• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Pete

  • Rank
    A Pickle fan
  • Birthday 06/24/1954

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Marital Status
  • Location

Friendly Details

  • Interests
    Psychotherapy, NLP & Hypnotherapy, Counseling, Co-Counseling, Personal growth & Learning.
  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    Universal Liberal something or other.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,786 profile views
  1. I know they do not jump over cliffs. Okay, perhaps I should say driving by faith without seeing on the highway ain't a good idea.
  2. Hey Dan, you say you walk by faith and not sight. Is that not what lemmings do.😀 Rhetorical question. I am not interested in the answer.
  3. It's terrible that some will try and justify this.
  4. Interestingly there is a whole lot of dead people that God ordered his followers to kill and looking through Leviticus God again inspired his followers to kill none believers, gays, and those who do not listen to their priests.ect..
  5. The UU has Christian origins in the UK, but today it has many agnostics, atheists and pagan who just enjoy the meeting. The same goes with the Quakers in the UK. I met agnostics, atheists, sufis, hindus, etc. It has Christians who are also liberal. A UU member said Quakers like to met in silence and UUs have attention deficit and have a lively social meeting. UUs have ministers but Quakers say all are ministers and they all pitch in with the running of things.
  6. I remember a doctor who used to run a group of varing faiths at end of life years. He said it is not for me to convince anyone about his beliefs. The important thing is for them to say what they feel is their beliefs in an area where no one is to argue against it. Therefore the point is listening and facilitating (where possible ) what the person feels they need. This is important to many faiths and none faiths alike. In stating their belief they are reaffirming their own beliefs at a time they will need them. ie end of life years.
  7. They are the ones arguing there God is real therefore it's for them to prove that. I am not arguing because I do not see there is evidence for a God. I cannot provide evidence for an provable God therefore it's back to them. I can judge any evidence they supply as credible or not. For me it would have to be provable by logic or science, or empirical evidence.
  8. All I can say that in my own journey the movement from liberal Christian to agnostic is not sitting on the fence. It was a big leap and a challenge to all I stood on before. It ain't sitting on the fence . It's a position I stand on and defend. Whether it be atheist or believer. That is not sitting on any fence. In my book and like you I do not care what others think about my position. That fence is a wall against all sides except science.
  9. I totally agree. One does not conduct science believing in only one conclusion. One approaches it being open to the findings. I cannot see any reason to believe in an all seeing or caring deity but maybe its possible even though it's very very unlikely that there is one. According to science. It is science that is the key here and a God lies in the area of unlikely, unproven, and no evidence for such a deity.
  10. I really do not like the expression "sitting on the fence" when it comes to agnosticism. I feel it's more like being open to new evidence rather than shutting the door on things. It's an honest position that one can be wrong despite the huge evidence that God cannot be proved and Is not likely to be proved as things stand in this life.
  11. No your not. It is the willingness that some give themselves to such trust in old scripts and religious leaders. It defies logic. Yet, for them logic is not what it is about.
  12. It's the blind unquestioned status religous leaders get that makes feel there are so many dangers in it. I have met people who consider murder just because a piece of script says so. I just feel difficult about the relinquishing of persons responsibility in all this.