And that is not an oxymoron, the core teachings of Siddhartha Gautama says nothing about deities or the supernatural. Later Buddhist sects did develop theologies as Buddhism's core teachings got corrupted, bastardized, and mixed in with popular folk religion, superstition, and Hindu philosophy (yes, Tibetan Buddhists, I'm looking at you!), but these are latter accretions.

[Vehl]

77. Just to clarify

Atheistic and Agnostic Philosophies in Hinduism Predate Buddhism. I'm a Hindu Atheist. To say that the degradation(the Mahayanist's might beg to differ! ) of Buddhism is due to its mixing with Hinduism would be incorrect, imho.

Buddha spoke against some of the prevalent practices of the masses, not that of all Hindu Philosophies. In fact by Ignoring the mention of deity, he is more agnostic than Atheistic(due to his preference for the middle path)...While on the other hand there are some very explicitly Atheistic Hindu philosophies. Later on, Colonial era interpretations of Hinduism(Note: The blame should also be laid on the later Buddhist commentators who wanted to create a new "identity" for their philosophy) created this supposed "disparity" between What Buddha taught and what Hinduism is. Anyone who has studied Zen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta would note that they speak of the same thing. Buddha never said that he was creating a new religion...even though this notion might offend some Buddhists, he was and is considered to be one of the greatest Hindu philosophers by Hindus to this day. He did not teach anything "new" but taught what was usually relegated to small circles of scholars and philosophers to the masses. And he did not entirely succeed either...as the masses went back to what they were doing beforehand...and included him as a god-figure!

as you mentioned

Later Buddhist sects did develop theologies as Buddhism's core teachings got corrupted

^^ The reason this happens is well known to Hindus. Any philosophy, especially one that is impersonal like Buddhism or the Non-Dual/Atheistic schools of Hinduism, will not be a hit with the masses unless and otherwise they are also given the scholastic background to support these ideas. It's impossible to tell a person,"there is no god, you are responsible for your own actions" unless he is also given a good base of knowledge on the art of logic, and critical thinking.Unless a person is able to critcally think and reason, such philosophies cannot take root.

This is the very reason that Philosophical aspects of Hinduism were not found in the mass-Hindu versions. Buddhism too later found this out when Buddhists themselves started creating a Buddhist pantheon...with Buddha in the center along with the attendant deities such as Devas and Avalokatishwaras. How many of the Hundreds of Millions of Buddhists in the world today actually "follow" what Buddha was teaching? and how many "pray" to him as a "god"-like figure? The former category would be under 10% is my guess, and I think i'm being generous.

It is this realization by the Buddhists that eventually led to the creation of the "doctrine of two truths" in Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

And yes....the Hindu philosophers would have looked at this and said..."told ya so".

Even to this day 99.99% of non-Hindus would be shocked to learn that Atheism is a perfectly valid, and even welcome philosophy in Hinduism. So much so that the Atheistic non-dual philosophical varieties of Hinduism are generally accepted by most Other Hindu philosophies to be the highest form of Hinduism, albeit one that is hard for the common man to follow (due to its totally impersonal (and seemingly cold) nature). Due to the scholastic background needed as a base for many of the non-Dual(And Atheistic) philosophies in Hinduism, most of the lay Hindus chose a much-watered down version of Hinduism(or some of the bhakti schools of thought).

So one arrives at the question, "If Atheistic/Agnostic philosophies existed in Hinduism even before Buddha's time, why did Buddhism came about?". A good question indeed, because Buddha never claimed he was creating a new religion (ps..Buddhism and Hinduism are not "religions' per se..but I use that term due to ease of use), only his followers did. Buddha spoke against the commonly held beliefs of his day....ironically later Buddhists sects degenerated into the very thing he tried to speak against.

This is the reason why I avoid calling them Hinduism and Buddhism..I call these the Dharmic religions/Philosophies.


So yeah...its somewhat incorrect to say Buddhism got 'corrupted" by Hinduism and other traditions...nope..it fell prey to the same conditions Hinduism fell prey to.

ps: here is an interesting paper on the Similarity between Buddhism and Certain Hindu Philosophies.

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm

[Odin2005]

87. Great post, thanks!

[Vehl]

104. you are welcome :)

[dmallind]

25. I just don't believe in anything that lacks evidence.

Gods, unicorns, $2000 a week easy legal stay at home jobs anyone can get, Bigfoot, take your pick. All the same to me. Some just have more interesting stories than others, and some are more dangerous ideas than others, but my own opinion of the claims themselves is equal.

[iris27]

30. What is this, the Take Your Side thread?

Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 03:17 AM - Edit history (1)

I think it shakes out pretty clearly who believes what (or doesn't) during the course of discussion.

[rrneck]

31. It's a lot like choosing sides for dodgeball in seventh grade. nt

[GliderGuider]

32. Dammit,no-one ever picked me for their team back then either. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

35. I am Shinto~Buddhist. (Jodo Shinshu)

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:43 PM - Edit history (2)

I have stated this often. I am not practicing, but I am exploring more about Shinto then Buddhism at the moment. In Japan, people tend to be more superstitious then grounded in Religion. Shinto does apply to everyday life in Japan, in behavior, and as the language is based on levels of politeness adds to the culture in many rich ways. Even the simple act of saying of "itadakimasu" before eating is traditional. It is a way of thanking those who provide the food and those who grow it.

The stories I post on Japanese folk tales allow me to learn more about the people of those early days, as much as their beliefs. The stories are entertaining as well. Sometimes one can find a lesson or two, about how people can be, to each other. Its no ways a perfect thing, but life is never perfect. Do Rocks and trees, mountains and brooks have their own spirits? Perhaps not..but I believe something is there. I love the traditions and culture of my roots.. and though I may question some things, I can still appreciate what has been passed down generation to generation from the early days when the first Asian people crossed the Sea of Japan and found their ways onto a small island.

IT was once told to me, that when a master sword maker, forged a Nihon Tou.. Katana, that they used heat and water to help create the perfect sword. The story of how, when a master sword maker dips the hot metal into water, one could hear the screaming sound. Many at the time, reflected that this sound came from the soul of a long dead warrior, and who became one with the metal of the sword, so when a Samurai went into battle, it was not just him.. but the spirit of another Samurai ancestor with him. This is why one often finds that old swords do have names. The sword maker chose the name of the spirit that entered into the sword. Along with the spirit were many small symbols called Menuki ornaments placed on the sword's handle or Tsuka, such as the one below :



Symbols of Dragons, Cranes, Tigers, Dragon flys, Cherry blossoms etc which were placed on the Tsuka to give the sword more spiritual power, which a Samurai needed to wield, in the face of death in battle. If the Samurai did well against his enemy the sword would become part of the family pride, the inheritance of generations to come. Those Samurai who had fallen, would be given the chance for their spirits to fuse with a new sword that would be forged for the next time. The swords of the fallen were often given back to the sword maker, so he could melt it all down and start afresh.

I feel honored to be somewhat connected to the culture and tradition of my ancestors.

[tfsoccer]

37. beautiful! Thank you.

[tfsoccer]

38. This can not be the result of random chance!

The fact that the miracles/spiritualities of reason, love, gratitude, hope, joy, growth, humor, beauty, reflection, cooperation, compromise, compassion, equanimity, passion, forgiveness, democracy, music, art, movies, research, healing, discussion, Einstein, Sagan, Roosevelt, Buddha, Jesus, Mohamed, Tich Nat Hahn, Thoreau, Niagra Falls etc., all cultures & diversity, Lau Tsu, religion, philosophy. community, computers-- EVERYTHING exists, proves the existence of intelligence, power and love. This is God. 'Anti-god' forces exist that dispel belief in God and create suffering, but also motivate Godliness to overpower them. That's my two cents at the moment.

[cleanhippie]

42. Thats an interesting view, but who actually thinks this is the result of "random chance?"

Natural Selection, Evolution, the formation of galaxies, stars, planets....NOT "random chance" at all. It a very sophisticated system, the furthest thing from random chance one can get.

[tfsoccer]

47. Most aetheists? or people without a belief in a god-like force governing the universe?

My post was addressing those with doubts, including my own, which may often stem from atheistic thought.

[cleanhippie]

49. Maybe I should rephrase. Most PEOPLE with a basic understanding of biology, evolution, and the

sheer scale of the universe know that it is not random chance.


I was not trying to be contrary, I just took exception to your use of "random chance" to describe the universe and all it contains. That is the term many religious folk use to try and disparage science and the scientific method as the best way to understand the world we live in.

[tama]

60. God does not throw dice?

Likewise, not trying to be contrary, just parafrasing Einstein's objection to random chance of quantum physics. In science, to my understanding, "random chance" is not a simple concept and leads to speculative cosmologies, philosophies about order or orders and chaos etc.

For example, an irrational transcendental number looks like infinite totally random litany of numbers, but a known transcendental number like pi is fundamental geometric ratio and can be generated by relatively simple arithmetic formulas. Given the little we know - even about math - there is always the theoretical possibility that there is some generative and/or implicit order - known unknown or unknown unknown - behind what looks like totally random from our point of view.

[Mariana]

57. Most atheists do not believe that.

If someone told you they do, that person lied to you.

[darkstar3]

61. You've wrapped two fallacies into one, here.

First, the fallacy of the "straw man". There are simply no atheists, or other people, out there who actually believe that this universe is entirely the result of random chance. To say so is to substitute an easily ridiculed view for the actual position of the people you disagree with.

Second, the fallacy of the "false choice." It simply isn't the case that there is either a "god-like force governing the universe", or the universe is the result of random chance. There are any number of possibilities in between.

[Angry Dragon]

62. How do you know everything that other people think??

[darkstar3]

63. If you're referring to the statement I made about people and their belief in random chance,

it is a commonly used straw man that originated with believers who wished to recharacterize the position of atheists.

If you actually think there is someone out there that believes this universe in its entirety is the result of nothing more than pure random chance, produce them please.

[Angry Dragon]

64. I do not know what everyone thinks so it is impossible

for me to discount that position being held by anyone..........

Chance is random is it not??
Perhaps you could list all that things that are not random chance...............

[darkstar3]

65. That's called an appeal to ignorance, and I'm not playing.

[tama]

67. There's 50-50 chance (or more)

that chance can be some other order besides random...

[tfsoccer]

76. My questions indicate a POSSIBLE answer to a response to mine...

I apologize if someone got offended in response to what I said--no criticism was meant toward atheists, SOME of whom I admittedly guessed may believe that everything happens by some kind chance, not by force of god. I certainly didn't mean that I knew what all atheists believed.

[tfsoccer]

188. Einstein on God

&feature=related

[cleanhippie]

189. Ray Comfort? Bananna man? THAT is your response? Seriously?

Wow, dude. Wow.

[LARED]

39. Ok

Born into a reformed Jewish family. Very little education in the Jewish faith and traditions.

Spent most of my adult years until 30 something trying to understand what I believed and why I believe it. Looked at many spiritual paths including atheism. I guess I was best described as agnostic.

Around twenty years ago, became a Christian after picking up the bible and reading and studying it for the first time in my life. My faith would be identified as within Protestantism, although I am non denominational.

While I hold to religious views that would be considered conservative at DU, my politics are well to the left of middle.

[Pendrench]

44. Roman Catholic

Hello -

My name is Tim, and I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

I was raised Catholic from birth (baptism) and attended 12 years of Catholic school.

How would I describe my beliefs? That's hard to say...but I've always been partial to the following quote:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Thanks for asking the question -it's always interesting to see what other people believe or do not believe.

Tim

[Iggo]

46. I am an atheist.

I am without theism.

[mr blur]

48. To be honest, I 'd have to identify with "angry atheist",

who is sick to death of religion and its pernicious influence in our lives. I'm tired of people who think their "faith" entitles them to automatic respect. Everone has the right to believe what they want, but not the right not to be offended by those beliefs being mocked.

I'm 56 and I have never believed in the supernatural. And yes, I have read the bible; I think it's a primative, ludicrous and frequently offensive collection of stories, myths, superstition, fear and paranoia.

I can't imagine what it must be like to live in the U.S., where a politician is not only not mocked for spouting superstitious cliches, but actually seen as some sort of moral force for good. He is a repulsive little man and was a terrible influence in the U.K., but Tony Blair was right when he said that if you seriously discuss religion and faith as a part our political system, people will "...think you're a nutter".
And so they would, and should.

[cleanhippie]

50. [phone]

[LeftishBrit]

51. I am a second-generation Jewish atheist...

with some Jewish and Christian believers in my extended family.

Lived 40 years of my life without caring what others believed, except for having a lot of respect for believers who used their beliefs for good. Then the anti-science religious right-wingers contributed to Kerry's defeat in 2004. And I had the joy of discovering what religious-right voters were like, because I was on a children's literature forum, which included a nutter who kept posting all sorts of off-topic stuff about how Kerry was a baby-killer and how war wasn't nearly as bad as abortion, and how gay rights would lead to paedophilia, etc. A (Christian) friend of mine was so upset that she left the forum.

But at least all this was the sort of thing that Couldn''t Happen Here. Until 2009-2010, when 'pro-lifers' engaged in an incredibly vile, and ultimately successful, smear campaign to defeat our MP in favour of a 'pro-life' Tory. And then vile right-wing journalists recommended this as a model for everyone to follow:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100103496/abortion-vote-the-fate-of-dr-evan-harris-should-be-a-warning-to-mps-who-ignore-their-christian-voters/

Meanwhile, I noted that on the other side of the world, in secular Australia, the vile Christian Right-winger Tony Abbott missed becoming Prime Minister BY JUST ONE PARLIAMENTARY SEAT.

All has shaken me enormously and made me aware of how dangerous the Christian Right is, and that it's NOT just an American phenomenon.

I have no problem with religion. I have lots of problems with the religious right.

In case any theist on the board ever wondered, 'What does more to tempt a person into prejudice against religion - 20 years of working in the same university as Richard Dawkins, or ONCE experiencing a political triumph by the Christain Right in your backyard?" - well, I'm here to give you the answer. For your best chance of defeating 'New Atheism': don't worry about the New Atheists; worry about the Christian Right-wingers!

[Adsos Letter]

53. Someone with a devotion to Church/State separation, for the good of everyone.

That is my primary interest in the Religion Group.

I have no interest in attacking/criticizing/evaluating-the-rightness-of anyone else's attitude toward belief/unbelief, religion/lack thereof EXCEPT as it relates to the issue of Church/State separation.

I consider myself a Christian, for what it's worth. I'm not going to identify the denomination because my differences with its doctrines/official stands would take too long to explain, and I have no interest in doing so anyway.

[MH1]

54. It would take too long to describe what I believe. Short version:

I consider myself quasi-Buddhist/Christian in a non-practicing sort of way. I think religion has positive value for society but has also been used for immense evil. Currently Evil is winning.

I respect Atheism but think rabid Anti-theism can cause as much problem as rabid Theism, and wish people would settle down and respect each other's beliefs (or non-beliefs), at least to the point where those beliefs do actual harm on a societal level, or involve criminal acts. Don't try to tell me how to live my life and I won't tell you how to live yours. If you want to bow in some direction 5 time a day, whatever. But if you're going to come around and tell me I can't drive or can't show my face or can't live MY life the way I want to, then you can kindly eff off.

Some would say I'm agnostic but I don't agree with that. I happen to believe certain things but don't push them on others. Mainly, I think the foundational details aren't all that relevant to how we live our lives each day. I believe a person can live a moral life no matter what their religious beliefs or non-beliefs; but some organized religions make it more difficult to live a truly moral life, through the falsehoods they preach.

Well that was supposed to be short.

(But, please do tell: if someone chooses not to respond, what does that tell you about them? I'm assuming that wasn't directed at relatively infrequent visitors like myself. But still, strikes a bit of a harsh note.)


Edit to add, because I just saw the post above me: Am absolutely for church/state separation. One would hope that would go without saying on a 'Democratic' message board, but my expectations have recently been significantly lowered.

[Angry Dragon]

55. If there are gods they do not need an organized religion

[Vehl]

56. Hindu Atheist.

A practitioner of one of the oldest surviving schools of Hinduism, Atheism(Of the non-dual philosophy)

[tama]

58. No religion

Was baptized Lutheran, left the church at age of fifteen, when it became legally possible.

Been interested in many spiritual paths, philosophies, science, etc. And what Gliderguider said.

[Meshuga]

72. Here is mine

The video below explains it pretty well:

&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLBAC4C5CECA02492C

Given the amount of beans I consumed today, you can say that I have created several universes and there is more to come before I go to bed.

[Thats my opinion]

79. My response

The invitation for each of us to state what we believe was a positive step, even if the invitation was somewhat loaded. At this writing there have been 55 responses. Take a look at them. While there were a few focused on the invitation, take a look at responses 1, 3, 7, 11, 17, 36, 25, 49, 48, 50, 55, and others. They are in part or in whole attacks on belief and believers, not what the original post suggested. It looks like just another excuse to savage religion and those with religious commitments. That may be a legitimate subject in this forum, but it is not what the invitation was all about. And having been subject to this savaging of belief and believers, the original poster wondered why so few believers will choose to respond. “Put your neck on the block so we can chop your head off,” is hardly the kind of invitation that invites an open response. If you wonder why so few believers have posted here, just read what has gone on.

Since I feel, however, that the initial invitation was legitimate I will risk putting my neck out by beginning to tell you what I believe. I do this realizing that whatever I say will probably be savaged by a few. Nevertheless there may be others out there willing to hear, even if they disagree.

First, as a beginning, here are a few things I believe.
Then I will describe how I came to these conclusions.

I believe:
In the generation of a peacefully world and the absence of violence where at all possible. That love is better than hate, peace better than war, justice better than inequality.

The care of the earth, the dignity and sacredness of the environment and the sacred obligation to preserve it.

The dignity of every person regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, age,
nation, disability or economic condition.

I believe a woman has the right to control what happens in here body--and that includes the right of conscience.

I believe in music, art, poetry, literature, architecture and all those things which point to the transcendence of purpose and beauty. I believe there is a transcendence that is beyond all human efforts.

I believe we all have a responsibility to the poor, the fragile, the left out, the discriminated against, and that “no one is an island entire to him/her self,” and that we have a mutual obligation to care for each other.

I believe that society is responsible for sustaining the dignity of all its members.
That includes fair housing opportunities, nutrition, health care and a decent old age.

There are so many more—but that is a beginning list.

Furthermore I believe that these are all moral problems, not just social or economic problems. As such they are proper subjects for those persons and institutions based in moral commitments, which have not only the right, but the responsibility to be directly involved in the humanization of society and the care of the earth.



Now let me very briefly state how I have come to these conclusions. I know that many other people come to the same conclusions by a variety of other paths—all of which I support and celebrate. Mine is not the only way—but it is a way and it is the way that has determined the focus of my life and multi-millions of other religious believers.For me it has been a life-long quest.

The polar star is the life and teachings of Jesus, who was “all of God we can see in human form.” (from my book , "Building a Biblical Faith.&quot

I believe that these ethical commitments are profoundly rooted in the Mystery which is part of all of life and the essence of religion.

I believe that what we call God is not to be found in doctrines, but in the energy by which all things exist. God is not to be identified with the world—that is pantheism, but that God is the energy, the process which infuses everything –that is panentheism. This energy is seen in the upward thrust which we call evolution.

I believe that God is far more than a person, but the energy by which the world functions.

I believed that in every person there is the spirit of nobility—a holy spirit--which which at its best reaches in and through the whole creation.

All this is just a brief start. The filling out of this synopsis can be found in much larger writings of mine. What I have said is not just a private opinion, but is what is understood in almost every progressive seminary and in hundreds of thousands of local churches. It is an orthodoxy which talks about the real world and real reasons for faith.

[laconicsax]

80. Did you really need to start your comment with an attack?

[darkstar3]

81. And that would be different from the past...how?

[Leontius]

82. And yet you fail to ask the same question of the original poster and his related comments

How ironic.

[darkstar3]

83. The original poster isn't guilty of repeated attempts to chide or shut down the board

for what he sees as "attacks". It's the hypocrisy...

[Leontius]

84. And that is exactly what I just pointed out.

The fact that this poster is constantly berated for his 'attacks' because you and others don't like his tone or share his point of view but will not offer even the slightest rebuke to 'attacks' from the original poster ever for the same is hypocrisy

[darkstar3]

85. So you think laconicsax is a hypocrite, and TMO is not, is that what you're saying?

'Cause it sure reads that way.

[FarCenter]

86. The energy for evolution has been supplied from the sun and from terrestrial radioactive decay

Plus small amounts from other phenomena, such as tides and chemical reactions.

[tama]

95. In contemporary science

notions of 'energy' and 'information' have become quite inseparable.

Shnoll countered 'Shnoll effect' first in biochemical processes and the proceeded to study it in radioactive decay. It is not random as Bohr and many others thought, but the data is shaped e.g. by cosmophysical fluctuations of day, moon and year. As the effect is present also in biochemical processes, it is natural to assume that the informative energies of Shnoll effect play a role also in evolution.

[FarCenter]

100. Information and energy are quite separable

Although information theory borrows words like "entropy" from thermodynamics, and although the maths are the same, the subject matter is different. Energy and information are related only in studies of the energy required to do computation or communications using physical systems. However, the study of reversible computation allows computation at zero energy.

Has the Shnoll effect been confirmed by any group not associated with Shnoll? The use of humans to match histograms by stretching, shifting and mirroring them as part of the data analysis is a bit alarming.

[tama]

103. Mass and energy

were considered quite separable for a long time, until Einstein saw unity behind their superficial differences. Information is integral concept both in general relativity and quantum theory, and if the the maths are the same, then...?

The conclusions of Landauer and Bennet about reversible computation do not speak about computation at zero energy but computation without entropic loss of exergy/information.

Shnoll effect has been confirmed also by other experimentalists. More discussion on the Einstein thread of RT.

[rrneck]

88. Sounds good to me.

Care to expand on the paragraph regarding art?

[Thats my opinion]

89. Art is a window into the transcendent.

It takes us beyond rationality or scientific truth. It takes the creator and the viewer out of the self and the mundane. It tells stories that have little to do with facts but much to do with imagery, imagination, the holy. If you go into any art gallery and wander from room to room you will be confronted with images that grew out of the stories religion tells--stories about things that never happened but are forever and always true. Can any one prove what beauty is, or sentiment, or joy, or compassion, or wholeness? If nothing is real except what can be taken into a lab and "proved," all these things are called nothingness. Last year i stood before the great statue of David in Florence. Now tell me that the awe I felt--as do thousands every day, is not real because that sense is not scientific? Art, music etc. are all mundane avenues into the eternal, the transcendent, the real.

[uriel1972]

90. As an atheist I do not say your

experience is not real. However your experience is not evidence of the supernatural. Neurophysiology is making leaps and bounds and is tracking down the mental states which make up love, joy the feeling that something is beautiful.

Not to mention science is quite capable of working out why something is found to be beautiful and why something is not. These are all the result of physical processes and explicable.

There is no evidence of an eternal, transcendent 'Real'. The only real we have is fleeting and finite.

[tama]

94. Is math 'Real'?

"Fleeting and finite" are not the first adjectives that come to mind when describing math - on which scientific notions about time and space and change are based on. On the other hand, mathematicians have highly developed sense of mathematical beauty and beauty is a fundamental criterion of mathematical truth.

[FarCenter]

102. Math is not "Real".

Mathematics consists of processing sequences of symbols according to specific rules.

Some branches of mathematics (but not all) compute results which correspond to observations of reality and thus are useful as models for science.

[tama]

105. What else

if anything are "observations of reality" besides "processing sequences of symbols according to specific rules"?

[FarCenter]

107. The observations are symbols, but the reality is not n/t

[tama]

109. Wouldn't it be more simple

to say that what is real is observations and symbols, rather than "reality" that sounds awfully metaphysical?

[FarCenter]

113. No -- because then one has to adopt some more complex theory to account for consistency

It is simpler to say that mass, energy, and other characteristics of the physical universe are real because they are consistent for all observers. People can agree on what things like length mean and how to measure it. Observations are consistent for populations of conscious minds, unconscious organisms, and computerized automata.

To account for the physical universe as a construction of a mind which is processing observations would require complex mechanisms to achieve this consistency. Furthermore, there is no evidence that mental processes are able to alter the physical universe, which would reasonably be the case were it a product of the mind.

And yes, I'm aware of the theory that it is all most probably just a simulation game being run on a meta-computer by a child of a meta-race. But there is no way to tell whether that is the case.

[tama]

116. Never mind nt

[tama]

123. Let's see

So "mental phenomena" are not real but their "objects" are? Is then "object relation" not a mental phenomenon but a 'Real'?

Could it be possible that tortured logic like this is founded on unnecessary and confusing metaphysical assumptions?

[FarCenter]

127. Mental phenomena are the result of the consciousness app running on the unconscious OS on wetware

There is nothing complicated about it (in principle, that is -- the details are complex, of course).

What is an "object relation"?

[tama]

135. Very good of you

to openly state your opinion - but I'll stay skeptic of both the principle and details.

Object relation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

[uriel1972]

121. Maths is no less real than any human creation.

It is used to describe our observations like any other language. It is not privileged, it is not special,it is just another field of human endevour. And mathematical beauty is NOT a criterion of mathematical truth, being correct is.

[tama]

124. So what

is the relation of math to scientific theories about time and space?

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

[uriel1972]

126. Maths is the language in which we describe those theories

the numbers aren't actually within the universe any more than words we use to describe the universe are.

[tama]

134. Interesting

Math (much more besides numbers) being *outside* the universe that mathematical physics describes certainly sounds fishy.

As for differences between math and natural languages, it's been shown that newtonian mechanics can be fully discribed in natural language, but the consensus seems to be that that is not possible for quantum mechanics. Or at least not in English.

[uriel1972]

138. I wasn't saying maths exists outside the universe,

but that the universe exists without maths, maths is something we use to describe the universe. Natural languages? There are unnatural languages? Maths is a language we created it isn't given from on high.

[GliderGuider]

144. Natural languages:

From Wikipedia:

In the philosophy of language, a natural language (or ordinary language) is any language which arises in an unpremeditated fashion as the result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect. A natural language is typically used for communication, and may be spoken, signed, or written. Natural language is distinguished from constructed languages and formal languages such as computer-programming languages or the "languages" used in the study of formal logic, especially mathematical logic.

So math is a constructed language, not a natural language.

[tama]

159. No you weren't, but let's be carefull

universe - as we know it - exists with maths, as math is part of this universe. Perhaps you are now trying to say that universe and/or human experience of universe could exist without math? As there are cultures and languages without math (and myths), no problem.

In terms of scientific world view, however, relativity and quantum physics could not exist without math. Scientifically understood physical universe cannot exist without maths, that should be self-evident.

Gliderguider already cleared the confusion about what is meant with 'natural languages'.

[tfsoccer]

110. Are you saying that science drives creation?

If so, what drives science. Science explains and finds real patterns in creation. Most great scientist believe that there is a force behind findings of science.

[uriel1972]

120. nope science observes that's it's job.

And where do you get this 'great scientists' thing I've never heard of it. Oh and science finds patterns in things that aren't created either.

[tfsoccer]

137. Science also theorizes, proves and explains.

I'll look for the quote by Sagen,where several scientists of Carl Sagen's rank said that an intelligent force existed that is the only say for creation to be explained. Certainly you know that Einstein also believed that God existed?

[tama]

160. Einstein

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:36 AM - Edit history (2)

when referring to God was referring to 'philosophers God' (also known as Spinoza's God - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F).

"Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Spinoza_in_literature

[tfsoccer]

164. thank you--'beautiful concept of God!

[darkstar3]

92. Now you're attacking the same old straw man that all non-believers

don't believe in love, or beauty, or joy, or awe, simply because you think these things cannot be viewed, measured, or studied.

Guess what? They can. People are studying these mental reactions all the time. This idea of "you can't prove love" is nothing but rhetorical bullshit in the form of a pernicious lie.

[Thats my opinion]

111. NOBODY said that atheists don't believe in love etc.

If we affirm something, it doesn't imply that others don't have similar aesthetic values.

I am reminded, however, of what some guy said a few decades ago when it was popular to believe that that hormones controlled everything.

"We can no longer sing, 'for he's a jolly good fellow.'
Now we must sing, 'for he has golly good glandular secretions.'"

[darkstar3]

130. You said it right here:

"Now tell me that the awe I felt--as do thousands every day, is not real because that sense is not scientific?"

That's the same old straw man that I'm talking about.

[rrneck]

154. You can go out

but you gotta come back.

A novel is incoherent without syntax. A painting is useless without formal cohesion. Music without proper pitch is just noise. Every transcendental moment is coupled to a moment in real time. The process of artmaking could well be described as the switching from the transcendental to the physical and back again. Without empirical physicality transcendence is wasted, without transcendence there would be no reason to move in the world. Life is experienced between those two states.

I've never been one to put much stock in the "artist as shaman" mystique. Each and every one of us is not only capable of the movement from transcendence to physicality, we can hardly avoid it. I see no difference between the artist in his studio or the scientist in the lab. The dancer and the carpenter are, as far as I am concerned, one and the same.

The "facilitators of transcendence" otherwise known as today's spiritual leaders have just found a way to sell people something they've already got. The only thing they're making in this world is money. They offer an easy way to produce a transcendent experience and the only the only way it can be manifest is the support of a corporate organization designed to feed off people's emotions. A tennis player that smacks a hot forehand one inch over the net has a more transcendent experience than most anybody kneeling in a church.

I have great faith in the human desire to make the infinity of the transcendent experience a physical reality.

[darkstar3]

91. Sounds a lot like The Force to me.

I remember you stating that you were a liberal Christian. I'm curious where in any Christian writings or denominations you would have found this conception of God.

[Thats my opinion]

117. Here are a few--and this is just through the "Cs"

Baltazar, Eulalio R. God Within Process. Paramus, NJ: Newman Press, 1970.

Beardslee, William. A House for Hope: A Study in Process and Biblical Thought. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. [abstract]

_____. Margins of Belonging: Essays on the New Testament and Theology (Scholars Press, 1991).

Beelilz, Thomas. Die dynamische Beziehung zwischen Erfahrung und Metaphysik. Einentersuchung der Spekulativen Philosophie von Alfred North Whitehead im Interesse der Theologie. Frankfurt, 1991.

Birch, Charles. A Purpose for Everything: Religion in a Postmodern Worldview. Mystic, Ct: Twenty-Third Publications, 1990.

_____. Regaining Compassion for Humanity and Nature. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1993.

_____. Nature and God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965.

_____. The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. [Denton, TX: Environmental Ethics Books, 1990.]

Bracken, Joseph A. The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link Between East and West. Hereford, England: Gracewing, 1995.

Brandt, Sigrid, Marjorie H. Suchocki, and Michael Welker, ed. Sunde: Ein unverstandlich gewordenes Thema. Heidelberg: Neukrichener, 1997.

Bretz, John J. “The ‘Emptying’ Trinity: An Alternative Process Relational Trinitarian Theology.” Brisbane College of Theology, Brisbane, Australia, 1999.

Brizee, Robert. The Gift of Listening. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1993.

_____. Eight Paths to Forgiveness. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1998.


_____. Where in the World Is God? Nashville, TN: The Upper Room, 1987.

Brock, Rita Nakashima. Journeys By Heart: A Christology of Erotic Power. New York: Crossroad, 1988.

Brown, Delwin. Boundaries of Our Habitations: Tradition and Theological Construction. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994.

_____. What Does a Progressive Christian Believe? A Guide for the Searching, the Open, and the Curious. New York: Seabury Books, 2008.

_____, Ralph E. James, and Gene Reeves, eds. Process Philosophy and Christian Thought. Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1971. [abstract]

Browning, Douglas, ed. Philosophers of Process. New York: Random House, 1965.

Bowman, Donna. The Divine Decision; A Process Doctrine of Election. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Caraway, James. E. God as Dynamic Actuality: The Reality of God in the Theologies of John B. Cobb, Jr. and Schubert M. Ogden. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1978.

_____. Reflection on Whitehead’s Philosophical Theology. Binghamton, NY: Global Publications, 1997.

Cargas, Harry James, and Bernard Lee, eds. Religious Experience and Process Theology: The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern Movement. New York: Paulist Press, 1976. [abstract]

Case-Winters, Anna. God’s Power: Traditional Understandings and Contemporary Challenges. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990.

Cauthen, Kenneth. Science, Secularization, and God: Toward a Theology of the Future. Nashvilee, TN: Abingdon, 1969.

_____. Systematic Theology: A Modern Protestant Approach. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1986.

Clarke, Bowman. God and Temporality. New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1986.

_____. Language and Natural Theology. The Hague: Monton, 1966.

Cobb, John B., Jr. Becoming a Thinking Christian. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993

_____. Bouddhisme-Christianisme. Au-dela du dialogue? Traduit par Marc Deshays. Geneve: Editions Labor et Fides, 1988.

_____. Can Christ Become Good News Again? St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 1991.

_____. Christ in a Pluralistic Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975.

_____. Christian Identity and Theological Education. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

_____ (with Joseph Hough). Christian Identity and Theological Education. Chico: CA: Scholars Press, 1985.

_____. A Christian Natural Theology, Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.

_____. A Christian Natural Theology: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead. (Second Edition). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. [abstract]

_____. Doubting

[darkstar3]

132. I haven't read those, but just to be clear:

all of these people believe that God is a non-anthropomorphic energy, as you described above, and still believe in Jesus Christ? Do they believe that he is the son of God?

[Thats my opinion]

145. Try reading just a few instead of asking about things you have

not investigated, and see what you might discover about your questions.

[darkstar3]

153. Try engaging in discussion instead of thumbing your nose at the rest of us.

Did it never occur to you that I might not have access to all of those books, or that I might not have time in my crazy ass work week to read the laundry list you've provided?

If you can't summarize an answer to such simple questions, that's not remotely "thoughtful discussion."

[Thats my opinion]

171. The reason I posted the long list of books--for which you asked,

is because I had a sneaking suspicion that you doubted Process Theology was more than a figment of my imagination, and was held only by me and three friends. The lists of books just gives you the sense that this is a world-wide understanding of the Christian faith--as well as other faiths.

As to your earlier question. I believe Jesus is all of God we can see in human form. For the longer answer you need to see my

"Building a Biblical Faith" Chapter 2. as well as a number of the books I listed.

[Adsos Letter]

152. Looks to me like quite a few Process Theology folks in that truncated bibliography...

in which case this might answer your question:

The Christ of process theology does not represent a hypostasis of divine and human persona. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all humans when they act according to a call from God. Jesus fully and in every way responded to the call of God and so the person of Jesus is theologically understood to be “the divine Word in human form.” Jesus was not God-man in essence, but fully identified with God at all moments of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology#Relationship_to_the_doctrine_of_the_incarnation

[darkstar3]

155. Doesn't sound anything like Christianity as practiced by:

Catholics
Lutherans
Episcopalians
Presbyterians
Baptists
Pentecostals
...
or any other denomination whose members I've known and spoken to. It sounds to me like shoe-horning "Christ" into a smaller, less testable, Force-like version of God. This is an awfully obscure theological branch for someone who claims to represent the majority of liberal believers.

[tama]

161. You would have been called an atheist

not so long time ago, as Spinoza was - for talking about panentheistic God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F

What is the philosophical difference, if there is one, between quantum superposition of all possible worlds and panentheistic God?

[lazarus]

93. Damned straight I attacked belief

in post #1. I did not attack believers, as that would be a violation of rules of some kind.

I also explained WHY I attacked belief.

You've done worse, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ad infinitum. You've attacked atheists, and tried repeatedly to shut us up and treat us as second class citizens.

So here's a question for you. Why do belief and faith in a god or gods deserve respect?

[Thats my opinion]

114. Or, "when did you stop beating your wife."

There is a difference between a sincere question and a frontal attack.

[lazarus]

128. It's a serious question that you obviously haven't considered

our society is permeated with the "knowledge" that religious belief is a good thing, that faith is important and to be honoured and respected.

I simply ask, Why? Note that this is not an attack, this is an honest attempt to discover something.

[Thats my opinion]

115. The poster asked people to define what they believed,

not to define how they condemned others.

[lazarus]

129. I said what I believe

I believe religion is a harmful, poisonous concept, just like all other forms of magical thinking.

You're free to disagree, of course. I'm perfectly willing to describe in detail why I hold my position, btw.

[Thats my opinion]

180. "I don't hate or attack (Ifill in your own named enemy)

I just hate what they do."
"Why some of my best friends are( )"


Who am I trying to fool?

[deacon_sephiroth]

99. I doubt I'm in the top 50, but for what it's worth.

Religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt, and I claim that right. - Hitch

[Thats my opinion]

112. Now there is an interesting bit of rational discussion nt

[Sal316]

118. I am a Christian and liberal.

There are only two points I consider to be the non-negotiables of the Christian faith: Incarnation and resurrection. Everything else I consider to be 'disputable matters' (Rom 14).

I am, for the most part, am unorthodoxically orthodox….or maybe I’m heterodox. One thing is for sure, I’m a paradox.

I grew up Roman Catholic, making it all the way through Confirmation, then wandered into agnosticism, Taoism, atheism, non-denominational evangelicalism, and now…. I’m not entirely sure.

For the most part, I identify with the Emergent movement….yet, I don’t. The more I read, the more I realize I’m sort of a theological America… a total melting pot.

I hold to a high Christology, believing Christ was both fully human and fully divine and to hold to one over the other diminishes Christ.

I believe in a literal resurrection because without it, Easter is just another holiday.

I honestly don’t know where I stand on atonement theory. I lean towards Christus Victor, as I find the more militaristic views to be out of touch with scripture.

I hold more to a prima scriptura view than sola scriptura, although I can see bits of both in myself. I love some of the high church traditions, rites, and rituals, and also feel completely at home in a house church.

I love the flexibility in ‘disputable matters’ that the Emergent movement has, yet worry that that same flexibility can work its way into the ‘non-negotiables’ of Christianity making it nothing more than a rehashing of 18th&19th Century liberal Protestantism.

I love the old Methodist hymns. I’m not really impressed with modern Christian music, although it played a big part in an influential period of my faith development.

My eschatology can be described as partial preterist amillenialism.

My views on Hell are in flux. Once I believed in the “Hell is a literal, place of eternal punishment”, which then swung to a Hell on Earth sort of view, and now is what can only be described as a “Hell is real, eternal, but punishment is not eternal” based on the purification characteristics of fire mentioned often in scripture.

I’m not a universalist, but hold inclusivist views, ala Billy Graham, influenced by Paul in Romans 2:14-15.

I see a lot of value in the Reformers and Reformed Theology, but also see great shortcomings.

I don’t see America as the “New Israel” and, in fact, think anyone who believes that the exile is over (Jer 29), is monumentally wrong.

I think equating the US with being a “Christian nation” is ridiculous. With the way we treat the lesser both among us and world-wide, we’re more like Israel before the exile.

I believe the Creation story is both literal and metaphorical. Yes, God is the Creator of all things but, no, I don’t believe in a literal Eden. I believe the story of Adam and Eve was God telling us how to live in harmony with Him AND His Creation, and the fall came when mankind first thought they could do it better.

I believe the over-arching message of scripture is one of justice for the poor, the oppressed, the voiceless.
I believe people have used religion to oppress people.

I believe Paul's letters are wrongfully maligned. They are half of a conversation and without understanding the context they're written in, and who they're written to, they're easy to misinterpret.

I don't believe science and religion conflict, just as King didn't

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

I don't believe one needs to believe in order to live a moral life.

I believe Christian is a good noun, but a lousy adjective.

[laconicsax]

122. There. Was it so hard to admit that you cherry-pick?

You believe, among other things, that Hell is a real place, but reject the parts about it being a place of eternal punishment.

That's cherry-picking, Sal. There's no shame in it though--you'd have to be a moron to believe the whole Bible is 100% literal, and you're no moron.

[Sal316]

125. Discernment isn't cherry picking.

Scholarship isn't cherry picking.
Exegesis isn't cherry picking.
Hermeneutics isn't cherry picking.

On the other hand, eisegesis is cherry picking.

As for hell, the common conception of hell as a place of eternal damnation isn't consistent with ancient Jewish understanding of the afterlife, nor early Christian belief. It's more a creation born about the 14th Century. In the ancient Jewish tradition, sheol or Gehinnom was where EVERYONE went for a period of purification prior to redemption. In the OT, there are a great number of scriptures that praise God for allowing our souls to spend eternity in his presence after emerging from a period in Sheol/Gehinnom.

But hey, what do I know, I've only studied this stuff.

[laconicsax]

131. So you construct elaborate arguments for why you do it.

You accept some parts of the Bible and reject others, and what an amazing coincidence that both sets match your extant beliefs. You don't like the (abhorrent) idea of infinite punishment for finite crimes, and what luck! You're able to find an interpretation that lets you reject it.

I see, though that your interpretation is partly based on a literal reading of some parts of the OT. I'm sure you have a well-studied opinion as to why you take the parts about spending eternity with God literally, but not the parts about stoning people to death for mixing fibers too. It's probably at least as fascinating as why you take Gen 1:1 literally, but not the rest of the myth.

[a href="http://everything2.com/title/Till+Eulenspiegel+paints+for+the+Count+of+Hesse"]The wall is blank[/a], Sal. Explaining the details of how that came to be doesn't change the facts.

[darkstar3]

133. +1

[Dorian Gray]

139. What liberal christians

are literalists?

[laconicsax]

141. I'm not aware of any.

Most liberal Christians simply pick-and-choose the good parts of the Bible to take literally, rather than the vile parts.

I don't know of anyone who takes the whole thing literally.

Whether it's a single verse in the middle of a long story, a lengthy story save a couple objectionable verses, or a combination of the two, almost all Christians take parts here and there literally and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Dorian Gray]

158. I think with any philosophy

or world view, we all pick and choose what we want to believe. It's not solely a religious thing. Being a part of DU for years, I can say with confidence that everyone here picks and chooses platforms and ideologies that they think are important. That's human nature. The same is bound to happen with religious beliefs.

[Sal316]

142. Here's the thing.

I don't reject any of them. I understand, and accept, that there are plenty of uncomfortable passages in scripture.

I also understand humanity has evolved over the last couple thousand years and some things that were part of ANE cultures aren't part of society today. Something which you have made clear doesn't apply.

So, if you think that qualifies as "cherry picking", well, then I don't see any need to discuss this further. You're stuck on "it's either 100% literalist interpretation or else it's cherry picking" whether you admit it or not.

You see, discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics aren't cherry picking....even when the someone comes to a different conclusion.

Only people like Phelps, Robertson, Falwell, Hagee and the like think so....

Good company you keep.

[uriel1972]

143. There are only 2 kinds of people

those that divide the world into 2 kinds of people and those that don't

[laconicsax]

151. I thought it was those with loaded guns and those who dig.

[laconicsax]

149. Neither reason nor motive change the action.

You admitted in 118 that you take some parts of the Bible literally and other parts metaphorically. Your exact words were:

I believe the Creation story is both literal and metaphorical. Yes, God is the Creator of all things but, no, I don’t believe in a literal Eden. I believe the story of Adam and Eve was God telling us how to live in harmony with Him AND His Creation, and the fall came when mankind first thought they could do it better.

In other words, Genesis 1:1 is literally true and the verses that follow are metaphor. This is cherry-picking. You can claim that it's discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics, but the simple truth is that you are choosing to take some parts literally and others not.

Your evolution on Hell is another fantastic example of cherry-picking. You take the parts about Hell being a real place literally but not the parts about it being a place of eternal fire and punishment. Again, you can claim that it's discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics, but the simple truth is that you are choosing to take some parts literally and others not.

The reason you do it, while intellectually interesting, doesn't change the truth of the matter: You are choosing to take literally certain parts. No, you aren't ignoring those other parts the way the assholes you compared me to (Love the ad hom BTW. You just can't help yourself, can you?), but you're still picking and choosing which parts to take literally and, for a third time, you can claim that it's discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics, but neither reason nor motive change the action.

[Sal316]

163. So, just for clarity..

Let me get this straight, and if I'm interpreting you incorrectly, please let me know.

Not cherry picking = a view of hell akin to Dante's Inferno, created in the 14th Century
Cherry picking = a view of hell in line with ancient Jewish tradition, the actual context of scripture

[laconicsax]

165. Sigh...no

Both cherry pick. Both interpretations focus on specific passages and ignore others.

-The former focuses on the passages about fire and eternity and ignores (in the name of context) the ones about the soul being purged and spending an eternity with God.

-The latter focuses on the passages about spending eternity with God and ignores (in the name of context) the ones about eternal fire.

Why is this such a hard concept for you? You readily admit to taking some passages literally and others not. That act is cherry picking. It may be done for more legitimate reasons than when Fred Phelps does it out of caprice, but as I've now said several times, neither reason nor motive change the action.

[Sal316]

168. Ok, then what wouldn't be cherry picking?

What would be a view of hell that doesn't qualify as cherry picking to you?

[laconicsax]

174. That's a subject where it's impossible not to.

As you know, the Bible is full of contradiction, thanks to its history. Cherry-picking is a necessary action to make any kind of consistent interpretation when scripture contradicts itself.

There's nothing wrong with that. Every interpretation is valid when dealing with fiction.

[Sal316]

178. Boy, that's a lame-assed copout.

Every interpretation is valid when dealing with fiction.

Relativism FTW!

Thank you and good night!

[laconicsax]

179. You must not be a literature person.

One of the wonderful things about fiction is that all interpretations supported by the text (and even some that aren't) are valid. I understand that may be unsettling to people who don't tolerate ambiguity too well, but there it is.

Hemmingway may have meant to write a short story about a man and a fish, but the story doesn't end there.

The same thing applies to the Bible...unless you believe that the stories of the Bible were meant to be taken as literal histories.

[Thats my opinion]

146. if you equate cheery picking with careful scholarly investigation.

that's your problem. Try reading a few things.

[laconicsax]

150. I don't equate the two.

My position, which I never thought subtle, seems to have eluded both you and Sal. The reason someone takes an action doesn't change the action. I'll try an analogy:

Persons A and B steal a loaf of bread. A out of caprice, B to feed their family. While B might claim that they were trying to feed their family, the fact is that they stole a loaf of bread. The fact that they ascribe a worthy motive separates them from the capricious thief, but does not change the reality of the action.

So you see, while Sal puts a lot of thought and scholarship into which verses he takes literally and which he sees as part of a larger metaphor or message, he's still picking and choosing. That there's a reason why he does it separates him from those who do it willy-nilly, but doesn't change the fact that he still does it.

[skepticscott]

157. The bottom line is

that no matter how much "discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics" someone puts into studying the Bible, there remains NO reliable and objective standard for deciding what things god actually said and what things are simply attributed to him. Nor for deciding which of the things god said he actually meant to be taken literally. Since, by the convenient dodge of apologists, we can't know the mind of god, we can't ever tell when he might have been kidding, unless we assume (with absolutely no justification) that he thinks and feels exactly as we do.

And of course, this is all assuming that god ever said anything at all.

[tama]

162. Same in philology

no matter how much "discernment, exegesis, and hermeneutics" someone puts into studying the works of Plato, there remains NO reliable and objective standard for deciding what things Plato actually said and what things are simply attributed to him.

[skepticscott]

170. And if there were people

who regarded the statements and dictates of Plato as unquestionably true and inviolable, and who were determined that not only they, but everyone else, should live by them, and that public policy should be based on them, your point might have some relevance. But there aren't. So it doesn't.

Try again.

[LeftishBrit]

169. To be fair...

I think we *all* cherry-pick and that it's healthy. E.g. religious or not, we may get a lot of our ideas about life and morality from our parents, but however much we respect our parents (and I have always strongly respected and admired mine), we will change or ignore SOME of our parents' ideas that don't accord with our own lives or experiences. If we didn't, the world would never change or rather people would never adapt to changes, and no progress would be made.

The problem is that some people claim that their religion cannot be 'cherry-picked'; and that is really the definition of fundamentalism. Often they do cherry-pick in any case (few would follow all the prohibitions of Leviticus, for example); but their idea is that God has laid down absolute rules, any exceptions are 'moral relativism', and social changes go against the will of God. In my experience, most people do think that there are exceptions to the views of their religion, just as they think that there are exceptions to the views of their parents or of any other authority.

[GliderGuider]

147. I have a question about one of the beliefs you listed.

You said, "I hold to a high Christology, believing Christ was both fully human and fully divine and to hold to one over the other diminishes Christ."

How would you respond to someone (like me) who says, "I am both fully human and fully divine and to hold to one over the other diminishes me."

Many spiritual traditions teach that each of us is simultaneously fully human and fully divine, and AFAICT there is no obvious difference between me and Christ in this regard.

[Dorian Gray]

140. I am

Roman Catholic.

[Nihil]

166. Not an adherent to any religion but still a form of theist.

I posted the following about 18 months ago in the previous incarnation of R/T
in response to the topic "Why do I personally believe in God?" but it should
provide the sort of outline that I think you were asking about.

Hope it helps

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why do I personally believe in God?" Good question.

> Is it because of tradition?

Not particularly. There have been believers in my family as there have been
agnostics and atheists. I was taught at Catholic schools but never put in
any "indoctrination" position or environment where I was not allowed to ask
questions - not by my family, not by the Jesuits who ran the church and not
by any of my teachers. I found that my questions usually led only to further
questions so I had very little of my life where I could have been said to
have been an orthodox "believer".

All that was asked was that I be as tolerant of the more unquestioning faith
of others as I would like them to be of my desire for knowledge beyond the
"take my word for it" views. On the whole, I think I've managed it. Sometimes.


> Is it because of prayer?

No. I can honestly say that I have never felt that God is "personally
listening to my prayers". I *have* appreciated the (far too rare) occasions
when I felt completely in tune with myself when meditating (or trying to
at any rate) but never viewed that moment as being "when God listened"
or other such phrases, simply as having achieved a moment of mental and/or
physiological peace. This isn't to say that I discount the possibility of
prayer (i.e., beyond the meditative or placebo effects), simply that it is
not a driver for me.


> Is it because of the social services that your church provides...

No. I do not attend a church. I give to charity both as an anonymous
individual and as a member of different organisations but don't regard
those actions as being driven by any "higher calling" than being human.


> Is it because there seem to be forces unexplainable in the world,
> and the existence of angels and demons (and deities that rule over them)
> seems to be the only possible explanation?

If you'd stopped after "world" then I might have said "Yes"

There is a part of my belief that has evolved out of a "God of the Gaps"
viewpoint but those gaps have gradually got smaller as time has moved on
so that really isn't the case any more. It certainly doesn't require me
to create or hypothesize specifics such as "angels and demons and deities
that rule over them" as even a partial explanation. (On the other hand,
if such things help others interpret their experience, who am I to say
that they are definitively wrong?)


I have no problem with the concept of the Big Bang (nor of cyclical universes
that bang/expand/contract/bang/expand/...) but find it "convenient" to posit
"God" as the initiator (the "First Cause" approach).

I've written simple programs to simulate lifeforms & natural processes and
played with other (much better) ones that have far greater detail or scope
or effectiveness (e.g., range of accuracy). Once the basic program has been
created and the initial conditions loaded, there is no action required from
me (the programmer) other than to observe the ongoing results.

That's about the level of interaction that I expect from God in my belief
system: set up the boundary conditions, press the button and watch.

It also explains why I find the Masonic view easy to accept (the existence
of a Creator but using a generic label of "Great Architect of the Universe"
rather than any specific factional name) as once all of the preparatory work,
the thought, the design, the draftsmanship has been done, there is little
(if any) interaction with the structure for the rest of its lifespan.


> Or is it something else entirely?

It is a combination of all of the aspects of my upbringing, my education,
my moving background through life, unexplained events/phenomena, everything
in toto that has defined the "me"-ness of "me" has, by definition, also
shaped my beliefs.

I have had moments that fit the "Peak Experience" descriptions (fittingly
enough, once on top of a Scottish mountain) when I knew in every element
of my consciousness how everything fitted together, interacted, related.
I've had feelings of sheer wonder at the scale of the Universe, at the
"magic" of life in hostile environments, at events that are normally hidden
from view by their timescale (either so much faster than usual perception
or so much slower) or simply their size (needing tools from a scanning
microscope up to a radio telescope).


Someone upthread phrased it as "My life experience leads me to believe"
but I'd modify it slightly to "My life experience leads me to have beliefs"
as that more closely matches the fuzziness, the lack of hard defining lines
and the lack of hard faith "just because" that I feel. There is a "something"
but I'm buggered if I can define it so I end up agreeing with the Taoist view:
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao".

[Quartermass]

173. I hate labels.

I hate labels because all it does is encourage assumptions that you already know what the person is all about, and then proceed to treat them accordingly.

It's much more preferable to get to know a person first. But that's much more difficult than to simply assume things.

[Brigid]

181. No thanks.

Considering the personal attacks I've been subjected to in the only thread I dared to start in this forum, why should I? That's what I get for coming in here to begin with, I guess.

[cbayer]

182. If you feel you have been personally attacked, I encourage you to alert on

those posts.

The hosts here are really trying to make this a more welcoming and civil place. We may be tilting at windmills, but we are trying.

[MarkCharles]

183. So by simply "FEELING" a personal attack, one has the right to...

alert on posts which one finds offensive?

These new rules give SPECIAL RIGHTS to people who choose (for strictly "religious"reasons) to feel offended?

Insulting Dawkins, insulting a dead man like Christopher Hitchens, equating all "organized" atheists to Stalin or Hitler, that's just fine, (according to new rules)?

But if some person chooses to feel offended by factual posts here, that's enough to alert ?

[cbayer]

184. Of course. Anyone has the right to alert on any post

in which they feel personally attacked.

That's not a new rule or a special right. It's always been that way. The only difference is now the decision is made by a jury of 6 members, while previously it was made by a group of moderators.

Attacking individual members or groups of members is a violation of the Terms of Service of this site. Attacking non-members has never been a violation. Whether the attack meets the criteria or not is determined by the jury.

I didn't say anything about alerting on factual posts, but there is currently no "punishment" for sending in an alert on a post that breaks no rules.

I hope that answers your questions about this.

FWIW, as far as I know, there has been a remarkable decline in both the alerts from this forum and action taken on alerts. It's markedly improved under the new system, imo.

[LeftishBrit]

187. Anybody has a right to alert on anything

The alert may or may not be considered as valid by a jury.

I've alerted on a few posts (never in this forum) which I considered as supporting right-wingers; some of my alerts were validated and some weren't.

[LeftishBrit]

185. If you mean the 'grinch' thread, the attacks were on Larry Taunton the writer of the article

I didn't see anyone who attacked *you* personally.

Unless you're referring to another thread.

In any case, if you think someone has personally attacked you, you should alert.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

186. Solitary Norse Heathen

My sig line says it all