-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Evolution and Science Acceptance
- Thread starter lati0s
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but did you actually believe in the Catholic faith? What I mean is, did the Catholic faith help shape your worldview, your ideals, etc.
If no, then you didn't really change your beliefs.
If yes, then what caused you to change your mind (if you don't mind me asking)? Don't answer if you don't want to. It's just that people don't wake up one day and decided to reject their core beliefs.
And thank you Woodchuck for providing that answer!
You're retroactively defining things in order to prove the validity of your argument and terminology; it's almost like amending your definitions for your own convenience in an argument. There's something fishy to me about this; anyone else?
My point is that it's not fair to imply that unless someone is deeply dedicated to an idea, they don't really believe it. I'm bringing this up because I can smell "if you ever change your mind then you never believed in the first place" coming up soon.
So J-man, do you believe that when bad things happen without justification it is because God has some ~~**magical**~~ reasoning we can't hope to understand??? Wouldn't it make much more sense, seeing that the existence of a God is highly improbable and not supported by any empirical evidence, that these bad things happen because there is NOT a god watching over us?
The thing that gets to me most is that so many people work with the assumption that God is real and bend over backwards with half arsed excuses for his existence. This isn't everyone mind you, but seeing that bad things happen and saying "oh it's his heavenly reasoning" is just a cop out. Someone making a claim (like the existence of a supernatural deity) has the BURDEN OF PROOF. It is up to them to show why there is a God that is there, is relevant and is worth believing in, and NOT to just assume he is because of "faith" and then seem like they've won the debate. "Faith" is so commonly invoked by believers as a legitimate reason for believing, which it is in a way, as if I had faith that unicorns existed that would be a reason for my belief, but it is not a legitimate reason that that deity exists, and MOREOVER no legitimate reason for the "teachings" o this god and the views of his believers to show such political and cultural sway. Why is something that people can never show conclusively is there but are guessing that it is meaning that homosexuals can't ye married in most countries, or why abortion isn't allowed in many countries, or why official proponents of this belief are exempt from tax??? It's fine to have a belief and have faith in something unproved, but that does NOT let it take major sway in the running of a world
n_n
The thing that gets to me most is that so many people work with the assumption that God is real and bend over backwards with half arsed excuses for his existence. This isn't everyone mind you, but seeing that bad things happen and saying "oh it's his heavenly reasoning" is just a cop out. Someone making a claim (like the existence of a supernatural deity) has the BURDEN OF PROOF. It is up to them to show why there is a God that is there, is relevant and is worth believing in, and NOT to just assume he is because of "faith" and then seem like they've won the debate. "Faith" is so commonly invoked by believers as a legitimate reason for believing, which it is in a way, as if I had faith that unicorns existed that would be a reason for my belief, but it is not a legitimate reason that that deity exists, and MOREOVER no legitimate reason for the "teachings" o this god and the views of his believers to show such political and cultural sway. Why is something that people can never show conclusively is there but are guessing that it is meaning that homosexuals can't ye married in most countries, or why abortion isn't allowed in many countries, or why official proponents of this belief are exempt from tax??? It's fine to have a belief and have faith in something unproved, but that does NOT let it take major sway in the running of a world
n_n
How am I retroactively defining things? Look up confirmation bias. It says that the effects of confirmation bias are stronger the stronger and more emotional your beliefs are. I'm not saying it's impossible to change your beliefs, but the stronger and more emotional your belief (I'd call faith pretty strong and emotional), the harder it is to change, and the more you ignore facts pointing out its faults.
If you never feel an emotional attachment to your faith or Church, it's going to be much easier to change your beliefs.
Probably "Mother of God" or "Jesus Christ".
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Excellent thread! Very simple and to the point. I'm also glad you took this conversation out of the election thread. I hope this thread can stay civil and on-topic.
From a completely secular point of view, completely excluding the possibility of any supernatural, or more appropriately unexplainable phenomena, our current, general theory of evolution is hands-down the most reasonable, and best supported explanation of biological diversity and the origin of all species. If it is not possible that any currently unexplainable phenomena, such as but not limited to the influence of a deity, had any role in the diversity of life that we see, then of course evolution is the best explanation. There are several other theories that try to explain the biodiversity that we see, but our general theory of evolution is far-and-away the best supported and most reasonable theory.
But for a lot of people, the supernatural or what is currently unexplainable, is not out of the question. And for a lot of people, including myself, the words of the Bible hold great weight. And for a lot of us, we honestly see enough problems and difficulties with our current, general theory of evolution, to cause us to seriously question some of its commonly accepted, general claims.
Definitely. What matters most to a person, and what makes one person vote for any particular candidate, varies from person to person. If evolution is a breaker for you, more power to you. Personally, if a candidate vehemently opposes the possibility that the God of the Bible had a hand in the creation of life on Earth, I would have some immediate difficulties about voting for them, regardless of what their other beliefs are. Although, honestly for me, their view on evolution and creation pales in comparison to their view on abortion and a whole host of other issues.
Yes. It definitely "can". But whether or not one can accept said reconciliation differs from person to person.
Evolution is not just a single, simple, short theory. Its a broad idea, a term that encompasses numerous claims, theories, and fields of study. Some parts, such as the idea that all species evolved slowly over time from one, or a handful of simpler species, sure do seem to irreconcilably contradict at least the common and historical interpretation of the creation story, as told in Genesis. But others, such as the idea that genetic mutation accounts for gradual differences between offspring and their progenitors, and that species that are better suited for an environment will eventually displace species that are less suited, don't seem to really obviously contradict anything specific in the Bible.
Personally, right now, as I understand the issue, I'm a fairly strict, literal creationist, although, honestly, the specifics don't matter too much to me. However, I know plenty of Christians who are much more literal than me on this subject.
And then there's my pastor. He's as much a "Bible-thumping, fundamentalist Christian" as you'll find. But he's also a trained Geologist for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. He fully understands (and does a great job explaining) the reasons that the vast majority of scientists believe that the Earth is very old, as well as the reasons that most scientists believe that all life on Earth descended from one, or a handful of, life forms. But he fully, and wholeheartedly believes that the Bible is absolutely true and infallible. He accepts the old age of the Earth and has no problem with what the Bible says. He has even said that, although he leans heavily toward the common interpretation of Creation, he doesn't have any problem with the idea of evolution, so long as God had a hand in it. He's completely comfortable with the possibility that the creation account in Genesis could either be a metaphor, or that it we could seriously be misinterpreting it.
And then there's our worship leader at church. He wholeheartedly accepts the common, general theory of evolution. He believes that the universe is 14-or-so billion years old, and that the Earth is 4-or-so billion years old, and that all life on earth descended from one species, and that Genesis is completely a metaphor and was never meant to be taken literally, but that the God of the Bible was still the cause of it all. The big-bang, and evolution simply being the mechanism that the God of the Bible used to bring what we see now into existence.
So for different people, evolution can, or cannot, or can partly be reconciled with religion. It depends on a whole lot of things; how literally you take Genesis, how you interpret Genesis, whether or not you consider the Bible to be infallible, how much you actually know about evolution, whether or not the difficulties and problems with evolution are enough to make you seriously question it, etc.
Oh, and for anyone looking to megaquotepost this post.
don't
I'd be happy to take this further, but not like that. One point at a time please.
I am not J-man (been here much longer, though don't post near as much), so I first question your reading comprehension skills.
Second...I have a burden of proof to prove all my beliefs? Since when is that a criteria? You people might have me wrong: I don't try to force my beliefs on everyone else. Faith isn't for everyone.
As for the political side (getting this thread back on track): I agree that religious beliefs shouldn't control governmental laws. Now show me a country (in any period of history) that doesn't follow any of the laws outlined in the Bible.
Should homosexuals be able to marry or at least have civil unions? Sure. It's not the governments role to uphold what is clearly church doctrine. I still believe it's a sin, but there are many other sins listed in the Bible that are perfectly lawful today.
Abortion: comes down to whether you believe an unborn embryo should have rights in this country. If yes, then it should be illegal. If no, then abortion should be legal . I'm currently on the yes side.
Should clergy pay taxes? Are you kidding me? Most of the clergymen I know make next to nothing. You want to make tax free income, start your own church. There's nothing stopping you from making a "goldmine." It's not discriminating against anyone.
It should be noted that there are some rare things about earth, that we found when we researched alien terrestrial planets, that was quite odd (having a large moon, only one sun, the gas giants are in the outer solar stem, the terrestrial planets are very small compared to other solar systems). To be honest though, none of that matters because of the sheer size of the observable universe. Heck one big reason we can sustain life is because of our rare long lasting magnetic field, created when another planetoid hit us. We have already found a handful of alien worlds where we see evidence of planetoid collisions, and we are just starting to observe the universe. One of the rarer phenomenon needed for sustainable life, has already been seen, multiple times. One big reason why there was no life on Mars is the lack of a magnetic field.
One downer though is how long it takes for evolution to get cool, for almost 1/8 of life's existence it was nothing more than simple cells. The first life we find will probably be rather disappointing.
One downer though is how long it takes for evolution to get cool, for almost 1/8 of life's existence it was nothing more than simple cells. The first life we find will probably be rather disappointing.
Good on ya.
Probably not. While science has provided insurmountable evidence towards evolution there's plenty more we still dont know about it. The day may come when we all completely change our views on evolution simply because it still isn't completely proven yet. That's not to say I dont believe in evolution. I'm a firm believer of it. My view is "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
There are plenty of more important views candidates may or may not have that can change a vote. Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean you a backwards person. It's when you force your views on other people that I tend to view you in a negative way.
I'm a firm believer in evolution however, I'm still not sure if god exists or not. If he does exist then it's obviously not in the way he was written. I would say it's more the bible that I don't believe in. A god is perfectly possible simply because when I consider everything in and out of our universe, it all seems so chaotic.... but at the same time perfectly in order. It just feels strange to me that there's not some form of omnipotence at work behind it all. At least that's my view on it.
What problems with our current, general theory of evolution are you talking about? You could make a list if you want, but from what I've seen, every "argument" against the evolution paradigm of biology is basically a demand for more information to fill in "holes" in the evidence. Guess what? There will always be holes in a scientific theory. Statements like this seem innocent enough, but they reflect a pretty severe misunderstanding in how science (or logic, or statistics) works. If any of you are to argue about science, you should know that science isn't about what can be explained with 100% accuracy (mostly since nothing can be explained with 100% accuracy), but it's more about what can't be explained, as well as how accurate a claim might be. If you can explain anything by poking your logical paradigm accordingly, you honestly have a really crappy logical paradigm. Moreover, the accuracy of a claim is (or should be) very important in comparing the truth of one claim to the truth of another. So before anyone proclaims that the theory of evolution isn't accurate enough, how about you go and question less reliable things, too, like the safety of your home? I find it intellectually dishonest for someone to trust the integrity of so many everyday things and take them for granted, yet have issues with evolution (or relativity, or whatever else is very firmly established) just because "God". On that note:mattj said:
It does have some pretty heavy implications about a candidate's priorities concerning stuff like education and research - implications that I don't find desirable.KurashiDragon said:
Lots of people make very little money and still pay taxes. I'm not one to pick on low-income individuals, but why on earth should some segment of people be completely exempt from one or more taxes based directly on their jobs? I think that exceptions like this are why the U.S. tax code is so convoluted and riddled with loopholes. Exceptions are a terrible way to achieve a system that's fair or even efficient.j-squared said:
Mostly I agree with you here, though I would like to address a couple things:
Also keep in mind that, for obvious reasons, future persons are granted no rights under US law (how far into the future? etc).
Intuitively, it also seems ridiculous that abortion should be punished as murder, though if an embryo is a person then that is a natural consequence.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that, when abortions are outlawed, it is not uncommon for women to get abortions anyway, and they are typically quite unsafe relative to an abortion at a clinic. So in terms of the protection of people in general, outlawing abortion doesn't necessarily do better, even if a fetus is considered a person.
There is quite a bit more even than this to consider on the issue, but I hope this gives a sense of how complex an issue it is (and how the current state of affairs is in no way unreasonable).
So while the clergy members themselves may be living modest lives, the religious institutions can sometimes be quite extravagant.
I think you can imagine how people would question the dedication of certain churches to helping the less fortunate, when they are spending hundreds of thousands - likely millions really - of dollars for porpoises of attracting new members and touting their power rather than, you know, actually helping the less fortunate. This isn't to say that religious institutions don't do a lot of great charity work, just that quite a few non-profits manage to do the charity work without the giant, expensive buildings and mandatory "donations".
(I do acknowledge that most churches are not super extravagant!)
This isn't a bad summation but it is a bit more complex I think. If the embryo has rights that outweigh those of the mother then it must be considered a person. There are various definitions of the word person, though it gets somewhat tedious and I will not get into it here. But I think most reasonable people would agree that, at least for the early stages of the fetus' formation (a clump of cells), it is most certainly not a person. If you accept that this is true, then you must also accept that there is some point at which the fetus does become a person, and it is ascribed certain rights, and at that point you end up right where the US abortion law is today: Abortion is legal until a certain point in the pregnancy.
Also keep in mind that, for obvious reasons, future persons are granted no rights under US law (how far into the future? etc).
Intuitively, it also seems ridiculous that abortion should be punished as murder, though if an embryo is a person then that is a natural consequence.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that, when abortions are outlawed, it is not uncommon for women to get abortions anyway, and they are typically quite unsafe relative to an abortion at a clinic. So in terms of the protection of people in general, outlawing abortion doesn't necessarily do better, even if a fetus is considered a person.
There is quite a bit more even than this to consider on the issue, but I hope this gives a sense of how complex an issue it is (and how the current state of affairs is in no way unreasonable).
I think the issue people have isn't with the tax rates of the clergy but with the tax exempt status of the churches themselves. In many cases it is clear that a church deserves to be tax exempt, but there are numerous examples of overly extravagant churches in the US. For example, the church of scientology is considered tax exempt as a non-profit religious institution, though it is well known that followers are required to pay for church services, and the owner is absurdly rich. As I leave my university today I will pass by the san diego mormon temple, which I have to admit looks awesome, though it is clearly quite extravagant by the standards of any non-profit organization (also keep in mind that the LDS church has essentially mandatory tithing). There are also numerous "mega-churches" of various sects of christianity which are extremely large and have monster sound/video systems, apparently to aid in worship.
So while the clergy members themselves may be living modest lives, the religious institutions can sometimes be quite extravagant.
I think you can imagine how people would question the dedication of certain churches to helping the less fortunate, when they are spending hundreds of thousands - likely millions really - of dollars for porpoises of attracting new members and touting their power rather than, you know, actually helping the less fortunate. This isn't to say that religious institutions don't do a lot of great charity work, just that quite a few non-profits manage to do the charity work without the giant, expensive buildings and mandatory "donations".
(I do acknowledge that most churches are not super extravagant!)
People that make as little as the clergy make are not taxed by the state or the feds (unless you count sales tax, which clergy are obviously subject to). I believe that clergy members are taxed just as members of any other profession, though I could be wrong. It is the churches themselves that are tax exempt, meaning they are not taxed as a corporation, and they avoid property taxes.
If clergy don't make that much they would not be expected to pay much in taxes.
That is how progressive taxation works.
That is how progressive taxation works.
To be honest I'm kinda split about taxation of religious foundations, yeah sometimes they make a shit ton of money, but other times they are small little congregations barely keeping afloat. Even in the Catholic church a large portion of the money goes straight to the Vactican, to the point were my old church had to worry about not having enough money to heat the building. Plus, I don't think the taxes from Churches would really add that much to the revenue to worry about it.
Let make a deal, you guys stay out of the class room, and we keep your tax exemption. Id say that's plenty fair deal.
Let make a deal, you guys stay out of the class room, and we keep your tax exemption. Id say that's plenty fair deal.
Please rewrite your post so that it is legible.
Right now it appears you want to restrict evolution from the classrooms and subsidize churches.
With respect to the burden of proof, I think that if your beliefs do not have any impact on others then there is no reason to justify any of your beliefs; however the second you vote in an election, buy a product, or act in any way, you are affecting others. In general, this means any opinion you have should be justifiable unless you take extreme care in preventing it from affecting your actions.
Right now it appears you want to restrict evolution from the classrooms and subsidize churches.
With respect to the burden of proof, I think that if your beliefs do not have any impact on others then there is no reason to justify any of your beliefs; however the second you vote in an election, buy a product, or act in any way, you are affecting others. In general, this means any opinion you have should be justifiable unless you take extreme care in preventing it from affecting your actions.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
what does the taxation of clergy, abortion, or gay marriage have to do with evolution, how it affects your vote, and whether or not it can be reconciled with religious explanations of creation
@capefeather: Respectfully, I think you misunderstand. I for one do not question some of evolution's claims simply because it has difficulties, questions, or problems. The universe is huge and complex and there will always be questions, and exemptions, and new discoveries, and things that don't fit our models and theories ought to change with new evidence. I question some of its claims because in those specific cases I don't find either enough evidence to back up said claim, or responses to difficulties that satisfy me personally. You may accept the evidence for those claims, and responses to those difficulties as satisfactory, but I, and many others don't. Its not a case of "Durr.. ev-oh-loo-shun don't gots it awl figgr'd out so itz rong!"
@capefeather: Respectfully, I think you misunderstand. I for one do not question some of evolution's claims simply because it has difficulties, questions, or problems. The universe is huge and complex and there will always be questions, and exemptions, and new discoveries, and things that don't fit our models and theories ought to change with new evidence. I question some of its claims because in those specific cases I don't find either enough evidence to back up said claim, or responses to difficulties that satisfy me personally. You may accept the evidence for those claims, and responses to those difficulties as satisfactory, but I, and many others don't. Its not a case of "Durr.. ev-oh-loo-shun don't gots it awl figgr'd out so itz rong!"
I'm not exactly sure how to answer this because I've been removed from that particular worldview for 4-5 years already. I was baptized and confirmed as a kid and went to church and youth groups fairly frequently. I would say yes it did shape my worldview since many of my friends and people I knew, including most of my family were pretty involved with religious activities. I don't think I ever completely bought into the idea of god but I never really questioned it until later because I never felt super strongly about the beliefs. They were just kind of there and I had no desire to confirm or reject anything I believed for the longest time.
I'd say it was a pretty gradual change. What really started me questioning it was my freshman year roommate in college who was an atheist without question. He never argued with me or tried to convince me otherwise (maybe because I never felt too strongly about it), but he was the first person I ever met that was explicitly an atheist. I later found out that my dad was an atheist for my entire life but never spoke about it (my mom was the one who did most of the church stuff growing up.
Anyway, I decided to do my own research after that and the whole concept of religion crumbled pretty quickly for me, due to the sheer amount of one-sided support for atheism. I never had anyone explicitly challenge my beliefs, but without someone introducing the idea to me I doubt I would ever have felt the need or desire to question those beliefs.
Personally I now follow the Sam Harris line of atheism that gives no slack to religious beliefs, just because it's obvious just how many things are affected by them, especially politics. Many many key issues are heavily influenced by religious beliefs, especially on the Republican side, and the longer they stick around the worse off everyone is.
and before you take little quotes from my response and do the whole "you never truly believed so that's why" BS, I did have a fairly strong emotional attachment to religion for the first 13-14 years of my life just because there was no one telling me otherwise, and the vast majority of my friends and family were very religious. Obviously it would be easier if you didn't buy into it but anyone can change their beliefs if they're given a sufficient reason to do so.
Look up Matt Dillahunty. He's a host for "The Atheist Experience" and is very knowledgeable about both religion and atheism. Before becoming a staunch atheist, he intended to become a baptist minister until he did enough research to be persuaded otherwise. If that's not enough of an "emotional attachment" to religion for you, then I don't know what could possibly be.
thanks I wouldn't want to waste my post on something dumb like that...wait shit
also all these topics are related enough so I'm not really seeing the problem
i find the side argument going on between popomobile and J-squared interesting, but i dont think its a subject worth arguing about. Maybe its more like "its a subject not as easily debatable".
I, much like popomobile, was born to catholic parents, my dad especially. I mean, you know you are born to catholic nuts when you get a name like Jesus (not pronouced hey-zeus) Joseph and a few other christain names i'd rather not say. anyways, yeah i was in deep. i was raised in a way most people would label as "complete brainwashing". In my teen years however, again like popomobile, I began to stray away from my faith and religious beliefs. I did a lot of "researching". i began to question the bible and my God. I mean, i found what i was discovering so fascinating that i even began looking into other religions. I gained a lot of knowledge that mostly only served to make me question the bible/God even more. i think that phase is largely responsible for my straying so far away from the church/my religion, and me becoming the shitty christain i am today.
However, the difference between popomobile and i is that today if and when someone asks me if i'm religious and if i do believe in God, i still say yes without hesitation. a shitty shitty christain i may have become, but after that long phase of looking to "better understand the opposing sides", mainly atheism and the arguments atheists bring to the table, i still came out a believer. Trust me when i say i also came very close to my beliefs changing completely.
My point is, i think we would have to look much much deeper as to why some people that where once very deeply rooted in one set of beliefs, change, and why some do not. Now please no one come at me with any "well maybe you didnt look hard enough Jesus" bs. I just saved you some time and headache with that warning
also i like to think that my current situation is some sort of a stall. is it possible that i will ever go back to being the christain i once was? yes, and really i would like that, but also there is a chance that maybe one day i'll find myself a changed man (in the sense of changed beliefs). Honestly i doubt it'll be the second because i just feel that it would have happened already. i mean, what else am i waiting for? take another look at athiesm? lol
I, much like popomobile, was born to catholic parents, my dad especially. I mean, you know you are born to catholic nuts when you get a name like Jesus (not pronouced hey-zeus) Joseph and a few other christain names i'd rather not say. anyways, yeah i was in deep. i was raised in a way most people would label as "complete brainwashing". In my teen years however, again like popomobile, I began to stray away from my faith and religious beliefs. I did a lot of "researching". i began to question the bible and my God. I mean, i found what i was discovering so fascinating that i even began looking into other religions. I gained a lot of knowledge that mostly only served to make me question the bible/God even more. i think that phase is largely responsible for my straying so far away from the church/my religion, and me becoming the shitty christain i am today.
However, the difference between popomobile and i is that today if and when someone asks me if i'm religious and if i do believe in God, i still say yes without hesitation. a shitty shitty christain i may have become, but after that long phase of looking to "better understand the opposing sides", mainly atheism and the arguments atheists bring to the table, i still came out a believer. Trust me when i say i also came very close to my beliefs changing completely.
My point is, i think we would have to look much much deeper as to why some people that where once very deeply rooted in one set of beliefs, change, and why some do not. Now please no one come at me with any "well maybe you didnt look hard enough Jesus" bs. I just saved you some time and headache with that warning
also i like to think that my current situation is some sort of a stall. is it possible that i will ever go back to being the christain i once was? yes, and really i would like that, but also there is a chance that maybe one day i'll find myself a changed man (in the sense of changed beliefs). Honestly i doubt it'll be the second because i just feel that it would have happened already. i mean, what else am i waiting for? take another look at athiesm? lol
...Confirmation bias is a bias. A weaker confirmation bias makes you more objective and more likely to take a neutral, balanced view of things.
...have I missed j-squared's point here or something?
That's hard for me to answer objectively. Evolution was simply assumed in my environment growing up, and so it still does have some lingering plausibility in my mind since my conversion. I always hear evolutionists talk big about the beauty of the system, but since I'm not expected to be able to fully understand the mechanisms, I get a dumbed down version of events, and so miss the point they're trying to make. The case for Christ is much stronger in my experience, and if Genesis worked for him, it works for me.
Views are cheap. How they translate into their record is more important than what they say they believe.
With my religious beliefs? No. I can accept a world older than just a few thousand years, but the idea of humanity falling under the banner of 'the first Adam' unless they move under the banner of 'the second Adam', Christ, doesn't work if there is no 'first Adam'.
First, if I can't address this because of the title of the thread, then change the title, because clearly this is stuff people talk about.
America has never had a monopoly on Christianity. The past two thousand years have seen ebbs and flows flowing from Jerusalem (and then hundreds of other 'hubs') to all parts of the world in varying degrees. Some estimates put the number of Christians in China at being higher than in the United States. The story of Christianity in Korea (before and after the split) is also really fascinating. Africa had huge Christian populations in the movement's first centuries, and it is seeing a major comeback. Will the location and time of a person's birth affect their odds of hearing the gospel? Yes. But if you've done away with the pop concept of free will, maybe you can drop the notion of chance too. It helps when you realize that God doesn't 'owe' anyone anything, but operates on the principles of his holy character rather than by what we demand for ourselves.
Just something I've been thinking about lately. I'm not particularly religious at all. I grew up under a Hindu household, and went to temple and what not sometimes, and did little things with my family, went to an Indian Sunday school for multiple years, whatever. It was kind of just there--nothing I ever bought into, and not something I truly believe. Throughout it all, I can't even say I believe in God (or the fucking millions that Hindus wholeheartedly believe in). I'm very very agnostic and I hate it because I feel like a cop out douchebag but it's the only way I can reconcile my disbelief but my upbringing of faith.
I'm just wondering. Everyone believes in their own religion, which is fine and dandy and everyone has the right to believe. It just sucks that the majority of the believers are wrong, eh? Only one of the religions, if any, can hit the jackpot! I just find it weird how we can all believe wholeheartedly in what we believe in, while standing next to someone else who wholeheartedly believes in something completely differently, without constantly considering that one of the two of us has to be wrong.
I'm just wondering. Everyone believes in their own religion, which is fine and dandy and everyone has the right to believe. It just sucks that the majority of the believers are wrong, eh? Only one of the religions, if any, can hit the jackpot! I just find it weird how we can all believe wholeheartedly in what we believe in, while standing next to someone else who wholeheartedly believes in something completely differently, without constantly considering that one of the two of us has to be wrong.
I would never, do that. The only reason I asked is because I know a lot of Catholics who were raised as Catholics but never really felt overly connected to their church and especially its many customs (mass, confession, etc.) As seen by some of the other former Catholics in this thread, it seems like a lot of Catholics become disillusioned with their church. I'm not Catholic myself (I'm actually Protestant, who broke away from the Catholics long ago), and would like to get a better understanding of why this occurs.
As for my point...I'm not sure I wanted to make a point. I just wanted to hear popemobile's story. I think anytime someone makes a significant change in their life, it makes for a good story. And I never said that it was impossible to change your beliefs, I just said that is is in the nature of humans to reject facts relating to viewpoints opposite of your own. If you're able to overcome this and change your beliefs, more power too you.
On a side note - After looking it up, ministers are subject to federal income taxes, and must file as self-employed. They can opt out of SS. Not sure about state or local taxes. /end discussion of clergy tax
Also, sorry for de-railing the thread, but all these topics are somewhat related (though the clergy tax did get somewhat off-topic)
- Status