i think that Jesus was actually the Christ, can't say that I align with all other christians... and it's a pity that we have so many "lapsed _____ " present...

Still my own

Humanist

I meant the cults of Mormon polygamists that Invictus referenced

I believe in Santa

what no pastafarians?

do you guys eat alot of pasta?

ooo low blow.

former fundamental baptist turned sane

Agnostic (married into Catholicism...)

Sent from: Caviare (100 ) Sent: 02:55 AM
Humanist
=============================================
Humanist is not a religion, it is a philosophical position like existentialism. Existentialism was started by French atheists but nowadays we also have Christian existentialism and although humanists are predominantly atheist(I apologise if that's an unfair generalisation) Niccolo Macchiavelli was a Christian humanist in the 1500s! The point is humanist does not automtically mean atheist.
=============================================
Sent from: sean (1579 ) Sent: 01:59 AM
lapsed atheist
=============================================
Interesting...
=============================================

I realize its not a religion but if I was to say which belief system I subscribe to I would say rationalist.

yeah.....lots of 'lapsed' here...shows we are not braindead yet...or maybe we are eclectic ?

Contemporary humanism is generally atheist in nature. This is mostly due to the implementation of scientific method. Before its use (The 1500s) Humanism was compatible with religous dogmas as it was acceptable to scientifically assume that ancient texts and the like were entirely accurate. This lead to as Sioraf has said "Christian" humanists like Machiavelli and imo a much more notable example in Sir Thomas More.

is it not a problem that true science, by its very nature, cannot allow for our human foibles and will become a straight jacket ?
is a strict interpretation of rationalist humanism the same ?
a fudementalism more scary than inneffecient old religeons.

Rationalism states an approach to looking at things rather than direct views. So a 'fundamentalist' rationalist does not allow a 'straight jacket' to form because he is open to proof. Its nature is in direct contrast to religion.

yes but what to do when the rationalist just KNOWS what is good for you...can s/he afford to let ypu go on in your muddle headed wombat ways...?

Maybe I should start a philosophy thread?
Anyway, I view science and religion the same way: bother with them as little as possible but as much as necessary.

I'm not sure that I understand what your getting at. Can you give an example of something that you 'just know' and what would give someone the right to impose what they know on you?

Well sinned the rationalist knows that fundamentalists don't listen and don't want to listen to other points of view so the rationalist would judge that even though you have the answer if it won't be listened to by the target audience the act of giving the answer is a waste of time.

----- and it's a pity that we have so many "lapsed _____ " present...


Why is that a pity? Because people have rejected dogma pushed down their throat from birth by parents and houses of worship?

don't get me wrong...I would take a rationalist or humanist over the religeous stance anyday, but no system stays pure...if a science based humanism was empowered, would it stay neutral and leave you alone...if it knew what is best for you ?

can an athiest 'lapse'...or would that be apostatecy [sic] ?

An atheist lapsing is someone becoming less sure that there isn't a god which would basically make them more of an agnostic so that would be whatever the secular version of apostacy is.

maybe...cold feet ?

Unenthusiasm about God/ no god if you ask me.

I think the "lapsed atheist" was a joke guys.

I don't have any formal religion that I follow, I'd best describe myself I suppose as an agnostic/deist, or maybe pantheist. I find religion fascinating, and I think there is some spark of truth in nearly all religions I've learned a bit about, but I don't really think I can subscribe to the explicit teachings of nearly any of them ie, it seems to me they all attempt to represent/make understandable some aspect of the true nature of the universe, but I don't necessarily think any of the fables, or doctrine are literally true. I think that nearly any religion (or no religion for some people) can be a path to "God" or "Brahman" or the true nature of the universe/reality, or whatever you want to call it.

An interesting look at this topic, and something that has influenced both my interest in, and thoughts about religion, the universe, and reality, is the book "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra. (incidentally I'm also pretty interested, albeit from a layman's perspective, in modern physics and science.)

I'm more of a flying spaghetti monster follower myself....

aka a pirate