Poll: Whats Your Religion?

[Baby Tea]

Christian!
Raised that way.
Strayed to find 'truth' for myself
Eventually reasoned Christianity to make the most sense.

 

[Alex_P]

As far as I can tell, Dawkins is to atheists what Kend Hovind is to fundamentalists.

Not quite. He still has an actually productive job (Dawkins is a reputable scientist rather than just a guy who writes popular and inflammatory books; running a third-rate themepark based on lies: not socially productive by any measure). Also he's not a major tax cheat.

-- Alex

 

[reinersailer]

@ data_not_found: Sorry for the forgotten "h", i corrected it.

 

[Alex_P]

Scientists who try to apply the scientific method to morality are not scientists. This is a human concept like music or art or literature. It is like taking the one of Mozarts pieces of music, taking each note apart, and analysing it to see why it sounds nice. There are no morality molecules, there is no justice element. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. Morality will never be proven a laboratory.

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have some understanding about how the brain works while developing fancy theories about minds and souls?
What's useless about being able to relate human aesthetic perception to more basic pattern-matching that we gained as a result of natural selection?
Isn't tracing the history of an idea -- especially something taken for granted, like a custom, religious belief, or moral code -- vital to actually making sense of that idea?
Why shouldn't we use a machine to help us identify structural similarities between different languages or texts or musical works?
How is a philosopher who still thinks about the physical world in terms of Newtonian mechanics going to offer us much insight into that world?
Shouldn't ever priest writing about an infinite God develop at least some kind of understanding of mathematical infinities?
What kind of a moral system ignores human psychology and behavior?
There's no clean separation here. Philosophical and aesthetic concepts shape scientific exploration and scientific knowledge provides us with a wealth of information that can help us understand all sorts of different facets of human existence.

(Also, there's a lot more to scientific inquiry than taking a metaphorical microscope to stuff. I can't think of a single field of study that doesn't involve making big, holistic models as well as tiny measurements.)

-- Alex

 

[Siuss]

Satanism, not any of that childish "Wohooo the devil is sooo super awesome!!!" garbage, the religion formed by Mr. LaVey, mostly an aetheistic religion actually. Really it's pretty confusing.

Also, I certainly wouldn't say I'm devoted to it or anything.

 

[Tomany2]

I'm Atheist. I was brought up in a christian house but i never really believed. i would do all i could to get out of church, or any type of religious activity. My grandparents are quite unhappy with my choice but so what.

i'm Atheist because i don't believe in any on this god stuff because if he was here there wouldn't be terrorists of world poverty.

 

[ace_of_something]

Um, I'm not going to click Christian because I'm a bad Roman-Catholic but still don't want to be lumped in with Protestants.

okay that made me laugh out loud for realz.

I refuse to answer this poll cuz i think you're just fishing for badges. As your question is way to open ended to show any intent on a conversational direction or tone.
But by posting this I've bumped your post! The irony.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I would be classified as christian, but Independant fundamental Baptist would be the most accurate description of my views.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I'm an agnostic with on hell of a chip on my shoulder towards organized religion.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Agnostic, with atheistic tendencies but I acknowledge that any stance on religion is basically unprovable.

I don't have a problem with religion until religion decides to tell other people what to believe... my honest opinion is that everybody's either making it up as they go along or going along with with what other people have made up for them. (That it's made up isn't necessarily a sign of malice or deception; us humans are bad for believing in our own inventions.)

-- Steve

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Scientists who try to apply the scientific method to morality are not scientists. This is a human concept like music or art or literature. It is like taking the one of Mozarts pieces of music, taking each note apart, and analysing it to see why it sounds nice. There are no morality molecules, there is no justice element. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. Morality will never be proven a laboratory.

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have some understanding about how the brain works while developing fancy theories about minds and souls?
What's useless about being able to relate human aesthetic perception to more basic pattern-matching that we gained as a result of natural selection?
Isn't tracing the history of an idea -- especially something taken for granted, like a custom, religious belief, or moral code -- vital to actually making sense of that idea?
Why shouldn't we use a machine to help us identify structural similarities between different languages or texts or musical works?
How is a philosopher who still thinks about the physical world in terms of Newtonian mechanics going to offer us much insight into that world?
Shouldn't ever priest writing about an infinite God develop at least some kind of understanding of mathematical infinities?
What kind of a moral system ignores human psychology and behavior?
There's no clean separation here. Philosophical and aesthetic concepts shape scientific exploration and scientific knowledge provides us with a wealth of information that can help us understand all sorts of different facets of human existence.

(Also, there's a lot more to scientific inquiry than taking a metaphorical microscope to stuff. I can't think of a single field of study that doesn't involve making big, holistic models as well as tiny measurements.)

-- Alex

Eh? Who mentioned souls?

You, typically, missed the point entirely. You aren't reading what we are saying, prefering instead to supply our end of the conversation from inside your own head, based upon the (completely wrong) assumption that I believe in God.

Let's say there is a drug that could make all human beings docile. Make them willing to work constantly for nothing more than food. Remove from them all emotional needs and desires. Effectively turn them into chemical machines. No pain comes from it, in fact it removes all pain, emotional and physical. It completely obliterates the individuality of all who ingest it.

Scientifically prove to me that it is wrong to use this drug on the entire population. That means, prove it. Not "show us there are chemicals in your brain", if you decide not to do it because of those chemicals that isn't logical. Logic is what takes place in the world, not in the mind. I want a logical reason, which can be verified using the scientific method, why it would be wrong to put this drug into the water supply.

 

[Hattmeister]

I'd say that I'm somewhere between Christian and agnostic. I was not raised particuarly religious, but in the latest two years or so, I've started to think about it. What I think is that all the verisions of gods from the Bible or the Koran are false. A god cannot possibly be human. I think that he/ she/ it is some sort of force that makes life possible. Wait, now I'm starting to sound buddhist. Oh, I really need to think this over again. Good night, me tired xD

 

[BLOONINJA 503]

Atheist shouldn't be on the list, it's not a religion. It's the natural conclusion one comes to when applying rational and critical thinking.

no its not, to say your atheist is to be making the statement that you know there is no higher power... rational and critical thinking would be to come with the conclusion that anything is possible and we cant know for sure...EVAR

 

[Mungini]

I'm a nihilist which is more of a philosphy than a religion and in all honesty could be looked upon as a slightly altered version of Atheism but it is something that makes sense to me.

 

[Whobajube]

I'm a proud Norse Mythologist... Hail Odin!

Seriously though, I'm going to have to go with Agnostic. I believe in a higher power, but I also believe that it is impossible to know or understand that higher power. I also don't want shackle myself to one religion, because I truly don't believe that there is one 'right' religion out there, and that everyone who believes in something different is wrong.

 

[Dadadaddyo]

Unfortunately many people define religion as "Christianity; especially as practiced by people who bug the crap out of me." I was raised in the deep South of the US and was forced to attend a fundamentalist high school where I was taught that true religion could be summed up as "Shut up and believe what we tell you!". I was constantly told that I would be a bad person, destined for Hell, if I questioned their pronouncements, such as the Universe is 6,000 years old, evolution never took place and flared pants are a thing of the Devil(they really taught us that!).

The summer after I got out of that place I reread the entire New Testament and was overjoyed to find out that what Christ *really* taught was totally different and often the exact opposite of what they had twisted it into. Since then I have known many Christians who realize that Christianity is about love, and not about beating peoples heads in until believe exactly like them. I don't think I will ever be a Christian again, but I have come to realize that they are not all rabid fundamentalist, and to admire the ones who follow Christ as a way to become more caring, open people.

 

[Booze Zombie]

A logical reason for not making people ever-docile is that if people aren't constantly fighting and competing, there will be no progress.
Also, it'd really bugger up the whole "human creativity" thing, which has the noted effect of having inspired every great thing in our history.