opnet [OpNet] Personal Religious Leanings

[Regina Newcastle]

I'm curious to ask everyone here where they fall on the spectrum of religious (or irreligious, as the case may be) belief. I understand that many people are mum on this subject because they feel it is a "personal matter". I do not. As people vote, legislate, raise children and - in the nova age - change the very world in the name of their religious beliefs, I think it is far less personal than people would generally agree to. That said, by no means am I forcing anyone to give their opinion, nor do I intent to use this as a springboard to attack anybody for what they think about the universe.

I am curious, however, to know where some of us lean, and to what extent your religiosity affects your life and how you use your abilities. A notable study was done by Dr. G. Graffin of Cornell in 2004 regarding the religious leanings of various eminent scientists; think of this, then, as my own coy stab at such an endeavour. Novas are, all hubris aside, the eminent species on the planet presently, and I think that a greater understanding of what drives and motivates us will lead to a greater understanding of what direction we're going in and what can be done about the roadblocks in our way.

I admit that I also have an ulterior motive in place. Oxford has seen fit to grant me a significant sum of money for the purposes of starting a non-profit think tank, and I'm seeking like-minded fellows.

Please. Abide my curiosity.

[Leliel]

I would actually call myself a "Spiritual Philosopher" as apposed to a religious individual. Religions tend to be dogmatic in belief as part of their basic nature. The flaw in that is the religions were created by humans. So in short:

How can the finite define the infinite?

I seek to find the bridge between the spirit (which I do believe exists) and the material world. However I seek to do so in a philosophical sense, as opposed to the "a greater entity told us". That works fine for a cult or for sheep, but I only need to look in a mirror to see how far closer to Infinity I am then any baseline.

My views on what could be called God I'm sure will piss off CoMA and other whackos, so here it is...

God is the collective quantum consciousness of all mankind. Some have become aware of this on a level (novas), others sleep on (baselines). If all on this planet were able to be aware of and combine their energies...

Similarly, the "devil" could best be described as the Id or uncontrolled subconscious desire to let one's passions overcome one's intellect.

So in a sense, we are all a part of good, evil, and Infinity.

Would that not be being one with Infinity?

[Blur]

I was raised in what would be termed a moderate Baptist home and the faith has stayed with me. However, I have been quite scarce for Sunday services in the past two decades.

I may not be practicing, but some of the basic tenants of the faith (Free Will in particular) are very close to my own philosophical musings. Hence, it goes without saying that the label "fundamentalist" does not apply to me.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Saying that it has an affect on how I'm going to vote doesn't make it any less personal.

[Chiteki Hoshiko]

I am not religious, and I'm hardly spiritual, but I'm probably not what would be called an atheist. Indeed, my current research is uncovering data that is making me wonder about the interaction of the human mind and physics. It seems that maybe even baselines may subtly bend the laws of physics, even though they cannot manipulate the quantum medium. If this is through some sort of "invisible undetectable energy", it certainly gives a lot of credibility back to theories about the "soul" or "chi energy". I'm not about to believe anything that hasn't been proven, but I'm going to be looking at a lot of people with a bit more respect.

Of course, any dogmatic religion traps and restrains the minds and potential of those who follow it, and as individualistic as novas are by nature, I predict that scarce few are going to adhere to the strict word of any God.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

Religion is the result of people dreaming about God, and who is to say that those dreams aren't real? After all, what is real in someone's mind it can affect him, and as such it is real, if enough people dream of something at the same time it becomes as real as anything else, because who can prove that reality is anything more than a shared delusion? Personally, I've had no dreams of God, but at times I wish I did. Having faith is comforting, and helps you through hardship.

[Satyr]

I am quite spiritual and very religious.

Although my religious practices also greatly anger our esteemed friends in CoMA.

I practice my own form of Celtic druidism with just a pinch of Animism thrown in for good measure. If you have any questions on the subject I will be holding classes back in Edinburgh once I move back.

[Good Alice]

I say this, the gods do not need us to believe in them, for they believe in us. I practice my act of warship to apease myself as much as to apease them.

The modern religious debate is often so grossly tainted by the idea "There is no God, but God." that the only other sides seems to say that "God" could not be real, and in the end you wind up with "there is no God." The simple fact God, in the term of all Powerful,All Knowing and all present, means that God could not give free will, and could not love us. That being said, those who believe in "No God but God", read from books that state that God loves everyone. Then again that is monotheistiism for you,the act of willing to believe paradoxes

[Gerald Haney]

Well, I was raised Presbyterian. Never really been huge into church but I'm a believer. I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Sorry: Many, many people include way to much faith in their beliefs, and this includes far too much intellectual dishonesty.

If you believe in something that can be proved, or measured, then you have the issue that we can take it out, put it in a lab, and test it... and to my knowledge those tests either turn up negative or are added to science and are no longer a matter of faith.

If god exists, then it appears he does not interfear in the natural order. To put that in religious terms, EVERYONE has freewill, and god won't counter anyones.

[Mr Frost]

Were I the sublime creator of the universe, the supreme primal being from which all else sprang; I would find myself needing to choose between sycophants and potentially interesting beings. That being the case, and assuming I chose interesting over fawning servants, I certainly wouldn't involve myself in their petty disputes as to my existence or prerogatives. It would be counter productive to my purposes.

This is not to say I wouldn't rig the game on occasion. One should not abuse one's creations yet there is sometimes a need to test assumptions.

[Good Alice]

Troll, I have a few problems with your statement. But let's start with this. What makes you think if there was one God, there could not be many? That is my biggest problem with these sorts of debates, they are so tainted by the idea of no God but God, that people assume that if there is something divine, there is only one of them, and if there isn't there is none.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Good Alice,

What does God do?

[Good Alice]

You miss the point, I do not think there is one all knowing God. Still if you want to know something that can be prove but not messure. Novas. I do not mean our powers or our abilities but look at the patterns of eruptions. Just the numbers them selves are not logical. more nova Erupt now than in 2010, and than in 2004 and so on.

That could be explained away in a number of ways but those ways well don't hold much water. Further more look where people erupt.

[z-Carver]

Wait, I didn't think this was supposed to be a religious debate - that we were supposed to express our views without fear of censure. Is this the case or not?

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Point. OK, I withdraw my question.

[Singularity]

As I have discussed with others, Buddhism would be one description of my personal religious leanings. However, I don't believe that existence is suffering.

[Machina]

Man, I'd say this one's a no-brainer, but if I'm right, then half the chumps here have proven to have less than no brain. Negabrain. A swirling mass of antimatter where a lump of grey tissue should be. I wonder how they keep hats from collapsing their soft-boiled egg skulls.

To answer your question, Genie Genome, I don't believe in a thing I can't experience and measure. If it ain't empirical, it ain't real, and outside of your own empty fuckin' head, I defy anybody to demonstrate otherwise.

Oh, and this is rich; Frankie doesn't think existence is suffering. Natch. If I was banging Codex, I wouldn't, either.

[Machina]

Oh, yeah, Tom? Dickhead, answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up, will you? I know you probably think you're real slick, throwing it back at her like that, but if you're not interested in providing a fucking answer, you're just cluttering things up, kind of like I am to tell you what a fucking jackass you're being.

Also, Kevin Smith is a fat jackass who makes shitty movies and I'm glad he caught the AIDS.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

It won't work. As for why it won't work;

(1) You're not that good at it.

(2) "Genie Genome" has an ulterior motive, that of forming a like-minded fellowship with whom to assist her in spending grant money. I'm not interested in the job or becoming part of the data.

(3) It is personal. Whether you're for or against religion, mainstream or obscure, its intensely personal. Because its intensely personal I don't see a reason to put myself in a position for Doctor Troll to tell me yet again what God is or how I should feel about God.

(4) I'm busy.

(5) You are so transparently jealous of real talent.

[Machina]

Then don't reply to the fucking thread, fuckoff.

[The White Rat]

Anyone with a node is a god. Humans on the other hand, are chattel.

[Fae Dreamweaver]

Quote:

Originally posted by The White Rat:
Anyone with a node is a god. Humans on the other hand, are chattel.

Is that even a "religious leaning"?

[The White Rat]

We are gods, and humans worship us. Do I have a religous leaning? No. Religion is for the weakminded. It is a means for those who cannot understand their own existance to find meaning in their pathetic lives.

[Gerald Haney]

Quote:

Originally posted by Machina:
Man, I'd say this one's a no-brainer, but if I'm right, then half the chumps here have proven to have less than no brain. Negabrain. A swirling mass of antimatter where a lump of grey tissue should be. I wonder how they keep hats from collapsing their soft-boiled egg skulls.

To answer your question, Genie Genome, I don't believe in a thing I can't experience and measure. If it ain't empirical, it ain't real, and outside of your own empty fuckin' head, I defy anybody to demonstrate otherwise.

Wow. Nice attitude there you jerk. Sorry, I can gaze lovingly at Jupiter every night like I was floating above it. I look into molecules. I see God in there and out there.

[Machina]

This isn't a discussion thread, jackass. You want to argue a case for your fucking derangement, let's do it on another thread.

[Regina Newcastle]

Thanks to everybody who bothered to reply, regardless of what I think of your respective answers. I plan to let this go on a bit longer for now. Thanks to everybody who answered.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:

(2) "Genie Genome" has an ulterior motive, that of forming a like-minded fellowship with whom to assist her in spending grant money. I'm not interested in the job or becoming part of the data.

True, but it isn't all that ulterior if I make it plain from the start, now, isn't it? And this has nothing to do with finding people to "assist (me) in spending grant money". That isn't what grant money is for, Tommy. Generally one is given a grant to achieve a specific end. I may be a nova, but Oxford is not in the habit of throwing its money at vague endeavors.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:

(3) It is personal. Whether you're for or against religion, mainstream or obscure, its intensely personal. Because its intensely personal I don't see a reason to put myself in a position for Doctor Troll to tell me yet again what God is or how I should feel about God.

Doctor Troll aside, whether you see the issue as personal or not, I assure you it isn't. The very definition of "personal" excludes other people. The moment your beliefs creep outside of how you comport yourself when alone, they have ceased being "personal" and become a matter of public - or at least peripheral - concern. The same can be said of political affiliation, something that most rational people will discuss and argue about without issue.

What I'm getting from you, Tommy, is that you see your personal views on religion as inviolate. That's fine, but if that's the case, then you have nothing to fear by offering them up for scrutiny. The worst you have to fear, should you be secure in your point of view, is the naysaying of others, something that shouldn't deter the confident one bit. That said, people are generally reluctant to share their beliefs because they are afraid of having them rendered false, and many people would rather die than think. Many do.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

I would respond that, assuming you had a sister, the fact that she was your sister is quite possibly a matter of public record regardless of how you felt about that. The nature of the relationship you have with your sister is not in most cases a matter of public record. In a similar vein; although its possible an argument could be made for my beliefs to be a matter of public concern, its not a requirement that I volunteer for interrogation or ridicule simply because someone is bored. Further more I don't believe you've established a conclusive case for the public and personal to be exclusive states.

I wouldn't use the word inviolate. I would say rather I find ample evidence of intolerance. While some might desire their intolerance to be perceived as intellectualism or curiosity, that sort of duplicity is distastful bordering on loathsome.

I use the word "ulterior" wryly. It appeared to have been overlooked by the person I was speaking with, hence it was hidden to that person through no fault of your own.

If you simply must have something for the empty cell on your spread sheet you can label me as buddhist catholic. I had talked publicly about that before and sinc learned it was a mistake.

[Regina Newcastle]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:
...the fact that she was your sister is quite possibly a matter of public record regardless of how you felt about that. The nature of the relationship you have with your sister is not...

That is true. I wasn't coercing anyone into replying, however. To use your own metaphor, imagine if you were taking a voluntary census and I chimed in with "I'm not telling you if I have any siblings." Brilliant.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:
I don't believe you've established a conclusive case for the public and personal to be exclusive states.

I could compose a more persuasive argument to that effect, but the present cost-benefit analysis of doing so doesn't bear it out. It's frankly easier to analyse your pathology and figure out where you're coming from than it is to persuade reluctant people unwilling to simply share their views when asked.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:
I find ample evidence of intolerance. While some might desire their intolerance to be perceived as intellectualism or curiosity, that sort of duplicity is distastful bordering on loathsome.

Allow me to refresh you, then. I am deeply intolerant of religion. This is something I am unashamed of and not one bit shy about. I am intolerant of jihads and honor killings and crusades and inquisitions and dogma. I am intolerant of lies and I am intolerant of falsehoods. I do not apologise.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tommy Tomorrow:
If you simply must have something for the empty cell on your spread sheet you can label me as buddhist catholic.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't as formal as all that just yet. Such a project may be in the works, but it will needs be a good more involved than simply asking a single (and rather obtuse) question.

In accordance with what I believe to be your wishes, I shall omit you from any further such study.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Thank you. Alternately you might choose a more appropriate venue in which to receive an explicit answer to your question. While you may not agree with my statements that beliefs of this nature are personal, surely you realize there are some occasions and circumstances better suited to receiving an answer than others.

Quote:

Originally posted by Regina Newcastle:

To use your own metaphor, imagine if you were taking a voluntary census and I chimed in with "I'm not telling you if I have any siblings." Brilliant.

Don't be disingenuous Ms Newcastle. We both know you've already received enough information to decrypt the answer to your question. You even have a detailed understanding of why I chose that format over the more obvious one. An understanding that comes not from what was explicitly said but inferrences viewed under the microscope of your own I.Q. far in excess of human average. If there is a point to quibbling over whether I used a number 2 pencil as requested or completely blackened in the circles on the form I don't see it.

In point of fact you've gotten the answer to your question, I've avoided an unpleasant metaphysical vivisection, the dogs of intolerance are napping and all is well in the world.

[Lou Anne Burgess]

I am religious, I was raised Southern Baptist but had a rather heated break with them several years ago. I’ve since been attending Catholic Mass with Rachel and her family though I have not formally joined the church. While my eruption has certainly made me think a bit more about the specifics of what I might believe in, it hasn’t shaken my faith in the existence of a Higher Power.

[Gerald Haney]

Quote:

Originally posted by Machina:
This isn't a discussion thread, jackass. You want to argue a case for your fucking derangement, let's do it on another thread.

Oh, excuse the hell out of me for topic drift. I didn't see you restricting your comments to your own beliefs. No, you had to take a shot at anyone who felt differently. But I guess when you do it, it's okay. Jerk.

[Machina]

Yeah, Gerry, it's okay when I do it because I'm right. Chill the fuck out, will you? Why the defensive act? If you're all secure in your cute little delusion, why do you give a flying hippopotamic fuck what I have to say about you? You calling me a jerk doesn't get one drop of piss in my cereal: I'm a jerk! You're crazy, I'm an asshole. Square?

[Y.T.]

I think that there is no God, but if there is one.I think it our job to do everything in our power to kill it. It having shown us nothing but,hate and suffering, is clearly and purely evil.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Transferrence or just a having a bad day?

[Sakurako Hino]

Religon + Forum = Powderkeg

Religon + Novas + Forum = Match for said powderkeg.

Although I overestimated the amount of posts needed for this thread to reach critical mass. Either the Novas involved here are having a bad stretch, or this sort of conversation is truely what I stated.

As for everything else... that is your problem, everyone, not mine.

[Trooper]

I've said it before. If there is a god he is one sick, sick, son of a bitch.

But me, I sure as hell don't worship him, his kid, his spirit, any multi-armed tramp, a goddamn tree or a big bird.

[Tommy Tomorrow]

Someone once told that me what appears to be coming at us is in fact coming from us. I would like to point out that person is someone I would consider very wise but who never served as a combatant, politician, priest or man who would be god.

Personal preference may apply.

[Lucifer]

Why, I'm a devout Catholic, of course.

[Warren Verona]

For fucks sake, are we discussing this again? Look in the archive and read the responses from the last 12 times this bullshit question has been asked.