Poll: Are you religious?

[Kamehapa]

(snip)

Possibly the dumbest thing I have heard (in a while). Just replace that idea with anything else:

I say, "If a magical unicorn that craps gold exists, he must dance to me in order for me to believe."

You say, "By having a test for a magical unicorn that craps gold, and demanding that they comply with it, aren't you basically admitting that unicorn must exist? It has to, in order to decide to fulfill or not fulfill your requests."

I say, "No the whole idea is asinine, which is why I want some serious proof in order to believe this thing that so many other people believe is self evident."

Just because it works for my example doesn't mean it works for all examples. But I was under the impression an atheist is someone who flat-out denies the existence of God, not somebody who would believe in God if sufficiently convinced - that's closer to being agnostic, though not quite.

Additionally, part of having faith - the only important part, really - is believing in something that cannot actually be verified. That's why faith is irrational (and though I have it, I don't deny that it is). Part of religion is making, and accepting, the irrational belief. Not believing because it is irrational is fine, but demanding proof of something which, by definition cannot be proven is ridiculous and circular.

Not circular at all, a God can prove himself if he does exist, but his non-existence is disprovable.

Also, there are two types of Atheism:

1) Strong Atheism - I believe that God does not exist
2) Weak Atheism - I do not believe God exists

Both of which operate on the basis of belief, meaning that sufficient evidence could possibly sway it. Weak Atheism is more open to the idea God MIGHT be real because they do not directly think God is impossible, just that they have no reason to believe he is real.

Agnosticism is something completely unrelated dealing with whether it is even possible or not to know if God exists, though many people use it as a mask for weak Atheism

Where did you pull these types of atheism from, exactly? And how is one "weaker" or "stronger" than the other?

You just basicly said that an atheist can be a Gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. And no, not both of them operate on the basis of belief. One does (agnostic). One doesn't (Gnostic)

Agnosticism is not a third option in the middle of the two, nor it is a "mask" for "weak" atheism.

It is just another philosophical position.

There is not black and white, and some gray in the middle. It's Gray, Gray, Gray and Gray. Being these Gnostic and Agnostic Theism, and Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism.

If you want an indepth explanation of these positions, wikipedia is your friend. And no, this is not my opinion, these are, in fact, the official possitions regarding atheism and theism you can have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I even said agnosticism is another unrelated philosophical term. By mask I mean that people sometimes claim they are agnostic when they mean they are a weak atheist because they do not really know what agnosticism really is.

But you are right on one, weak atheism works based on a lack of belief, I did misspeak for that.

 

[King Toasty]

From the Book of Forums, Flame Wars 4:52;

"Post not religious debates with intent of flaming, or without intent of flaming; the Internet is a volatile place. Find a board that can stay in peace for discussion, and and calmly; yell not and caps-lock not."

By these standards, this is a good thread.


OT: Nope, but I don't hate on the religious.

 

[eggmiester]

Nope. I have no beliefs whatsoever.

I'm not a full on "god isn't real and you people who believe in him and fools" type I do believe in each to their own.

I respect that a person can hold to certain beliefs and find comfort in them. I also respect that some people don't (seeing as I don't).

I can't really give a good reason as to why not all I know is it started as a child. We did religious education at primary school (or kindergarten if you're American and reading this) and a lot of the stories they told us were so full of holes and contradictions that it just never took my interest.

I can't blame my parents, my mum is a Cypriot with a very religious family and my dad is Irish Catholic (a mum from Cyprus and a dad from Ireland and they move to fucking Britain ... "lets move to where the sun is ..... or not, lets go to Britain and torture our child") but anyway yeah, my parents both have very strong beliefs.

They never forced it onto us though which i'm grateful for as I said it's just not something that interests me. Neither me, my brother or my sister hold to any faith.

But, like I said, I do respect those that do follow a religion so don't take this as me claiming i'm better than you or that your faith is meaningless that couldn't be further from the truth/

my friend, i couldn't have put it better myself. i'm an agnostic ( i think there's a cream for it), and that's mostly because i'd like to think there's something that's waiting for us after death. call me a sap- i'd like to think it's not just over when you die.

also: religion is a good thing, mostly. it teaches humility and kindness- it's just that there are bad people who use to their own ends. anything that gives bad people an advantage they use: whether it be religion, science, or anything else.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

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.

That's pretty much covered under "no," I think.

 

[orangeban]

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, although I personally make it my duty to be more liberal then some of the Ultra Conservative nutters that you see in a lot of other christian religions.

My stance on it is this, Jesus talked more about who you should care about then who you should ostracize from society and treat horribly, he wanted us to love one another and treat others as we want to be treated, I'm pretty sure that he'd be willing to have a pleasant meal with an Athiest or Pagan or even Scientologist and not try to cram christianity down their throats.

I respect Athiestic and Agnostic beliefs (My dad's an agnostic), I can honestly say that both sides need each other, Athiests and Agnostics keep this world from falling into a theocratic crap sack where your rank in society depends on what you choose to believe and wars are waged at the drop of a hat, and Religions keep this world from falling into a "Total Reason" society where things are based more off of results rather then any form of morality or humanity.

Alright, you seem like an awesome lovely person who has sensible beliefs (and interesting ones to, a liberal Roman Catholic? I am genuinally intrigued) so I'm just gonna link these videos about why religion is not a pre-requisite for morality. http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/7/T7xt5LtgsxQ

Very interesting videos those, well worth a watch. Also, agnostics can be religious.

Thanks for the compliment! ^_^ although I might not watch that video immediately since I'm paranoid about the whole "Recommended for you" thing on youtube, I watch one video of something like the Da Vinci code and the next thing I know I'm up to my knees in "Illuminati evil secret conspiracy 2012!" videos.

Ah, yes, I see how that could be a problem. Though the video presenter is calm, rational (maybe a teensy bit anti-religious, but at least he's polite, he's mainly against anti-atheist religous people.) and I find he has a damn sexy voice (that's probably just me) you'll likely end up with "8ut7seXXX6b6" video about how he just passed physics 101 and now thinks he can disprove god.

 

[sergnb]

Now, as I have stated before in other post, I would be PERFECTLY fine with people believing what they want if this didn't DIRECTLY INTERFERE with my personal freedom. Yes, I do think theists and atheists are in a constant war. Check the news, you'll see that shit everywhere.

The only western country where believers and no believers are so clearly divided and religion plays such a huge part in politics, must be America. Is that where you live?

Religious people VOTE for a party that has a belief that clashes with my own, so tell me, is it really not okay if I try to reason with someone? I will leave ANYONE alone if that doesn't interfere with me or the people I care about, but it DOES interfere. That's why I feel it's just logical to have a debate with someone and try to make them see their beliefs may be hurting me indirectly.

Which Christian believes do you think might indirectly hurt you? What of Jesus teachings do you think would make the world a horrible place?

Sounds to me like you are speaking of pseudo-Christian republicans and conservatives. Those guys are nuts, not because they call themselves Christians but because they are freaking nuts. I don?t think you wage a war against religious values (at least not the truly Christian values). I think it?s more about the intolerance of the far right.

Yes, you hit right on the spot there. I personally don't have anything against religion, as long as it a thing on its own and doesn't have anything to do with the government. But we both know that doesn't happen in some places.

The worst part here is that Jesus teachings are not what would make the world a horrible place, it's the interpreters and succesors what would. Ever heard of the westboro church? This is exactly why I despise religion.

Oh, and then there's the whole islamist terrorists and whatnot... but I really can't say shit about it because I don't know anything about islam and I'm pretty sure Al'Qaeda and other groups are just a group of extremists that don't have anything to do with the rest of the islam culture.

Oh and no, I'm not from the USA. I'm from Europe. Spain, to be specific. You could say it's a christian country, but quite liberal in that aspect.

But, on the other hand, you have to consider the USA is arguable the biggest country of the world, economically and culturally speaking, so yes, even if I'm not from there, I am concerned by what happens there, as it directly affects how the rest of the world works.

 

[R0cklobster]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

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.

That doesn't change the fact that if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. It's just that within that you might still be unsure.

 

[Mykin]

I am religious on my own accord. It never was forced on me and I truly believe there is a God out there. I'm quite happy to have found that out through my own experiences and efforts.

However, please don't interpret that I'm fanatical about it. I'm not a fan of the overly fanatic religious people. They always seem hypocritical when they talk and try to shove religion down your throat. Not to mention they scare the living daylights out of me. I also don't get why people keep acting like Science is the anti-religion. In my mind, they both make sense and one doesn't really contradict one another. But I guess that's me.

So that's my opinion.

 

[Speakercone]

Agnosticism in philosophy is the position that nothing can be known.
The word has been adapted to mean a person who is theistic but uncertain as to the nature of that god or gods.

Atheism in philosophy is the position that no god or gods exist.
This word has been adapted to indicate a position closer to empiricism; that a thing which exists must contain as a property that it is observable by some means or, failing that, it must have some effect which is observable. As such, evidence of a thing must be observed and assessed before the its existence can be determined.

I am an atheist humanist.
Someone who says 'god exists' is no different to someone who says 'I have a firebreathing dragon in my garage'. For lack of evidence, we must assume their explanatino of affairs to be false until demonstrated.

You know, I've been thinking in this thread, and as an agnostic I'm open to the idea that god might exist. But which god I wonder?

What if this god rejects homosexuality, or black people, or women, or transexuals. I wouldn't be able to support this god. Would I be crazy to activelly protest against this god?

I recently watch The Man Who Crossed Hitler, a true story about a Jewish lawyer who, in 1932, attempted to expose Hitler as a purjeror. Is it possible to have the Man Who Crossed God?

There's a Billy Connolly movie about a guy who sues god for wrecking his boat. I think it's actually called "the man who sued god".

Your point vis a vis hateful teachings is something I agree with wholeheartedly. As for the Man who Crossed God, I nominate Christopher Hitchens for the title role before he's gone.

 

[orangeban]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

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.

That doesn't change the fact that if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist. It's just that within that you might still be unsure.

It helps to disinguish between atheism ("I don't believe in a god") and agnostic atheism ("I don't know if there is a god but I choose not to worship one").

You also get theists ("I believe in a god") and agnostic theists ("I don't know if there is a god but I choose to worship one")

Also, I don't think you will win agnostic atheist friends if you call them atheists who are unsure. I for one believe non-agnostic atheism is irrational, as is non-agnostic theism. But calling me unsure just makes me sound unwilling to decide, or willing to switch side to whoevers winning.

 

[orangeban]

Agnosticism in philosophy is the position that nothing can be known.
The word has been adapted to mean a person who is theistic but uncertain as to the nature of that god or gods.

Atheism in philosophy is the position that no god or gods exist.
This word has been adapted to indicate a position closer to empiricism; that a thing which exists must contain as a property that it is observable by some means or, failing that, it must have some effect which is observable. As such, evidence of a thing must be observed and assessed before the its existence can be determined.

I am an atheist humanist.
Someone who says 'god exists' is no different to someone who says 'I have a firebreathing dragon in my garage'. For lack of evidence, we must assume their explanatino of affairs to be false until demonstrated.

You know, I've been thinking in this thread, and as an agnostic I'm open to the idea that god might exist. But which god I wonder?

What if this god rejects homosexuality, or black people, or women, or transexuals. I wouldn't be able to support this god. Would I be crazy to activelly protest against this god?

I recently watch The Man Who Crossed Hitler, a true story about a Jewish lawyer who, in 1932, attempted to expose Hitler as a purjeror. Is it possible to have the Man Who Crossed God?

There's a Billy Connolly movie about a guy who sues god for wrecking his boat. I think it's actually called "the man who sued god".

Your point vis a vis hateful teachings is something I agree with wholeheartedly. As for the Man who Crossed God, I nominate Christopher Hitchens for the title role before he's gone.

Hmm, really? I may seek out that movie. Maybe. Though I might like to toy with the concept myself for a bit first.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Sort of. I'm Catholic, but I don't blindly accept everything. If there is a policy or teaching I think is stupid or makes no sense, I will call them on it.

 

[orangeban]

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, although I personally make it my duty to be more liberal then some of the Ultra Conservative nutters that you see in a lot of other christian religions.

My stance on it is this, Jesus talked more about who you should care about then who you should ostracize from society and treat horribly, he wanted us to love one another and treat others as we want to be treated, I'm pretty sure that he'd be willing to have a pleasant meal with an Athiest or Pagan or even Scientologist and not try to cram christianity down their throats.

I respect Athiestic and Agnostic beliefs (My dad's an agnostic), I can honestly say that both sides need each other, Athiests and Agnostics keep this world from falling into a theocratic crap sack where your rank in society depends on what you choose to believe and wars are waged at the drop of a hat, and Religions keep this world from falling into a "Total Reason" society where things are based more off of results rather then any form of morality or humanity.

Alright, you seem like an awesome lovely person who has sensible beliefs (and interesting ones to, a liberal Roman Catholic? I am genuinally intrigued) so I'm just gonna link these videos about why religion is not a pre-requisite for morality. http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/7/T7xt5LtgsxQ

Very interesting videos those, well worth a watch. Also, agnostics can be religious.

Thanks for the compliment! ^_^ although I might not watch that video immediately since I'm paranoid about the whole "Recommended for you" thing on youtube, I watch one video of something like the Da Vinci code and the next thing I know I'm up to my knees in "Illuminati evil secret conspiracy 2012!" videos.

Ah, yes, I see how that could be a problem. Though the video presenter is calm, rational (maybe a teensy bit anti-religious, but at least he's polite, he's mainly against anti-atheist religous people.) and I find he has a damn sexy voice (that's probably just me) you'll likely end up with "8ut7seXXX6b6" video about how he just passed physics 101 and now thinks he can disprove god.

Passing physics 101 and thinking he can disprove god? That sounds almost as crazy as this one religious guy who tries to use a banana to prove God exists or something along those lines, I forget the specifics.

Anyways, I'll probably give it a look. I'm not one of those people that thinks "Atheism wants to destroy morality", what I'm more worried about is "Total Rationalism" as I like to call it, because when you get down to it, what exactly is "Rational" about morality? A pet peeve of mine is when people talk about being completely rational, but then act like the rational choice is always the moral one or something along those lines, there are a good few times where not making the Most Moral Choice is usually the rational one, I just feel that this world sometimes needs a good balance of Irrationality, after all, making crazy decisions to help others is part of what makes us human. We shouldn't be burning "Heretical" science books, just like we shouldn't try to burn "Irrational" religious books.

Well, to be fair on youtube I did make up the example about physics 101 guy, but I'm sure there's someone out there like it. I mean, you see it everywhere, those guys who do one lesson of economics and then start spouting theories on how to save the economy.

Anyway, I'd argue that it is the vast minority of atheists who believe in total rationalism. But hey, I like you religious guys, you're useful. Not least because if god does turn out to exist then we need someone to appease him and his rightous anger .

 

[Pegghead]

Judging by the poll options I'll have to pick religious, though I probably wouldn't use that as my first choice of word to describe myself (it's always conjured up images of putting your god and your church before all else in your life). I am a Catholic, if that's what you're asking. Then again, you could probably write a whole other bible on my stance on the religion (but same could be said for most).

 

[Woodsey]

Nope. The whole thing is infantile to me.

 

[micky]

i hope i'm not the only one who had to Google agnostic...nope i'm not religious