Poll: Are you religious?
- Thread starter Kilroy17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope. I went to a Church of England Primary school, where they force religion onto you from your first year onwards. I just thought it sounded weird. Then I read up on science. And it explained everything a lot better than the vicar did.
To quote Doug Stanhope:
"They shouldn't teach you religion until you're eighteen years old, it'd be a whole different world. If they weren't pushing it into your head while it was still soft you'd never buy it."
If you really believe death leads to eternal bliss, why are you wearing a seatbelt?
To quote Doug Stanhope:
"They shouldn't teach you religion until you're eighteen years old, it'd be a whole different world. If they weren't pushing it into your head while it was still soft you'd never buy it."
If you really believe death leads to eternal bliss, why are you wearing a seatbelt?
I am not religious but I am also agnostic (also an atheist). I also am friends with several people who are religious but are also agnostic. I think you need to brush up on what that term actually means.
Because it means that even though you are not religious you are open to the idea that there may be something to it you just can't prove or disprove it.Krall said:
Nope. Although I might technically be called an agnostic by some more pedantic definitions, I put myself firmly in the atheist camp.
Agnostic anti-theist. We haven't proven the existence or non-existence of God, so making assured statements about either scenario is unwise. Personally, the former scenario is unlikely enough for me not to give a f-ck either way.
That said, an assured belief in the supernatural leads to all sorts of nastiness that a scientific worldview prohibits.
That said, an assured belief in the supernatural leads to all sorts of nastiness that a scientific worldview prohibits.
Sure, except the burden of proof argument doesn't work when dealing with apparently non-falsifiable things. That is, normally the burden of proof works in day to day life, but with regards to things like "the creation of the universe" or other things which we will never observe nor really affect us, it is required that acknowledge that the evidence is lacking for both claims of existence and non-existence.TheDist said:
I'm not trying to convince you that my religion is right by any means, I'm just trying to show that the burden-of-proof argument isn't as perfect as some atheists think it is.
That's actually kind of a hard question for me. Do I attend a religious institution? No. I've had bad experiences. Do I believe in some kind of higher power? Yes. Do I take the word of my religion as fact? No. My religious text may have originated from a higher power or someone(s) who met that higher power, but it has since been copied by men and women and I'm willing to bet on their being some choice edits. I try to stick to the spirit of the text though.