Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 8      1   2   3   4   Next   »
CommonwealthMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #1 
Most of the members of this site seem to be religious in one way or another, I am not. Are there any other atheists?

__________________
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results"

Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can)

http://www.unitedconservatism.webs.com

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #2 
You may not be religious, but you have a faith. One that I think Peter shares....

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #3 
Peter, Zuka, pauljluk (who stopped posting before Peter joined, which is perhaps unfortunate as he would have made Peter look quite conservative!), and I think hubertgaston and perhaps jkelleher (though more of an agnostic).  Phil is "not an atheist" but is not affiliated with any organized religion either.

I used to be an agnostic so have some understanding of the secular position, though I am now preparing to become an Anglican.

CommonwealthMonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
You may not be religious, but you have a faith. One that I think Peter shares....


What do I have a faith in?

__________________
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results"

Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can)

http://www.unitedconservatism.webs.com

LegitimistJacobite

Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #5 

the Baron means, of course, that to believe there is no god is as much an act of faith as to believe there is a God

Brennus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 312
Reply with quote  #6 


I WAS an atheist for more than 10 years so I understand the mindset.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #7 
I am an agnostic in regard to metaphysical and theological issues; that is, even if I am inclined toward one possibility being more likely than another, I cannot know with certainty in a way that would exclude all other possibilities.   However, I am religious and try to experience the divine through rites, music, and meditation in their traditional forms.    I think this can be achieved for me to a varying degree in particular churches of the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox rites.    So I would say I am an agnostic who is religiously high church.   

__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #8 
It would appear to day that so are many of the Bishops,  even some of those in communion with Rome.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,825
Reply with quote  #9 
...except those sorts usually lack even Ponocrates's love of tradition and beauty.  The "aesthetic traditionalist/theological liberal" combination may exist among laity, but is quite rare I think among bishops, Anglican or Roman.
Zuka

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 65
Reply with quote  #10 
I am indeed an atheist.

Really the reason that I consider myself a monarchist is because I have a love of history, though besides a link to the founders of a nation I think that a monarch also lives as a symbol for everyone in their country and a symbol of unity. I don't, however, believe that a monarch should have particularly large constitutional powers. I am quite democratic, myself. Perhaps a monarch with the powers of, say, the president of the US or similar as long as they have good checks and balances on their power so they don't start going crazy or w/e as has happened in the past.

Lol digression.


__________________
Proudly Atheist
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuka
I am indeed an atheist.

Really the reason that I consider myself a monarchist is because I have a love of history, though besides a link to the founders of a nation I think that a monarch also lives as a symbol for everyone in their country and a symbol of unity. I don't, however, believe that a monarch should have particularly large constitutional powers. I am quite democratic, myself. Perhaps a monarch with the powers of, say, the president of the US or similar as long as they have good checks and balances on their power so they don't start going crazy or w/e as has happened in the past.

Lol digression.


I would love to see Her Majesty have, hold, and use the powers granted to (and even better those assumed by!) the President of the United States.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #12 
Intrigued by the idea of someone who makes me look conservative, I've been reading some of the posts of pauliluk. He did, but he was eloquent, articulate and clearly intelligent and knowledgeable. I'm sorry he's not still around to argue with.

I wouldn't wish a modern monarch to have the powers of the US President, checks and balances or no. I would wish a modern monarch to be a check and a balance, not to have executive power, which should be in the hands of those elected to it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegitimistJacobite

the Baron means, of course, that to believe there is no god is as much an act of faith as to believe there is a God

I'm not an atheist in that sense. I'm not convinced by reason and evidence that there is a God, and not prepared to believe in Him anyway. Of course, the existence of God is possible; it is very hard to prove a negative, and I even understand the argument that were God to prove His existence that would leave no room for faith, cf. the remarks of the risen Christ to St Thomas in John 20:29. Like the Devil, this is a scripture I have quoted for my purposes to those who disseminate the lies of ID (sorry, Baron, but ID is patent fraud, and the whole purpose of it, to in some way prove God's existence, is contrary to and a betrayal of the idea of faith).

So you could say I was an agnostic. I prefer to say that I'm an atheist because agnostic sounds wussy to me, also because I bear the warning of Revelation 3:15-16 in mind. Anyway, the Baron may have been thinking of the shared devotion of our new member and myself to the Great Lady.

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,500
Reply with quote  #14 
Before my friend the Baron reads the above, I'd better hastily say that I wasn't calling him a liar. I think the people who took the respectable and fairly ancient Teleological Argument, put a lab coat on it and tried to smuggle it into science class, instead of philosophy or RE classes where it belongs, were liars. I have no problem with people who like the Baron believe in the Genesis stories because they are Scripture, and are untroubled by the colossal mass of scientific evidence against them. That is faith, and a consistent, honest position. To distort science for your ends, or invent pseudo-science to achieve some goal, is not honest.

I have been surprised in the past that the Baron has supported ID at all, there is no need to from his point of view and it is so obviously fake. But never for one instant have I thought there was anything dishonest about his views on anything.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Before my friend the Baron reads the above, I'd better hastily say that I wasn't calling him a liar. I think the people who took the respectable and fairly ancient Teleological Argument, put a lab coat on it and tried to smuggle it into science class, instead of philosophy or RE classes where it belongs, were liars. I have no problem with people who like the Baron believe in the Genesis stories because they are Scripture, and are untroubled by the colossal mass of scientific evidence against them. That is faith, and a consistent, honest position. To distort science for your ends, or invent pseudo-science to achieve some goal, is not honest.


I agree with you wholeheartedly, as a very religious man. ID, as typically presented, is pseudoscience. There is also plenty of room within Christian tradition to either interpret biblical creation literally, or as a parable, or somewhere in between.

I personally find darwinism lacking, but do not discount natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. There are many, many gaps unaccounted for in our fossil records, and the numerous attempts to simulate evolution mathematically have failed to produce similar levels of diversity. Let's face it -- we don't have all the data. I know this will likely get me in trouble with certain trads, but I believe in a kind of guided evolution; God set the stage, and tweaked/adjusted various points of progress throughout history, and at a certain point declared the result of one branch man, who He blessed with an immortal soul. Again -- my *personal* belief; I don't hold anyone else necessarily should believe this, and am more than willing to be proved wrong.

My points are equally unprovable as God's existence, and again, have no place in a science class. But I do wish that in actual science classes that discuss evolution, they would discuss more Darwin's findings, his theories, the very real gaps in his theories, the updated models, the gaps in the updated models, and conclude that the whole thing is logical and promising, but we don't have all the pieces yet. That would be more honest. Evolution isn't a universal physical law like gravity or weak atomic forces, and shouldn't be treated as such. Frankly, I think it flies in the face of entropy, and have yet to see an adequate explanation of how it could work without *some* level of guidance by something or someone.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.