Org Mobile Site
Thread: Are you religious?
simple enough, im interested to see if anyone even believes in god anymore, or amybe it varies with culture?
interesting...this can focus more on just religion though
give your points of view if you want
give your points of view if you want
Originally Posted by Aries777777:
interesting...this can focus more on just religion though
give your points of view if you want
God (In the Judaeo-Christian sense) doesn't exist. It's as simple as that for me. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility (Though still highly unlikely) that a greater being exists somewhere.interesting...this can focus more on just religion though
give your points of view if you want
I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of an higher being (although not an omniscient one, that one for me is effectively ruled out by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), but since I am a fan of Occam's razor I believe that in the absence of evidence for God I must assume the null hypothesis.
I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).
I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).
You had "don't know, agnostic" there, I couldn't find the "don't care, agnostic"....
I see all religions, from the norse and greek mythology to christianity and hinduism, as equally plausible. Shamans smoking weed to talk with spirits sounds just as good as moses talking to a burning bush IMO.
I see all religions, from the norse and greek mythology to christianity and hinduism, as equally plausible. Shamans smoking weed to talk with spirits sounds just as good as moses talking to a burning bush IMO.
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of an higher being (although not an omniscient one, that one for me is effectively ruled out by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), but since I am a fan of Occam's razor I believe that in the absence of evidence for God I must assume the null hypothesis.
I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).
The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of an higher being (although not an omniscient one, that one for me is effectively ruled out by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), but since I am a fan of Occam's razor I believe that in the absence of evidence for God I must assume the null hypothesis.
I do accept the importance of a moral code to the survival of civilization, but I believe the moral codes layed out by the major organized religions are very much products of their times, are in some aspects rendered obsolete by social and technological advances, and are primarily geared towards the propagation of the religion itself (to which end the prosperity of the civilization espousing it is only a secondary goal).
And Occams razor has been done to death its not a good one for proving or disproving anything.
MY religous views GAH cheese tatses funny
Gah! There may be a god, there may not be a god, there may be several gods. At this point in my life, I don't really feel the spiritual need to believe in a mythos. Some people do, whatever works for them is fine. But organized religion is a plague on mankind.
Im a Christian
Much of an agnostic atheist, or perhaps an apatheist, also much of a nihilist. Probably a bit of apathetic agnosticism there is in me, too.
Yeah, labels are too restricting, so combine all four things (at least, probably something is missing
) and you've got my stance. Not particularly fond of religion I am, though.
Yeah, labels are too restricting, so combine all four things (at least, probably something is missing
) and you've got my stance. Not particularly fond of religion I am, though.Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.
I never said it had anything to say about the existence of God, I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).The Heisenberg Uncertainity principle doesnt prove there is no God just you cant prove there is or isnt a god because you cant be certain of your measurement so its a bit like saying GAH.
Originally Posted by :
And Occams razor has been done to death its not a good one for proving or disproving anything.
It's a matter of personal taste as to whether you accept it or not. Personally, I do. I wasn't aiming to disprove the existence of God, merely to outline why I personally do not believe in him.And Occams razor has been done to death its not a good one for proving or disproving anything.
Extraordinary claims (no matter how much they promise) require extraordinary evidence. As I have yet to see such evidence of gods I have no reason to believe in them. That seems to fit the definition of an atheist.
CBR
CBR
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
I never said it had anything to say about the existence of God, I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).
It's a matter of personal taste as to whether you accept it or not. Personally, I do. I wasn't aiming to disprove the existence of God, merely to outline why I personally do not believe in him.
Sound I see your point boss as regards your idea on an omnisicient being you could be on to summit.I never said it had anything to say about the existence of God, I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).
It's a matter of personal taste as to whether you accept it or not. Personally, I do. I wasn't aiming to disprove the existence of God, merely to outline why I personally do not believe in him.
If we take it that the Gods in any religon we have are obviously not omnisicient this means they are not God however a truely omnisicient being is probably so far beyond our thinking that we just as much as the god/being are incapable of interacting on any level.
This would beg the question even if there is a god does IT care or even know were here a bit like a naturalist watching a lion eat a cow he takes no sides and has no way to really interact with either party.
There are the many unknown forces in the world, if not the universe, that could be regarded as gods. They are not life as we know it, and they can influence your life in small ways for better or worse, depending on what you do to please them. Unfortunately, that which pleases them would appear to be varied and bizarre.
I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.
Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.
Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.
I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.
Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.
Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar:
I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.
Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.
Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.
No wonder they wouldn't worship Louis. Their god promised much, but couldn't defend them from the vicissitudes of cruel Fate.I've so far found that crushing countless thousands of small ants brings about good luck for a few weeks, and all is well with my life. But if i crush one of the bigger ants, it brings about bad luck. I can only wonder what else works.
Yes, you heard it here first. Mikeus Caesar is a one-man ant crushing cult, ever eager to please his many heathen gods.
Well, i don't go out of my way to crush ants. If i happen to see a large patch of ants, i'll stamp on them a few times. If i see a big ant, i'll go out of my way to avoid harming it.
It's a harsh lesson that we all have to learn.
Agnostic in the way coined by its originator.
That God knoweth all things is found in scripture and there are many that alludes to; Him who knoweth what you want before you ask it.
Two examples:
Psalms 147:5
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
... I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).
It depends on how you interpret omniscience. ... I just feel it implies that if God does exist, he can not be omnisicient (which I believe is actually entirely consistent with scripture, though someone who actually knows anything about scripture may care to correct me).
That God knoweth all things is found in scripture and there are many that alludes to; Him who knoweth what you want before you ask it.
Two examples:
Psalms 147:5
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Colossians 2:8 (speaking of the Father and the Christ): In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
I choose agnostic as it's the thing closest to my belief...
I do believe there is more to the world than what science can account for, however, I lean much more towards a "gaia"-belief system than church doctrine.
Church I find laughable tbh:)
I do believe there is more to the world than what science can account for, however, I lean much more towards a "gaia"-belief system than church doctrine.
Church I find laughable tbh:)
I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.
I agree with Chris Rock, we are all members of the Church of ATM. That overrides pretty much any and everything else. I'd like to see some reality show offer people on the way to church $5,000 to not go that day, just to see what happened.
It's funny how Scientology is its own category. No one wants to claim them, LOL. Wouldn't they... technically... count as monotheist? They lie so much about what exactly they believe that who knows, but supposedly Xenu or something is their central figure.
It's funny how Scientology is its own category. No one wants to claim them, LOL. Wouldn't they... technically... count as monotheist? They lie so much about what exactly they believe that who knows, but supposedly Xenu or something is their central figure.
I was born and raised as a Catholic, which I was until I reached the age of reason (to quote George Carlin)
Now I´m a weak atheist, meaning that I do not "know" for sure there is no god, but I find it to be the most logical conclusion by a fairly large margin.
Now I´m a weak atheist, meaning that I do not "know" for sure there is no god, but I find it to be the most logical conclusion by a fairly large margin.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
I agree with Chris Rock, we are all members of the Church of ATM. That overrides pretty much any and everything else. I'd like to see some reality show offer people on the way to church $5,000 to not go that day, just to see what happened.
You know, I'm certain you didn't intend it that way, but you've actually inspired me for the next time I feel like "blowing mass off", and I've done it for a lot less than $5K. To go play golf or go buy tires, for 2 examples. I agree with Chris Rock, we are all members of the Church of ATM. That overrides pretty much any and everything else. I'd like to see some reality show offer people on the way to church $5,000 to not go that day, just to see what happened.
At the end of the day, faith is a choice. There is no proof. If there was, it would be acknowledgement, not faith. You can question why a benevolent, omniscent God would leave His own existence open for debate, but that's the way it works. Failure to prove His existence does not prove His non-existence.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
You know, I'm certain you didn't intend it that way, but you've actually inspired me for the next time I feel like "blowing mass off", and I've done it for a lot less than $5K. To go play golf or go buy tires, for 2 examples.
At the end of the day, faith is a choice. There is no proof. If there was, it would be acknowledgement, not faith. You can question why a benevolent, omniscent God would leave His own existence open for debate, but that's the way it works. Failure to prove His existence does not prove His non-existence.
Of course. But one can believe in a God, creator or superior power, and not be religious. Entirely different things.You know, I'm certain you didn't intend it that way, but you've actually inspired me for the next time I feel like "blowing mass off", and I've done it for a lot less than $5K. To go play golf or go buy tires, for 2 examples.
At the end of the day, faith is a choice. There is no proof. If there was, it would be acknowledgement, not faith. You can question why a benevolent, omniscent God would leave His own existence open for debate, but that's the way it works. Failure to prove His existence does not prove His non-existence.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Of course. But one can believe in a God, creator or superior power, and not be religious. Entirely different things.
I could not agree more. You're talking about the difference between Faith and Religion, and not enough people understand the difference between the two. I see Religion as a necessary evil, in much the same way it's entirely possible to be of sound and commendable political beliefs, and then you enter Congress....Of course. But one can believe in a God, creator or superior power, and not be religious. Entirely different things.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.
Mainly because of the impact of religions. Religions today dictate modern constitutions and mind sets of entire nations; world wide. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.
Probably religion is (much?) more of a personal thing in the states, but it certainly isn't other places; like Norway with a state church (and a king that's Christian per the constitution).
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I could not agree more. You're talking about the difference between Faith and Religion, and not enough people understand the difference between the two. I see Religion as a necessary evil, in much the same way it's entirely possible to be of sound and commendable political beliefs, and then you enter Congress....
I guess as a person who has faith that there is a greater power, but never had any uses for Church, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why organized religion IS necessary. I don't mean that as an attack upon you or other religious people. I just don't understand what organized religion ... gives? ... which could not be supplied self-sufficiently on a very local basis. Most on an individual basis even.I could not agree more. You're talking about the difference between Faith and Religion, and not enough people understand the difference between the two. I see Religion as a necessary evil, in much the same way it's entirely possible to be of sound and commendable political beliefs, and then you enter Congress....
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.
It was sorta stated by someone else but.... basically, people who either live a secular life, or have a religion or belief system not part of a given society's mainstream, who have to fight the constant threat of laws that regulate behavior or lifestyle or choices one can legally make, with the only real reason being "because my religion/preacher/church says something is wrong." Not an argument with facts and figures, but just a non-negotiable judgment call from one particular religion. That's what gets people really angry. Especially when, frankly, it's things that are unfair, like going from "being gay is a sin" to "we oppose any formally recognized gay rights." That argument rests upon insisting people can choose to be gay to stay coherent, when gay people (other than a small fringe of very brainwashed ones) insist it wasn't a choice.I'm a devoted follower of Christ, though at times a very poor servant. I understand the reasons people have for agnosticism, but I do not understand the fury and venom religious belief tends to invoke in the unbeliever.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
I guess as a person who has faith that there is a greater power, but never had any uses for Church, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why organized religion IS necessary. I don't mean that as an attack upon you or other religious people. I just don't understand what organized religion ... gives? ... which could not be supplied self-sufficiently on a very local basis. Most on an individual basis even.
No offense taken.I guess as a person who has faith that there is a greater power, but never had any uses for Church, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation as to why organized religion IS necessary. I don't mean that as an attack upon you or other religious people. I just don't understand what organized religion ... gives? ... which could not be supplied self-sufficiently on a very local basis. Most on an individual basis even.
Two things:
1) A universal ethos. As enlightened as your average backroom Orgah tends to be, I'm afraid in the world outside, the average Joe is not capable of consisently deciding for the higher good.
2) A framework from which to develop one's beliefs. You may have rejected the monotheistic models offered by the three religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but you at least had their teachings to build from and reject in the process of formulating your own.
and as a third function, though not a fundamental one by any means...
3) I would argue that organized religions do great good beyond restraining man's baser natures (and yes, sometimes they incite and foster those baser natures as well). Organized religion, done well, leads to things like community sharing, charity, spiritual development, and a "can't lose" argument the next time your kids ask you "why".
Okay, that last example was a bit tongue in cheek.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
No offense taken.
Two things:
1) A universal ethos. As enlightened as your average backroom Orgah tends to be, I'm afraid in the world outside, the average Joe is not capable of consisently deciding for the higher good.
2) A framework from which to develop one's beliefs. You may have rejected the monotheistic models offered by the three religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but you at least had their teachings to build from and reject in the process of formulating your own.
and as a third function, though not a fundamental one by any means...
3) I would argue that organized religions do great good beyond restraining man's baser natures (and yes, sometimes they incite and foster those baser natures as well). Organized religion, done well, leads to things like community sharing, charity, spiritual development, and a "can't lose" argument the next time your kids ask you "why".
Okay, that last example was a bit tongue in cheek.
Isn't divorce, abortion and crime generally higher in the "bible belt" than the "atheist blue states?" As a general statement, I mean. Don't you think what the average Joe does has more to do with sociology, class, social status, poverty, culture (alcoholism, singlemotherhood or what have you) than the presence or lack of a religion?No offense taken.
Two things:
1) A universal ethos. As enlightened as your average backroom Orgah tends to be, I'm afraid in the world outside, the average Joe is not capable of consisently deciding for the higher good.
2) A framework from which to develop one's beliefs. You may have rejected the monotheistic models offered by the three religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), but you at least had their teachings to build from and reject in the process of formulating your own.
and as a third function, though not a fundamental one by any means...
3) I would argue that organized religions do great good beyond restraining man's baser natures (and yes, sometimes they incite and foster those baser natures as well). Organized religion, done well, leads to things like community sharing, charity, spiritual development, and a "can't lose" argument the next time your kids ask you "why".
Okay, that last example was a bit tongue in cheek.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Isn't divorce, abortion and crime generally higher in the "bible belt" than the "atheist blue states?" As a general statement, I mean. Don't you think what the average Joe does has more to do with sociology, class, social status, poverty, culture (alcoholism, singlemotherhood or what have you) than the presence or lack of a religion?
I honestly don't know the answer to that. I did not know that divorce rates and abortion were higher. I imagine at some level, you'd have to factor out economic determinants. For example, compare a religiously inclined population and a religiously disinclined population of similar economic means, like Fort Collins, Colorado versus Portland Orgeon or something like that. Isn't divorce, abortion and crime generally higher in the "bible belt" than the "atheist blue states?" As a general statement, I mean. Don't you think what the average Joe does has more to do with sociology, class, social status, poverty, culture (alcoholism, singlemotherhood or what have you) than the presence or lack of a religion?
You raise a good point. And I would argue the number one factor bringing divorce down is the presence of divorce attornies. One good sob story in the office of what some guy who got carried away at a bachelor party is now paying his wife and her new thing in alimony is enough to drill anyone, atheist or fundamentalist, into keeping it in their pants.
I didn't say that religion was a unique source of these benefits, I said it offered "a" source. For example, explain to me why it's absolutely wrong to strike somebody who's offended you?
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I honestly don't know the answer to that. I did not know that divorce rates and abortion were higher. I imagine at some level, you'd have to factor out economic determinants. For example, compare a religiously inclined population and a religiously disinclined population of similar economic means, like Fort Collins, Colorado versus Portland Orgeon or something like that.
You raise a good point. And I would argue the number one factor bringing divorce down is the presence of divorce attornies. One good sob story in the office of what some guy who got carried away at a bachelor party is now paying his wife and her new thing in alimony is enough to drill anyone, atheist or fundamentalist, into keeping it in their pants.
Understood. I guess I just never knew people who were part of formal religion to be more moral, to have a greater (or rather, more admirable or better) sense of right and wrong compared to anyone else, to live better lives or avoid more of the mistakes than anyone else. Depending on the particular denomination or church in question, sometimes they're visibly worse than the general population in specific regards. I went to Catholic high school, so I would listen to these extended rationalizations about how, since oral sex is not intercourse, it thus does not count as having sex outside of marriage, committing a mortal sin, or losing virginity. And here I was just some heathen without religion raised by parents without religion who knew better. ;) (Plus, doesn't that technically count as sodomy anyway? Any sex act which by design prevents any possibility of procreation?)I honestly don't know the answer to that. I did not know that divorce rates and abortion were higher. I imagine at some level, you'd have to factor out economic determinants. For example, compare a religiously inclined population and a religiously disinclined population of similar economic means, like Fort Collins, Colorado versus Portland Orgeon or something like that.
You raise a good point. And I would argue the number one factor bringing divorce down is the presence of divorce attornies. One good sob story in the office of what some guy who got carried away at a bachelor party is now paying his wife and her new thing in alimony is enough to drill anyone, atheist or fundamentalist, into keeping it in their pants.
Originally Posted by :
I didn't say that religion was a unique source of these benefits, I said it offered "a" source. For example, explain to me why it's absolutely wrong to strike somebody who's offended you?
Well, because it's illegal. And then I would have additional personal ethics about it as well, which may or may not apply to more bully minded or anger management needing individuals. But in fairness it's not illegal everywhere, some counties and such still recognize "fighting words", or at least they did, the last time I was studying law. But you can even have a universal ethos without organized religion. It's just that not everyone will agree. But then, not everyone in organized religion agrees either, right?I didn't say that religion was a unique source of these benefits, I said it offered "a" source. For example, explain to me why it's absolutely wrong to strike somebody who's offended you?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO