Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 2, 2011 9:53:28 GMT -8
Seemingly simple question. Do you consider yourself religious or not? Are you a theist, deist, atheist, agnostic...? If you confess yourself to a religion, what religion?
Myself, I'm an atheist, plain and simple. I don't believe there's any god and that the concept of god was created by humans who wanted to explain the world without the use of science (which wasn't very developed when our modern major religions came into being).
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 2, 2011 10:43:11 GMT -8
I'm also an atheist (or agnostic? God can't quite be disproved, but many religious claims can be), but I have a deep respect for religion.
It's true that religion was used as a way to explain things (as it still is somewhat), but I believe its major function has always been to bind groups together, to promote morality, and to discourage selfishness.
Although when religion, as with most things, is taken to extremes it's rarely good and typically destructive.
|
|
|
Post by mughin on Aug 2, 2011 14:43:18 GMT -8
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't have problems with someone believing in a God or entity, i just don't like the concept of religion, the only way i truly accept that is with personal spiritualism and individual search.
Organized religion is run by men, and thus, it is corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by davidchansey on Aug 2, 2011 14:52:13 GMT -8
I once saw a report on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) that approximately 80% of all illegal crime throughout recorded human history was directly religious based. This doesn't even include wars as they are not "illegal".
I am an atheist by the way. My personal feelings towards religion are simple: if God can be proven to exist, I would gladly believe in his existence, but until then, I don't believe in him. Similar to the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", which is the approach of trying to prosecute someone, I go by non-existent until proven otherwise.
I have a general negative attitude towards religions (not religious people) because I know that even if there were proof against his existence (which there is a lot, i.e. laws of physics) the religion would not accept it, and instead try to rationalise it. I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for the general claim religious people have that non religious people are closed-minded. In reality, it's the other way round. They cannot accept the thought of God not existing, whereas I really don't mind either way.
If anything, I want him to exist, so I can go on to the afterlife. But that's not a good enough reason to "believe" in him, just to make me happy. Unless there is some proof to his existence, or I have a genuine experience that I deem to be a "miracle", I won't be turning religious any time soon.
I have many religious friends across the globe, and 2 of my ex's were also religious. We had our philosophical and religious rants from time to time, which were always fun and challenging from both sides of the argument.
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins. His arguments aren't just that God doesn't exist, but more that most people follow a religion influenced by their upbringing. Not everyone, but most people. All of my religious friends follow the religion that the rest of their family follow, and their children will most likely follow the same religion too.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 2, 2011 15:00:16 GMT -8
Ignostic. ooo look at me droppin obscure terms up in here. But really. Ignostic. Define your particular deity, and I can say if it exists or not, or if its existence is verifiable. But the concept of "God" is just too vague and expansive in itself to really make a statement on the existence of whatever the hell the asker imagines it to be. Imo, it seems like it's just a pedantic way to include new-agey energy being definitions of God (as well as definitions of God as the universe, or as nature, or some other similar bullshit) into the assumed statement "do you believe in the (Judeo-Christian) God?" (Or other major religion, but the internet I frequent is white and western, so really, Judeo-Christian). But that's how I roll. Pedantically.
Also, from what I've heard, Dawkins is poop if he's talking about God (not his specialty) but brilliant when talking about evolutionary biology and genetics (which is his specialty). The conclusion you say he comes to about religion seems pretty self-evident, though.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 2, 2011 15:18:07 GMT -8
I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for the general claim religious people have that non religious people are closed-minded. In reality, it's the other way round. They cannot accept the thought of God not existing, whereas I really don't mind either way. It goes both ways. There are fundamentalists who denounce atheists as without morals and degenerate while there are militant atheists calling all religious people idiotic, delusional, or simply insane. As for the Dawkins thing: if all people followed the religion that their parents taught them, then belief systems would never change (how would a child of two Christians become an atheist if it's all about upbringing?), and that's obviously false. I know many people who strongly follow faiths that differ from their parents' teachings. But of course it's more likely for children to follow their parents' teachings or something similar. And that goes back to what I said before: religion is for group cohesion--families, communities, even some nations. It's not as much about the factual claims; those are secondary to religion's true purpose. I recommend all atheists read this article: www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html
|
|
|
Post by davidchansey on Aug 2, 2011 16:44:06 GMT -8
That took me ages to read, although I did read it all, and carefully. I'm no expert on psychology, but a lot of it did seem reasonable and justifiable.
"I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right."
Religion in modern day undoubtedly has its moral benefits, but it's not a reason that would convert atheists to be religious. There are many ways to improve one's self, and to live a more fulfilling life, but religion wasn't primarily "invented" for this purpose. Its purpose is to teach about "God(s)" and the way of life they should live in order to go to some sort of afterlife. Like it said in the article, these teachings aren't necessarily about morals, but the way of life that God willed humans to live by.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 2, 2011 17:28:52 GMT -8
Religion in modern day undoubtedly has its moral benefits, but it's not a reason that would convert atheists to be religious. There are many ways to improve one's self, and to live a more fulfilling life, but religion wasn't primarily "invented" for this purpose. Its purpose is to teach about "God(s)" and the way of life they should live in order to go to some sort of afterlife. Like it said in the article, these teachings aren't necessarily about morals, but the way of life that God willed humans to live by. Not true. Its purpose is to keep society civil; the factual claims are simply part of the method and tradition. "Religions and their associated practices greatly increase the costs of defection (through punishment and ostracism), increase the contributions of individuals to group efforts (through cultural and emotional mechanisms that increase trust), and sharpen the boundaries — biological and cultural — between groups." Of course people can find meaning in life and morality through means other than religion (I have), but religion significantly helps people with this issue. Also, much of the atheist community sees the 'spiritual' aspect of religion (or life) as worthless when it provides meaningful experiences. William James wrote about it in The Varieties of Religious Experience. "The perception of sacredness and divinity is a basic feature of the human mind. The emotions of disgust, moral elevation, and awe tell us about this dimension, but not everybody listens. The “religious right” can only be understood once you see this dimension, which most liberals and secular thinkers do not understand – at their peril. Understanding this dimension is also crucial for understanding the meaning of life" "For many people, one of the pleasures of going to church is the experience of collective elevation. People step out of their everyday profane existence, which offers only occasional opportunities for movement on the third dimension, [the ethic of divinity,] and come together with a community of like-hearted people who are also hoping to feel a “lift” from stories about Christ, virtuous people in the Bible, saints, or exemplary members of their own community. When this happens, people find themselves overflowing with love, but it is not exactly the love that grows out of attachment relationships. That love has a specific object, and it turns to pain when the object is gone. This love has no specific object; it is agape. It feels like a love of all humankind, and because humans find it hard to believe that something comes from nothing, it seems natural to attribute the love to Christ, or to the Holy Spirit moving within one’s own heart. Such experiences give direct and subjectively compelling evidence that God resides within each person. And once a person knows this “truth,” the ethic of divinity becomes self-evident. Some ways of living are compatible with divinity—they bring out the higher, nobler self; others do not. The split between the Christian left and the Christian right could be, in part, that some people see tolerance and acceptance as part of their nobler selves; others feel that they can best honor God by working to change society and its laws to conform to the ethic of divinity, even if that means imposing religious laws on people of other faiths." —Both from Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis
|
|
|
Post by t3h Icy on Aug 3, 2011 23:09:49 GMT -8
I suppose I'm agnostic atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Destiny Warrior on Aug 4, 2011 3:54:36 GMT -8
I'm a theist(Hindu). I don't actively propagate that God exists, but a few of my real life experiences convince me that there might be a higher being who pulls our strings. My religion is a bit more "laidback" than others, if I may use the term, since most of the rites etc. to be done in it can be done at home by reading them from a book(I do not at any point insinuate that myr eligion is "superior" or anything, because that whole idea is bs), so it isn't as "active" as others. It's more of just a way of life than a religion when you get down to it, if you get my drift. I'm against overusing religion, because frankly, that just leads to communal riots and a whole lot of unnecessary violence. I just follow it, as simple as that. It's partly because I'm only 15, so I'm with my family, and partly because it doesn't demand very much from me outside of participating in festivals(which are kind of fun .
|
|
|
Post by samthedigital on Aug 4, 2011 17:05:36 GMT -8
I would describe myself as a communist Nazi.
|
|
Zilch
Member
What's in the box?
Posts: 561
|
Post by Zilch on Aug 4, 2011 19:10:20 GMT -8
I'm a Christian, but I don't practice it seriously.
The world is not ending in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 7, 2011 5:47:24 GMT -8
I'm a serious Christian.
|
|
|
Post by KiNGskruffi on Aug 9, 2011 11:00:32 GMT -8
Not much time so just very quick. I'm an apathetic agnostic or apatheist. Meaning I can neither prove nor disprove the the existence of a deity, but I just don't care. Even if the existence of a deity was proven I wouldn't change the way I live my life.
I also think it's not the duty of the sceptic to disprove the existence of a deity, but rather of the believer to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 10, 2011 0:54:33 GMT -8
I'd like to add that, in my opinion, if you are to follow a religion, you should do so passionately (though not arrogantly or without doubt). Religious belief can lead you to a life of fulfillment, but if you simply go through the motions, it will likely become more of a burden than a blessing—though religion can give one a community, which is also important.
This applies to the non-religious as well; find something you are passionate about and follow it. As Søren Kierkegaard said, "It is impossible to exist without passion."
Religion is not about rationality (proving the existence of God, etc.), but neither is life in general. Many of us like to think we're rational animals, but we're really not--all of us hold irrational beliefs. What's the difference between believing that Christianity is the one true religion, that communism is the best form of government, or that humans are purely selfish? All of these things have evidence going against them, yet there are people who believe in them still (EDIT: Actually, I'd say being Christian is preferable to the other two examples. Christianity can give you fulfillment and community; communism can maybe give you community... belief in selfishness gives you nothing).
I agree with Baruch Spinoza in that "faith should be judged only by its fruits." If beliefs produce happy, good people, then they must be good in some way. If they do little to people's behavior, then they're not significant. If they consume people and lead to immorality, then they're bad.
I'm not saying that rationality isn't important, but it has its place. When it comes to math and science, rationality must reign through logic, the scientific method, and peer review. But when the meaning of life is in question, pure reason won't get you too far (unless, of course, you found your reasoning on beliefs).
And don't say that religious beliefs have been mostly destructive in the past; they've caused both good and evil along with other non-religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by brookman on Aug 10, 2011 4:14:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 11, 2011 13:23:29 GMT -8
I agree with Posthuman (again).
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Oct 25, 2011 7:38:24 GMT -8
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Oct 25, 2011 10:29:01 GMT -8
Apostle's Creed, eh? What's your denomination? Does it not accept the Nicene Creed's primarily anti-Arian revisions?
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Oct 25, 2011 13:05:29 GMT -8
WW, you're catholic?
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Oct 25, 2011 22:43:52 GMT -8
finally WW.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Nov 3, 2011 22:32:39 GMT -8
I'm Presbyterian (PCA), so we generally use the Apostle's creed. Arianism isn't really an issue anymore, but I like the Nicene creed as well and I'm working on memorizing that next.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Oct 12, 2012 5:58:18 GMT -8
Well I suppose I'll post in this topic. I am a Christian, but I don't claim to be in any denomination (I go to both a Nazarene church and a Baptist church). I believe in the Holy Trinity, Christ's Death and Resurrection as payment for our sins, and the authority of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Oct 12, 2012 13:42:23 GMT -8
Glad to have you, brother!
|
|
|
Post by gunbladelad on Oct 20, 2012 2:42:56 GMT -8
I was raised as a Protestant up until the age of 9, at which point I was given free reign to choose my own path. I eventually became Atheist.
Family-wise, I've got family on both the Protestant and Catholic side of Christianity's fence - and I've had friends in many other religions. I can see the merits and benefits of religion, but it's simply not for me personally. I won't force my own views on others and all I ask is that they return the favour. I am quite happy to have an intelligent conversation about religion though.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 13, 2013 17:20:50 GMT -8
What do I believe? I believe that the blind watchmaker is wondrous, and that we cheapen the majesty of nature when we ascribe it to the machinations of some anthropocentric overlord.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 14, 2013 1:06:41 GMT -8
What do I believe? I believe that the blind watchmaker is wondrous, and that we cheapen the majesty of nature when we ascribe it to the machinations of some anthropocentric overlord. Ouch. I think a better way to put it is that when you realise how limited and insignificant humans are in this universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies, the idea that an anthropocentric existence was behind all of it is silly. It's honestly the equivalent to thinking that a divine embodiment of a goldfish created the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 14, 2013 14:30:55 GMT -8
Dre There is much more to a person's significance than size. Even when comparing it to the unfathomable size of the universe.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 14, 2013 16:55:54 GMT -8
Dre There is much more to a person's significance than size. Even when comparing it to the unfathomable size of the universe. But there is no reason to believe that those billions of galaxies were designed for us. That's like saying it's reasonable to believe the exercise bike next to the goldfish bowl was designed for the goldfish. The goldfish has no access or concept of the exercise bike, the bike has uses that the goldfish can't apply, no intelligent room designer would put an exercise bike in the room for the golfish's sake. Remember you're talking about an omnipotent and omniscient god here. If there is a god that expects us to believe the universe was designed for us, he could have made it far, far, less ambiguous. It simply isn't reasonable to believe that an all-wise deity would expect us to believe this universe is designed for us, because it clearly wasn't designed in a way to make that apparent. Imagine I have a wife (who is an artist) and kids, and come home from work and find that someone has left a drawing for me to see. The drawing is completely scrambled, barely resembling a structured image. Naturally, I'm going to assume it was one of my kids who drew it, because I know that my wife would have done a much, much better job if she drew it. It's the same logic. An omniscient god who wants us to believe this universe is designed for us (and punishes those who don't) would have made that much more clear with better design. Saying this universe is designed for us is about as reasonable as saying that planet Earth was designed for a worm. Even then, the worm-to-Earth scaling is probably too small to be a completely accurate analogy. Whenever you apply religious logic to other scenarios, you end up being able to justify the most absurd beliefs.
|
|