Who here is not a Christian? Describe your own beliefs

[achtungjulie]

Im not a Christian but recently for the first time I have been seriously starting to question my faith.

I do believe that there is a God, I don't buy the belief about the "big bang" where we just happened to appear out of nowhere.
Something must happen to us when we die too, I refuse to believe we just "disappear".

So what do I believe?
Well I believe theres some kind of higher being (God) that created us all, and when we do something wrong theres a reason why we feel that we have done wrong inside.
After that, Im not too sure what to believe really...
I'll more than likely find myself following some religion eventually, its just a matter of what to believe really.
From my (very) limited knowledge of religion, Christianity probably makes the most sense to me though.

That's EXACTLY how I feel! I've been stuggling with the beliefs I grew up on (mum is Protestant, dad is Catholic) for the past few years. It's not really that I've totally rejected Christianity, it's just that I also don't completely accept it. I believe in some higher power, and I guess you could call it God, and I also believe that something happens after we die. But I'm not really sure Christ is our 'Lord and Saviour'.

One of my friends took all the things he believed from Christianity, Buddhism and Paganism and made a sort of neo-religion out of it. At the end of the day, what I believe in is being a good person. I don't know what else to think after that. So, even though I still believe in some of the basic teachings of Christianity, I think I disagree too much with Christians to technically call myself one.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

"I'd like to start a new religion called Frisbetarianism. Frisbetarians believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down." ~ Bono

...cute .

In regards to the whole Big Bang thing and all that, and whether or not it can co-exist with a belief in a god, meh, well, I personally totally buy the scientific ideas regarding how our earth came to be and all that, but if a higher being did play a role, I'm not gonna be too bothered with that idea, either. I'm just not sure as to how much of a part he/she/it played in the formation of everything, if any part at all.

But my beliefs-I believe in a higher being, but I don't tie them down to any specific faith, because I've personally never been one to agree with the idea that God picks one group and all that. I'd like to think this higher being embraces all people. I find the idea of reincarnation interesting and don't find it too implausible. Don't believe in a heaven or a hell-I'm kinda leaning towards the idea that if you've been a good soul in your life, it will show in your afterlife/next life, and if you haven't been a good soul, then I just feel that you keep going on until you can finally become a good soul. And I believe in the idea of ghosts and stuff like that, too.

And that's really about it for me as far as spiritual-related matters go. For those who are having questions, I say don't hesitate to keep asking them, and may you find the path that works best for you, whatever one it may be .

Angela

 

[hedgehog]

That's EXACTLY how I feel! I've been stuggling with the beliefs I grew up on (mum is Protestant, dad is Catholic) for the past few years. It's not really that I've totally rejected Christianity, it's just that I also don't completely accept it. I believe in some higher power, and I guess you could call it God, and I also believe that something happens after we die. But I'm not really sure Christ is our 'Lord and Saviour'.

One of my friends took all the things he believed from Christianity, Buddhism and Paganism and made a sort of neo-religion out of it. At the end of the day, what I believe in is being a good person. I don't know what else to think after that. So, even though I still believe in some of the basic teachings of Christianity, I think I disagree too much with Christians to technically call myself one.

None of my family are religious, and I don't remember them having anything particularly good to say about religion either (which could make it difficult when I decide to follow a religion).

As for Christianity, I agree with a fair bit of its teachings, although I have broken the rules in my past when I didn't care about anymone but myself (so as things stand, whatever religions true Im going straight to hell, although I have changed a lot in recent years).

Im not sure what to follow at the moment, but I agree that in the mean time its best to just be as good as possible.

 

[achtungjulie]

Im not sure what to follow at the moment, but I agree that in the mean time its best to just be as good as possible.

Yes, and if God is 'good', I think it's enough to just be a good person....

 

[A_Wanderer]

Bullshit. I can only speak for European Green groups that are informed about the latest technological developments. Take the energy sector. Alternative energy like water power plants, wind etc. make up a bigger and bigger percentage of the energy we use here. That´s a positive development (if you´re not working for Shell). Green groups push for the 2.5-litre-car or other forms of transportation that are developed and ready to go and not that bad for environment. Other lobbies block that, the oil industry has nothing against blowing out 10 or 20 litres /mile.

I think you just did not take a proper look at their programs?

That said, no more derailing.

Really, are there any situations where these groups are willing to accept the use of GM organisms or Nuclear Power? What about the campaign against "Frankenstein Food" and the truly dogmatic faith in the Kyoto protocol regardless of the insignificant effect that it has on long term climate change.

 

[hiphop]

Really, are there any situations where these groups are willing to accept the use of GM organisms or Nuclear Power?

I don´t think so.

That´s fine by me. I am totally against GM food and Nuclear Power Plants.

Not everyone is as obsessed (edit. no - not obsessed. Let´s say interested. Sounds more positive.. and less like a personal attack) as you regarding technology, industry and its great inventions. To disqualify that by saying these people are "spreading lies and fearmongering over technologies in a most reactionary manner" is lame.

Now back to the topic, can we? Or create another thread.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is not lame, it is misrepresentation of technologies that can yield significant benefits and solve very real problems such as vitamin A deficiency or curb global carbon dioxide emissions with complete and utter rejection regardless of the merits, risks or studies. The recent moves against nanotechnology being a threat is a brilliant example, some groups claiming that it will result in a grey-goo situation and painting a doomsday picture that just is not feesible. The apocalyptic picture that is painted by some green groups to justify opposition to new technologies is fearmongering and it is just wrong.

I am unimpressed that human progress is being stifled by dogmatic fundamentalists - my point is that the threat to reason based investigation comes from both religious and secular quarters.

 

[hiphop]

whatever Often, there are other (and better) solutions to problems than technological ones. I am unimpressed by what you think are solutions, because you´re projecting grabnd technological visions into the future while you have not the slightest knowledge of how nature will react to new technologies, see GM food which is restricted here (96% of the people against it, they are not interested, they do not want to buy it - not a real market, is it? and mind you, the greens here do not have 96% of the votes but 10%).

Back to the topic. Please.

 

[hiphop]

The topic of this thread is "Who here is not a Christian? Describe your own beliefs".

Just a reminder.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No this is very much On Topic, it is about a belief system.

Now how nature will react to these changes, this is where risk analysis comes into the fray. We can understand and assess the environmental risks posed by technologies and correct for them. Of course there are those who think that nature is some sort of single living being that has to be kept in exact balance or it will be completely destroyed forever, I think that sort of dogma is very hard to shake.

 

[blueyedpoet]

a_wanderer, perhaps you could describe more how your beliefs (metaphysical ones, if any) affect your environmental beliefs?
on the other hand, if you are purely a materialist - there is nothing beyond the physical - why would you wish to support that which is harmful to the material world?
These questions are related to my topic, so feel free.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, i completely agree with your assertions thus far. how have your spiritual beliefs influenced you caring about the environment?

 

[financeguy]

Of course there are those who think that nature is some sort of single living being that has to be kept in exact balance or it will be completely destroyed forever, I think that sort of dogma is very hard to shake.

Yes it's known as the Gaia hypothesis. You're not a fan presumably.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I don't generally take people seriously when they slip over into that whole 'Gaia' thing, though I haven't seen Whenhiphopdrovethebigcars doing anything like that.

It's possible to worry about balances within nature without invoking 'Gaia'. In truth I think we could do our worst and life on Earth would continue merrily in some form... BUT whether it would be a situation that would allow us a nice life any longer, is debatable.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that Lovelock is very right on how we should adress carbon dioxide emissions. I do however think that the gaia hypothesis is predicated upon the assumption that the planet is self-correcting and imbues it with a finite cause if you will. My real issue comes when it gets philisophical and people start treating the world as an out of balance system that has to be corrected because it cannot face change. It is just plain wrong and if we look at the history of the planet we can see vast changes in biodiversity with mass extinctions and points of increased speciation. I also find it to be wrong when it brings mystical bullshit into the fray and people treat the planet with conciousness.

It also seems that the concept of animals being wiped out by other animals and there being a constant state of background extinction, new speciation and destruction of old and creation of new habitats is lost and the world is treated as static. I think the worldview shares a lot of fundamental philisophical similarities to creationism in that it views it as perfect and in balance when it is really a dynamic system that is always in a state of change for better or worse.

 

[financeguy]

It is funny how some ideas catch on and others don't. For example Christianity 'caught on' whereas the heresy of Manicheasim didn't prevail.

In the 1930s many would have said free market capitalism was on the way out yet by the 1980's everyone wanted a piece of shareholding democracy and the writings of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand became fashionable again.

 

[A_Wanderer]

a_wanderer, perhaps you could describe more how your beliefs (metaphysical ones, if any) affect your environmental beliefs?
on the other hand, if you are purely a materialist - there is nothing beyond the physical - why would you wish to support that which is harmful to the material world?
These questions are related to my topic, so feel free.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, i completely agree with your assertions thus far. how have your spiritual beliefs influenced you caring about the environment?

My environmental beliefs are materialist, I do not want to say that I just support the destruction of the environment carte blanche, I think that human invention and technology is a valid means to adress the problems that we face. For instance GM crops can increase yields, reduce the use of pesticides and improve health around the world. If we can feed the planet without having to use so much land then more can be left in situ. Likewise global population can be curbed through raising living standards, hygene and education - the birth rates in developed countries are much lower than those in developing countries. While the individual ecological footprint may increase there will be fewer people and the quality of life is much better.

Energy requirements I think that we should deal with carbon emissions. But the fearmongering over global warming has warped the debate. We do not know if we are heading towards disaster and we do not know to what extent we are influencing global climate. A measured response should aim to reduce dependence on a finite resource (fossil fuels) and advance research into technologies that can deliver the energy that we need without taking up too much space (the problem with only using wind, solar or tidal is that we need a lot of energy and it may be too expensive to get all our energy from these sources. Better yet nuclear fusion would be the magic bullet in this being a cheap, clean and effectively limitless source of energy.

Scientific investigation and technology have drastically improved the quality of life for mankind. There are plenty of problems in the world, but they cannot be adressed by trying to throttle investigation and reduce humanity to old modes of production once more. I personally think that Dr Norman Borlaug is the greatest human being alive and his work has saved billions of lives. The Borlaug hypotheiss increasing the productivity of agriculture on the best farmland can help control deforestation by reducing the demand for new farmland is great.

Norman Borlaug
Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things

link

 

[financeguy]

Energy requirements I think that we should deal with carbon emissions. But the fearmongering over global warming has warped the debate. We do not know if we are heading towards disaster and we do not know to what extent we are influencing global climate.

Speaking as a non-scientist and thoroughly unqualified to assess the evidence regarding global warming, I must admit to being intrigued as to how you reconcile confidence in the scientific method with your scepticism in the large majority of qualified scientific opinion (I am led to believe, I am only going on what I read in the media) which seemingly is saying that global warming is happening and is largely human-generated.

 

[A_Wanderer]

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic of climate change that show that it has happened in the past, even recently in geological history (im talking about multiple changes in sea level up to 30m over the last 100,000 years - this was in a paper in science from april this year where a new statistical method was used that allowed data to be extracted from coral samples previously considered useless that gave a much sharper picture of sea levels) as well as the flaws in the IPCC which used the famous hockey stick curve that has had its methodology called into question and is at the centre of a running debate about anthropogenic cause of global warming.

Then we come to anomolies in the models, climate models are getting better every year but they are still far from perfect. Not a month goes by without a paper that upsets a previous assumption about where was is a net carbon sink and how deforestation and regrowth alters the balance (growing trees take in more carbon dioxide than old growth forests). The feedback mechanisms such as heat effecting cloud cover (both type of cloud and ammount), water vapour in the atmosphere) that have large effects on climate.

The other element is the effects of climate change - exactly what will an increase in tempreture do and what will be worse and what will be better. The problem with the Kyoto protocol is that it is nothing, it effects the change by a minute fraction of a degree at significant cost to signatory nations. It is a case where I think that we are achieving nothing at cost. A cost-benefit analysis should be considered here and right now the benefit is not worth it.

Lastly if we do find we are facing climate disaster then there remains the possibility of climate engineering. Large scale projects to reduce the ammount of energy absorbed by increasing the albedo of the planet using technology (I saw a proposal for a catamaran that seeded clouds, the clouds reflect sunlight and would keep the oceans cooler).

 

[blueyedpoet]

evidently, france, germany, the UK have done such a cost-analysis and have determined that they will indeed reduce emissions...some countries are even surpassing the Kyoto expectations

 

[A_Wanderer]

France can get away with it easy because it uses nuclear power for a large ammount of its requirements

 

[blueyedpoet]

It is a problem of the philosophy of science...do you believe what the majority of science suggests? Or, do you believe that a few anomalies account for something quiet different? How many cases of anomalies can a scientific paradigm withstand?
Eastern religions typically care a great deal more about the environment than western beliefs. This has always struck me as odd. If one believes that God has created this earth and has told humankind to take care of it, why would you wish to pollute it? Shouldn't Christians and Jews alike be at the forefront of environmentalism?
On the other hand, if you believe that this is all we have, this is all that is, then it seems as if you too must take painstaking efforts to maintain the earth.

 

[blueyedpoet]

course if you're an existentalist....

 

[blueyedpoet]

I'm still interested in an account for fundamental agnosticism

 

[A_Wanderer]

And the key to maintaining the earth is eliminating poverty, reducing our ecological footprints and protecting habitats. These problems are best adressed through technological innovation, the planet cannot support 6 billion people on subsistence farming alone, there are problems with materials, raising living standards will increase needs for plastics and things that are derived from oil.

 

[MacHat]

If I had to classify myself as anything it would be agnostic .

One thing I do believe in undoubtedly is karma .

 

[blueyedpoet]

If I had to classify myself as anything it would be agnostic .

One thing I do believe in undoubtedly is karma .

where does this belief come from?

 

[blueyedpoet]

I agree that the biggest problem we face is poverty. How do we solve it? How do we solve it in such a way that is not damaging to our environment? I do have faith in scientists, humanitarians, and economists to figure out such problems. I'm interested in being included in the solving of such problems.

 

[hiphop]

Norman Borlaug
Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things [/B]

How many months have you spent in the "misery" of the developing world, A_Wanderer?

The argument with fashionable elitists is plain wrong. It is not true that when you talk to an African farmer, he will say "I need fertilizer! Bring me fertilizer! Bring me more of your technology! More of your machines!"

I will not go into detail here, A_Wanderer, because I know you are not going to change your opinion, and frankly, I don´t care a lot for this discussion. But maybe you can reply one question, please? If technology is so great and the solution to all poverty, why has the overall standard of living not increased significantly in the last 50 years? If technology was the means to save people who hunger, then why didn´t it save the big numbers since the start of the 50s?

Your optimism towards technological development possibilities that have an effect on the social standard of the poor is totally outdated. I´m not saying that every single UNIDO project was a failure, no, many of them were successful. But it is just wrong and elitist to dream that our great innovations will somehow channel nature, create more farmland, cure everyone who´s ill and hooray, everyone will be happy. There is still enough farmland on this planet. But some of the products can´t be exported.

Concrete actual example: a cotton farmer from Togo. As to the current WTO meeting, he says that Togo does not have so many products to export, they are dependent on cotton. But they can´t export, because the U.S. dictates the price. And the U.S. price is so low (because of subventions) that the farmers in Togo have no chance. Now can you tell me how technology can solve this problem? I am curious.

Indeed, it is elitist to presume that technology itself can change anything. Travel to the developing world, talk with the poor there instead of sitting in your Australian elitist ivory tower, repeating the bullshit that scientists and politicians (and all of them from industrialized nations! now who do you think profits from exporting technology?) have already be blabbering 50 years ago. I can prove to you that scientists in the 50s said exactly the same thing you are saying now, but really, I´m reluctant to do the work and look for the quotes for half an hour.

By the way, I don´t know of any Gaia theory, it´s the first time I hear about that here. I think nature is terribly out of balance because man is acting superficial. I don´t need any proof for that. You, on the other hand, will ask for a proof until the fucking end of the human race.

Oh and I think the H-Bomb is a great technological invention, doesn´t harm nature at all and will save a couple of million lives

 

[hiphop]

1. And the key to maintaining the earth is eliminating poverty, reducing our ecological footprints and protecting habitats.

2. These problems are best adressed through technological innovation

3. the planet cannot support 6 billion people on subsistence farming alone

1. yes
2. wrong, technological innovations may be important, but have not reduced overall poverty in the last half of a century
3. wrong, the planet could support up to 20 billion people with food, and no one needs GM food for that.

I´ll add 4.: Every U.S. cow gets subsidies of $2 per day - more than a billion of people live for less than $2 per day.

 

[hiphop]

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars, i completely agree with your assertions thus far. how have your spiritual beliefs influenced you caring about the environment?

Well actually I think the caring for environment was there before my spiritual beliefs became important for me. I just think every animal leads a better life than the average human. I think animals and plants have the same rights like humans on this planet, but they are always trampled on.

Mankind took distance from nature, tried to control it for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.

As to the connections between religion and environment: I don´t believe in Gen 1,28 in its "modern" interpretation. "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it". For centuries, the "subdue" part has served as an excuse for wreaking havoc on environment (when this line was written thousands of years ago, when there probably were less then 10 million men on the planet and they used to go to hunt with sticks or something).

I think every plant, every animal, every living being has the same right to live like a man.

Science and technology themselves are ambivalent. They are neither positive nor negative by themselves. Often, we jump on the new tech developments without knowing what they will bring, as it is the case with GM food. I´m not a scientist, but I am critical of permutations. Imagine you would fuck like that with human genes! What do you think is gonna be the result?

I also despise the shortsightedness of techno-materialists when it comes to the systems of nature. That balanced system has been in tune (sometimes more, sometimes less, but basically always in tune) for 100,000 years and more. Why change it?

Why does the human race believe to be more intelligent than natural selection processes that worked well over such a long time? Can someone tell me that? This is plain aggressive, totally in the tradition of "subdueing".