Poll: Whats Your Religion?

[FightThePower]

This has probably been posted before but I can't be bothered to check:

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour.

Anyway, I am an Atheist.

 

[Shiro Ryu]

I'm Christian; I was raised Methodist, but I don't attend organized churches that often anymore. For me faith is more of a personal journey, not something you just do on the weekends. I merely ignore the militants on both side and listen to the more rational explanations from each side. If anything this process has strengthened my faith.

As for Richard Dawkins; his arguments are based on his own personal beliefs and worldviews (not scientific fact or evidence) and they should be taken as such. I have yet to sit down and read through "the God Delusion", but I have looked at some of his arguments. I'll eventually read through it, but before I do I'll have a copy of "the Dawkins Delusion" by Alistair McGrath handy to insure I'm getting two sides of the argument in question.

I also disagree with Dr. Dawkins over whether religion or science should be responsible for providing evidence to whether God exists or not. Dawkins believes that religions should provide the evidence. I believe neither side should should have to. For one, this implies that religion and science can't coexist which is a pretty ignorant statement. Secondly, since it is impossible for either side to provide evidence as to whether God exists or not, it's a pointless argument.

Atheist.
Just because.

This... but the real reason is because I don't think a higher power would allow earth to become what it is.

I see your point, but I have to disagree with you. Your argument implies that God has the same morals as humans. Also, the acts that have shaped the world are the acts of mankind. Unfortunately freewill allows us to commit horrendous acts, and as such I choose to blame the individuals or groups responsible. For example, I don't blame God for whats happening in Darfur, I blame the Sudanese government, the groups doing the actual killing, and the governments around the world who allow it to continue. Apologies if I seem preachy, just trying to offer a different viewpoint.

Sorry, this post went longer than I though it would; just offering up some of my opinions and beliefs.

 

[BLOONINJA 503]

I just follow murphy's law "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" so i live trying to stop that in my life... its great!!!

 

[Alex_P]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

This assumes that God is just a very very very powerful human, with exactly the same kind of ethical codes/definitions of good, evil, as human.

It is rather like ants saying they don't believe in humans because humans don't go around building homes with their own saliva.

The idea of God as an absolute moral authority implies that there must be some commonality between God's mind and man's, however. Otherwise, how can people receive God's guidance?

If we can't even recognize God's goodness as good, aren't we rather like ants worshiping humans for living in warm houses and occasionally spilling sugary drinks on the floor, oblivious to the fact that humans don't even notice us most of the time -- and when they do, they immediately spray and seal and fumigate the place?

-- Alex

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

Agnostic. I don't believe in god, but realize I could be wrong.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Cradle Catholic

 

[Dread_Reaper]

You know, there is something I find very amusing about this poll, and that is that the order of choices is "Jewish, Christian, Atheist, Muslim." I can picture the OP designing this volatile poll by naming off all the religions he could think of, and Atheism, the belief in the absence of god, came to mind before Islam.

....Okay I find it amusing.

-Dread_Reaper

P.S. Atheist by the way. In this day and age, do we really need to a reason to evolve beyond the mythologies of the past?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

This assumes that God is just a very very very powerful human, with exactly the same kind of ethical codes/definitions of good, evil, as human.

It is rather like ants saying they don't believe in humans because humans don't go around building homes with their own saliva.

The idea of God as an absolute moral authority implies that there must be some commonality between God's mind and man's, however. Otherwise, how can people receive God's guidance?

If we can't even recognize God's goodness as good, aren't we rather like ants worshiping humans for living in warm houses and occasionally spilling sugary drinks on the floor, oblivious to the fact that humans don't even notice us most of the time -- and when they do, they immediately spray and seal and fumigate the place?

-- Alex

Not really. I think you are looking too deeply into my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that if god/gods/goddesses exist then they are so very far out of our league in terms of understanding that trying to apply our own reasoning to their world just doesn't work.

Also, the guy who wrote that (the original phrase, not the poster) is demonstrating his own arrogance in the matter.

Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent [my particular version of] evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh [my own particular definition of] evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? [He doesn't do enough for me]"

Alex, I know that you know that one persons evil is another persons good. There is a consensus on nothing. Even murder.

We are now onto the concept of free will. If there is a god, strictly controlling every living thing on the planet to make it "nice" would not, in fact, make it "nice". It would be like turning planet earth into a very large Alcatraz. Also, that wouldn't automatically make the people living there "nice". If you have a child who won't share his Xbox with his sibling, you may force him to do so, but that doesn't automatically make him a nice person.

 

[dead_beat_slacker]

I don't consider myself anything. I don't believe in organized religion. Cause arguments, like the ones on here, happen. I believe in humanity before I would begin to believe in religion. Humanity is the only thing that can truly save us. We need to be able to live together and not argue over such trivial things, such as religion for instance. Cause so far the worlds going to shit and obviously praying isn't working.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Capitalism, because money is more important.

 

[Alex_P]

Not really. I think you are looking too deeply into my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that if god/gods/goddesses exist then they are so very far out of our league in terms of understanding that trying to apply our own reasoning to their world just doesn't work.

But their world is our world, at least in so far as Epicurus is talking about it. Otherwise this all amounts to, what, "I'm actually a good guy when you're not around to see it"?

Also, the guy who wrote that (the original phrase, not the poster) is demonstrating his own arrogance in the matter.
Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent [my particular version of] evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh [my own particular definition of] evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? [He doesn't do enough for me]"[/q

The point remains that, if Epicurus doesn't think God is good, there isn't much reason for Epicurus to worship God, is there?

-- Alex

 

[hypothetical fact]

Not really. I think you are looking too deeply into my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that if god/gods/goddesses exist then they are so very far out of our league in terms of understanding that trying to apply our own reasoning to their world just doesn't work.

But their world is our world, at least in so far as Epicurus is talking about it. Otherwise this all amounts to, what, "I'm actually a good guy when you're not around to see it"?

Also, the guy who wrote that (the original phrase, not the poster) is demonstrating his own arrogance in the matter.
Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent [my particular version of] evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh [my own particular definition of] evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? [He doesn't do enough for me]"[/q

The point remains that, if Epicurus doesn't think God is good, there isn't much reason for Epicurus to worship God, is there?

Try the old testament where god was worshipped out of fear.

 

[Alex_P]

Try the old testament where god was worshipped out of fear.

Enh, that's overly reductive.

It's more like some kind of creepy fear-love. Really the perfect thing for an old-timey patriarchal society.

Also there's other bits with other kinds of God-loving in it. I don't think there's really much "fear" in the Song of Songs, for example, and parts of that are definitely overflowing with love -- love for God, love for nature, romantic love, all kinda whipped together in a frenzy.

-- Alex

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Not really. I think you are looking too deeply into my analogy. The point I was trying to make is that if god/gods/goddesses exist then they are so very far out of our league in terms of understanding that trying to apply our own reasoning to their world just doesn't work.

But their world is our world, at least in so far as Epicurus is talking about it. Otherwise this all amounts to, what, "I'm actually a good guy when you're not around to see it"?

I think he would be wrong about that. Their world is not our world. The perception of an immortal with infinite faculties is very different from that of an earth bound dude who is likely having some woman trouble (most philosophers do). This is where I think the Bible also turns to jelly when taken literally - trying to understand the motivations and needs of an entitity which is, if it exists, very far removed from any human experience or understanding.

The Bible was written by humans. All that is understood by humans has been learned by humans, and humans are stupid, greedy, arrogant, foolish, feckless creatures. Like Scooby Doo without the charm.

Also, the guy who wrote that (the original phrase, not the poster) is demonstrating his own arrogance in the matter.
Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent [my particular version of] evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh [my own particular definition of] evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? [He doesn't do enough for me]"

The point remains that, if Epicurus doesn't think God is good, there isn't much reason for Epicurus to worship God, is there?

-- Alex

That is true. Unless Epicurus thought/wanted god to be bad, thus it would have made some sense. It is entirely up to him what he wishes or wished to believe. I just think this particular reasoning was flawed.

 

[Kevvers]

For all those Odin-lovers out there:
"Ever will I Gods blaspheme
Freyja methinks a dog does seem,
Freyja a dog? Aye! Let them be
Both dogs together Odin and she!"