Any Non religious people here?

To the OP- yes, you can be non-religious here, as long as you're a Mormon.

edit- the more I think about it, the more this seems to be a troll. Discussing religion and politics with strangers is normally an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:
I'm Catholic but pretty much non-practicing. Except for when I go home for holidays, because it makes my mom happy.
 
Not much work at all, I did a simple Google search, just like anyone who actually cares about accuracy in their statements can do to either qualify or disqualify rumor, assumption or stereotype about any particular religion.

Point being this.....it appears that the common theme of this thread is to bash on and mock the religious beliefs of others, spout opinion and half-truths to justify ones position and when presented with facts, completely ignore them.

google search or not, someone put in the time to try and refute one persons feelings and substantiate their own... I'm guessing a while ago as none of the studies are really up to date (newest was 1993 I think, going back as far as 1975)
and realistically if someone wants facts/accuracy they don't find it on the internet.

the common theme of this thread was non-religious types talking about why they are non-religious. non-religious people are going to spout off on why they don't like religions, its a privilege we enjoy.
but then those who feel the need to justify religions (specifically theirs) jumped in to defend themselves, which is a priviledge they are granted.

the original theme was asking "Any Non religious people here?" not "justify your beliefs, and defend your religion to those who choose not to believe"

what half-truths are being used? people give personal accounts/opinions of their past, who's to say whether they are true or not other than that person. Who are you to say they are half-truths?

personal opinions aren't required to justify their stance, they are just that, personal experiences that have added up over the years, resulting in pushing one person toward the path they are on now.

I have never understood how religions can debate based on facts? its a following based on believing without seeing, blind faith in a way... is it not?
 
Last edited:
Read the Bible and point out where in the New Testament we are given any requirements other than giving our lives over to Jesus in order to be saved. That's the problem with denominations, they add to the word. The Jews did it too. They added some 600 odd laws to the Torah. Follow the Word, not what someone has added to it.

Show me a church that does that (follows "the word" and nothing else). I'll show you an empty room. They'll look the same.

As goodburbon was alluding to - every religion/denomination seems to pick and choose what they practice/believe in. The "word" (whether it be a Bible, Torah, Koran/Quran, Book of Mormon) has been translated, twisted, manipulated, added to/deleted over many years. No one knows what the original text stated.

Do you REALLY believe that the Bible you're holding in your hands is the exact words (translated) written 1500-2000+ years ago?
 
Last edited:
While this is true. One thing that bugs me a lot....and this is coming from a guy who believes in a higher power but can't stand any organized religion... Is how it is seemingly OK to chastise Christians but Jews, Muslims, buddhists and any other religion out there is totally off limits.

It's sort of weird to see that even though the "Christian religions take up the far greater percentage of people in this country, they are also the first to be blasted.

Silly, you can't be a majority in this country and have your way.

.....just like racism can only flow in one direction....

Right? :eyes:
 
  • What is an "unusually high number of Mormons"?
  • what is the acceptable ratio?
  • What do you do if the number of Mormons exceed the alloted ratio?
  • Did the city of Carlisle have a statute that dictated how many children a family could have?
  • Were the Mormon families in violation of this statute?
  • :dunno:
Is there a chart that indicates what a normal number should be, along with how may Jews, Catholics, Buddists, Muslims.........Athiests there should be? :rolleyes:

Since you brought it up..........practicing LDS members follow the Word of Wisdom, which provides a template for healthy living.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...toid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Unless the classmate you've labeled a "hypocrite" ( based on something that you "guess")......... was a glutonous comsumer and addict of candy bars, your statement lacks merit.......for the record.

Here's some fun facts:

One study from the Journal of American Diet concludes that an average 7-oz cup of coffee contains anywhere from 80 to 175 mg of caffeine. That's a pretty wide range. Another study estimates the caffeine content of a cup of coffee at 90-150. Regardless, we can safely average these two studies and say that a cup of coffee will have about 125 mg of caffeine.
These same studies cite the caffeine content of other sources:
  • A Cadbury chocolate bar has 15 mg of caffeine (one would need to eat more than 8 Cadbury chocolate bars to equate to a cup of coffee).
  • A glass of chocolate milk has a whopping 8 mg of caffeine (yes, that's more than 16 glasses to match a cup of coffee).
  • A package of hot chocolate/cocoa, mixed with water or milk, to produce a cup of hot chocolate/cocoa contains 5 mg of caffeine (one would need to consume 25 cups of hot chocolate to equal one cup of coffee).
  • Jell-O pudding pops contain 2 mg (over 60 pudding pops to equal a cup of coffee).
  • A glass of iced tea contains about 70 mg of caffeine.
  • The most popular brands of cola contains about 30-45 mg of caffeine.
However, when considering the health benefits to the Word of Wisdom, should we just look at the caffeine content of coffee, tea and other sources?
It is not just the caffeine in coffee and tea that produces harmful effects to our health.

Take the caffeine out and you are still left with the following consequences:

The coffee bean's composition is dramatically altered during roasting, resulting in chemical transformations where more than 700 "volatile substances…are formed (Garattini, Silvio, Caffeine, Coffee and Health, Raven Press, New York, 1993, pp. 17-41 and H. Maarse, Volatile Compounds in Food, Vol. 2, 6th Ed., Zeist, 1989).

Such chemicals as acetaldehyde, ammonia, carbon disulphide, acetic acid, nitrosamines, and others may make coffee a mouthful of trouble! (Garattini, Silvio, Caffeine, Coffee and Health, Raven Press, New York, 1993, pp. 17-41 and H. Maarse, Volatile Compounds in Food, Vol. 2, 6th Ed., Zeist, 1989).

But whether it's decaffeinated or not, just one daily cup of coffee increases the risk of bladder cancer three times (American Journal of Epidemiology 117: 113-127, 1983; Journal of the National Cancer Institute 547, 1975).

And drinking more than two cups a day of caffeinated coffee doubles the risk of fatal bladder cancer (American Journal of Public Health 74(8)820-23, 1984).

Brown drink users have an increased risk of stomach, kidney, lung, pancreatic, ovarian and colon cancer. (George Hodgkin, M.S., R.D., et. al., Caffeine: Bad to the Last Drop, Loma Linda, CA) and (International Journal of Cancer 28(6): 691-693, 1981).

So, we know, scientifically, that coffee brings unique and serious health risks, even without the caffeine. There is plenty of the same regarding tea.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Word_of_Wisdom_Caffeine_and_Hypocrisy.html

Bottom line is this:

Although there is no mention of carbonated drinks, ice cream, Ding-Dongs, Big Macs, heroin, cocaine or Otter Pops in the Word of Wisdom.....all things that can be/are addictive should be avoided.

Sorry, Cadbury is not my idea of chocolate, don't like the stuff. Here is a chart on the contents/levels
http://www.amanochocolate.com/articles/caffeineinchocolate.html
 
Ryan, don't judge an entire people or religion by the actions of a few. My kids have friends who are of different religions, as do I. We have never once discussed a child or parents religious affiliations when sending out birthday invitations or setting play dates.

I don't, Jeff. The majority of my friends are LDS, including you. I don't hold your...or their religion against them in any way shape or form. There are several reasons I stepped away from the church. That was one of the bigger ones as I was growing up. Being a kid it was hard to separate peoples actions from the church. But the anger I felt from that gave me enough separation and space that I could look at it from an outsiders view and realized that it wasn't the religion for me although to be honest, my view on organized religions are pretty much even across the board. I just don't like any of them.
 
As goodburbon was alluding to - every individual invloved with a religion/denomination seems to pick and choose what they practice/believe in.

Fixed it. Media has a term for catholics that pick and choose what rules to follow & live by; "Cafeteria Catholics". This is different from "Flower Catholics", those individuals that go to church when flowers are present: Weddings, Funerals, Christmas & Easter.

:angel: <- I just saw this and thought how appropriate.
 
More people have died in the name of god than people are living right now. I am not going to rant, just saying I'm not a 'believer'...
 
Fixed it. Media has a term for catholics that pick and choose what rules to follow & live by; "Cafeteria Catholics". This is different from "Flower Catholics", those individuals that go to church when flowers are present: Weddings, Funerals, Christmas & Easter.

:angel: <- I just saw this and thought how appropriate.

Agreed. That's why I don't trust religion. People created religion. All of them - to serve a particular need. Good way to manipulate a large number of people, no?

So which one is the correct one? No one truly knows....

As your sig says - "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

:viking:
 
http://www.essortment.com/all/biblechristiani_rfie.htm
The Old Testament, which is where the majority of the difference between KJV and Catholic bible comes from, was adopted from the canonized Jewish texts, predating the Catholic bible, by a few centuries, so the "extra" books would seem to be added to the Bible.

JNickel: When compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, things matched up pretty well, that's good enough for me. :) Have I personally read the Dead Sea Scrolls? Of course not. As far as showing you a church that doesn't add to what the Bible says? Come to mine, go to most of the Calvary Chapels. Most of the churches I've been to have taught the Bible and not added extra things on that you need to do. Some people feel compelled to give up alcohol, others don't. Many feel compelled to give up smoking, but then that's just smart. Most give up cussing. If any church tells you to quit drinking, smoking, cussing, and listening to heavy metal before you can be saved, they're adding to the Word. You get saved, then through Christ, any areas that need to be addressed will be. You don't go to the hospital when you're not sick, you don't throw clean clothes in the washer, why would you need to get clean before getting clean?
 
Fixed it. Media has a term for catholics that pick and choose what rules to follow & live by; "Cafeteria Catholics". This is different from "Flower Catholics", those individuals that go to church when flowers are present: Weddings, Funerals, Christmas & Easter.

:angel: <- I just saw this and thought how appropriate.
My uncle used to call himself a Roamin Catholic.
 
...why would you need to get clean before getting clean?

I think you answered your own question there. If you are a good person and live a good life on your own, why religion? To "guide" you?

As for taking from/adding to the Bible - I think you missed my point (or I didn't outline it properly...) - how do you know "the Bible" that you're holding is true "word"? There are so many versions/translations of it. Over the last ~2000 years, PEOPLE have added and taken away from it to suit their needs/beliefs/end results.

So you have the Old Testament covered pretty well (with the Dead Sea Scrolls) - what about the New Testament? In my limited experience, that's the important part - the guidance for how to live today. OT is history and the "vengeful god". Not many people follow the OT word for word, or even really as a guide....right?


Ah, I miss the Original Topic of this thread.....
 
Old Testament has a lot of important prophecy, a lot of it detailing the coming Messiah. When Jesus showed up, He fulfilled those prophecies from the Old Testament. And yes, it is true, the Law of the Old Testament is no longer our driving force (no need for burnt offerings, sacrifice, etc), but it still gives us a lot of insight into the character of God. As many times as Israel disobeyed, created idols, and walked away, He always took them back in when they repented. There was still punishment, but always mercy as well. God hasn't changed, just the balance due has changed. Jesus was the sacrifice to end all others, but God is still just and there will still be punishment for those who don't accept the offer. That is what people who try to "convert" you are driven by. They don't want you to go down that path. They can tend to get a little obnoxious though.
The New Testament was taken from the accounts and letters of the men who lived it. The Gospels were recorded by the 4 men at different times who actually lived and walked with Jesus. None of them sat down and wrote it while they were there either, and they didn't consult to make sure their stories lined up either, but they still lined up. Much of the New Testament was written by the apostle Paul, letters from him to churches that he had helped start. Those letters would've been the type of thing that the churches likely would've held onto.
http://www.bombaxo.com/paulchron.html - Chronology of his life and timing of letters.

One thing I think people tend to overlook when contemplating how true the stories about Jesus are and whether He was who He said He was is this: Every single one of the apostles was killed, except for the apostle John. Many of them were slain in horrific fashion. If it was all made up to suit an agenda, would they have gone to such extremes? Or were they willing to be tortured and killed because they knew what they saw and knew what they preached was correct?
http://www.about-jesus.org/martyrs.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_12_Apostles_die
http://www.apostles.com/apostlesdied.html
 
I Believe in God.
But I am not religious.

This has been a very interesting conversation.

It does amaze how vocal and evangelic atheists (and deists for that matter) are these days. Mention one word about believing in something other than nothing and they jump all over you, like you are standing on a sinking Titanic swearing that god herself can't sink the ship.
 
David Koresh was born to a young, single mother too. Called himself the Messiah. Had a few followers, but most others thought he was crazy - he was eventually killed in a pretty horrfic way, along with many of his followers.

So how do you think he'll be viewed in 2000 years? What if his remaining followers write a bunch of letters outlining all of the good things about him?

EDIT:

I'll admit, this is a ridiculous comparison, but.....
 
Last edited:
I think you answered your own question there. If you are a good person and live a good life on your own, why religion? To "guide" you?

As for taking from/adding to the Bible - I think you missed my point (or I didn't outline it properly...) - how do you know "the Bible" that you're holding is true "word"? There are so many versions/translations of it. Over the last ~2000 years, PEOPLE have added and taken away from it to suit their needs/beliefs/end results.

So you have the Old Testament covered pretty well (with the Dead Sea Scrolls) - what about the New Testament? In my limited experience, that's the important part - the guidance for how to live today. OT is history and the "vengeful god". Not many people follow the OT word for word, or even really as a guide....right?


Ah, I miss the Original Topic of this thread.....

I always find this argument interesting. There are more copies of the Bible (especially the New Testament) by far extant from ancient times than there are copies of Shakespeare, despite the difference in age. No one seriously considers that his message has been lost over time, but people are constantly claiming that the Bible's has. We could reconstruct the entire New Testament and most of the old from the correspondence of the early church fathers alone. There is less than one word in 2000 in the NT that is really in question and a bit higher the OT or Jewish Tanakh. None of these words significantly affect the meaning of the text.

Sorry... I know this is a bit of thread high-jacking, but this subject always interests me, especially the number of people who actually believe it.
 
the original theme was asking "Any Non religious people here?" not "justify your beliefs, and defend your religion to those who choose not to believe"
what half-truths are being used?

Here's a few:

"They don't practice it b/c of the law - but don't they still "believe" in it?
Aren't most, if not all, of those crazy "cults" offshoots of LDS? "


"I guess it is against their beliefs to ingest any sort of drug?"

people give personal accounts/opinions of their past, who's to say whether they are true or not other than that person. Who are you to say they are half-truths?

My intent was to clarify doctrine VS speculation or assumption.

My comments regarding facts were specifically directed, not a blanket statement. Our experiences are just that and our perceptions become our reality.

personal opinions aren't required to justify their stance, they are just that, personal experiences that have added up over the years, resulting in pushing one person toward the path they are on now.

I have never understood how religions can debate based on facts? its a following based on believing without seeing, blind faith in a way... is it not?

Agreed, those looking for "proof" will not likely find it.



I believe Jesus Christ is our Savior and atoned for the sins of all mankind.
I believe we existed as spiritual beings before coming to Earth to recieve a body.
I also believe that we are here on the Earth to make choices, create families and gain knowledge and wisdom from this life experience.
I believe that we will be judged by our choices and actions when we leave this mortal existance.
I believe that we will be re-united with our mortal families when we pass from this mortal existence.

I believe you have the right to worship how your choose, or choose not to worship at all.

I believe that all people are born with the Light of Christ, which helps them discern right from wrong, good from evil. Some choose to acknowledge this, others ignore it.
 
I always find this argument interesting. There are more copies of the Bible (especially the New Testament) by far extant from ancient times than there are copies of Shakespeare, despite the difference in age. No one seriously considers that his message has been lost over time, but people are constantly claiming that the Bible's has. We could reconstruct the entire New Testament and most of the old from the correspondence of the early church fathers alone. There is less than one word in 2000 in the NT that is really in question and a bit higher the OT or Jewish Tanakh. None of these words significantly affect the meaning of the text.

Sorry... I know this is a bit of thread high-jacking, but this subject always interests me, especially the number of people who actually believe it.

.....not as ridiculous as this one. Really? Comparing Shakespeare to the Bible?

No one is saying Shakespeare's work is fact and that you should live by his word. I think you just inadvertently made a point against the Bible...

Or did I mis-read what you're trying to say?
 
Back
Top