Poll: Whats Your Religion?

[TheDean]

Whats is YOUR religion? and Why?

Why am i an atheist? Because i have the ability to think about things.

 

[Kevvers]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

 

[Jharry5]

I was brought up in a Roman Catholic/Church of England home (yes, religion wasn't very high up on the agenda of daily life, but I believe that even then it's had an influence on me).
However, as I've grown up, I've come to the conclusion that I don't believe in a God.
So Atheist.

 

[Jovlo]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

You are right! And wrong!
But still theologians don't see the Bible as the truth. (Gasp!)
Einstein took the stories as the truth. And we all know they don't make sense.
The Bible according to the theologians (the old testament especially) is an attempt of our ancestors to make the concept of God understandable.
They try to show you the nature of God through stories, it's called a revelation.
Isn't there a whole book in the Bible called revelations? Never read the damn thing.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

Good for him. Erm... what does that mean exactly? There is no overlap, all that is happening is a tiny handful of people are applying scientific principles to religion. Of course religious concepts can't be proved, so they call it all crap.

However, they still have moral and ethical concepts which also can't be proved. Fundamentalist atheism is as hypocritical and paradoxical as Christians who take the Bible literally.

Read The God Delusion.

A book not created for critical analysis but purely to condemn an entire creed and culture of people because the author has a bee in his bonnet about them. Dawkins is, at best, a guy who hates religion and tries to factor it into everything that he sees wrong with the world. At worst he is a biggot who seeks to convert the entire world to his way of thinking and erradicate the beliefs of those who disagree.

 

[Jursa]

Christian but haven't been to church, touched a bible of even prayed for a couple of years.

 

[TylerC]

I'm Christian, but not catholic.

What is with all of the religion threads lately?

 

[Alex_P]

Isn't there a whole book in the Bible called revelations? Never read the damn thing.

It's called "Revelation" (or "Apocalypse", which originally meant the same thing) because it's a prophecy of sorts. John of Patmos is like, "God showed me all this stuff that's gonna happen". Some people today still treat it as a prophecy for the end of the world; given that something like 1,900-1,950 years have passed since the book was written and the fact that it's addressed to specific churches and talks about events as if they're just about to happen, other Christians contend that the book was a prophecy for the first century AD. (Other Christians just dismiss it as crazy and of questionable value.)

-- Alex

 

[Dele]

Glad there are a few reasonable thinkers around here. Science has nothing to say on spiritual or moral/ethical direction. Religion doesn't concern itself with the way things work and useful predictions based upon observations of the way things work.

Not really. Science does overlap with religion because science possesses the ability to, if not outright disprove religion, then make many of its base claims extremely unlikely. The idea of a soul, an afterlife, a god, those things are all fairly fundamental to most theistic religions and they are all cast into strong doubt by science.

Not according to scientists.

You quote one scientist and then claim that all or large majority of scientists think that way. By the logic of some "atheism is a religion" -arguers that means your claim is a religion. Now we just need to name it so you can start gathering your own "separation of science and religion" -cult.

 

[Trace2010]

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.

But if the world really wasn't as bad as it is...then it wouldn't be any fun!!

I was raised Catholic-- but Christianity has my vote!!

 

[Kevvers]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

Good for him. Erm... what does that mean exactly? There is no overlap, all that is happening is a tiny handful of people are applying scientific principles to religion. Of course religious concepts can't be proved, so they call it all crap.

However, they still have moral and ethical concepts which also can't be proved. Fundamentalist atheism is as hypocritical and paradoxical as Christians who take the Bible literally.

There is an overlap in that things like the transmutation of communion wafers and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, laying on hands, speaking in tongues, faith healing and many other miracles are demonstrably untrue in a world governed by the laws of science.
Also, you seem to think that scientists have nothing to say about ethics or morals, that it is solely the domain of religions. I disagree, I think there is plenty of overlap either way.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

Good for him. Erm... what does that mean exactly? There is no overlap, all that is happening is a tiny handful of people are applying scientific principles to religion. Of course religious concepts can't be proved, so they call it all crap.

However, they still have moral and ethical concepts which also can't be proved. Fundamentalist atheism is as hypocritical and paradoxical as Christians who take the Bible literally.

There is an overlap in that things like the transmutation of communion wafers and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, laying on hands, speaking in tongues, faith healing and many other miracles are demonstrably untrue in a world governed by the laws of science.
Also, you seem to think that scientists have nothing to say about ethics or morals, that it is solely the domain of religions. I disagree, I think there is plenty of overlap either way.

Only if the Bible is taken literally. Nobody with enough sense to get through the day without pooping themselves thinks the Bible should be taken literally. Two sheep and two ants on Noahs Ark? Didn't the lions try to eat everything? And where did he keep the woodworm? And the Termites? Glad I wasn't on that ship.

It is a spiritual document.

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.

 

[Dudemeister]

Taoist Christianism

 

[darkless]

I'm agnostic i'm very open minded to religion but i wont believe in jsut one almighty being who said yeah lets make humans so he did

And to be perfectly honest the most believe religious beliefs i have ever come across was in FF 7 where they say that everything is a part of the earth and its just the earths way of learning seriously i find that more believable than 90% of religions I've looked into

Also Buddhism isn't a religion its a way of life

 

[the captain]

I worship the Football gods. For Six months out of the year I devoutly spend hours at my home entertainment chapel every Sunday, Monday, Thursday, Saturday, and occasionally on Friday if there's a good game. Trust me,, when you get right down to it, it is the only religion that makes sense.

 

[MajukaRinye]

I'd say Christian, because I've been raised into Christianity. But I'm such a poor believer and practitioner of it, I'd have to say atheist. Or agnostic. I just think that there's no proof for religion or any proof against it, so I don't really want to commit. That being said. I do believe that religion does enforce some good values within followers, and I try to take the less extreme points foward in my life.

 

[Alex_P]

My head is so scrambled over this, such conflicting thoughts.
I'd like to say I was atheist. But theres always the niggling doubt in the back of my mind:"what if I'm wrong, there is a God, and now I'm fucked".

Based on my experience with religion, if there is a God, he comes accross to me as more a tyrant than a merciful fellow. That statement is going to put me in so much trouble, and I already regret typing it, but its just how I feel, its my interpretation of religion based on my own experiences and rationalisations, and I'd appreciate it if I wasn't flamed to death over it, and you could just respect my opinion without attempting to subvert it in any way.

In the end I end up ignoring the question of religion so that I can just get on with my life. I suppose this pretty much places me as agnostic, as that doubt puts me in the 'not sure' catergory.

My apologies if I offended anyone or you disagree with me, but this has been rather constructive for me, writing my thoughts seems to have ordered them slightly.

Chain letters.

Really crazy chain letters.

Those ones that are like, "If you don't forward this chain letter you're gonna get cancer and your family will die in a car crash".

Ever seen one of those?

Ridiculous stupid as they are, they'll still sometimes make you pause.

That's what all those admonitions about hell and punishment and God's love are really all about. That's not even Pascal's wager. It's Pascal's mugging. But, unlike the stupid chain letter, this this particular belief has the weight of an entire culture behind it. (And, in a guilt society like the Western world, that weight is internalized as well. Whee!)

I think the best way to figure this stuff out is to learn more about how cultures and people operate. Try to deepen your understand of why you and the people around you think the things they think. That's, hopefully, the kind of thing higher education can help with -- but it's not really a matter of the classes you take as much as your general environment and personal development. Interesting quote on the topic:

"As I'm sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.

This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger."

-- David Foster Wallace, Commencement Address, Kenyon University, 2005

(That's not to say that a college education is the best or only way here. But, err, hopefully you get the idea...)

-- Alex

 

[Samurai Goomba]

To all those people who say "There is no overlap between science and religion", from Einstein:
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

Good for him. Erm... what does that mean exactly? There is no overlap, all that is happening is a tiny handful of people are applying scientific principles to religion. Of course religious concepts can't be proved, so they call it all crap.

However, they still have moral and ethical concepts which also can't be proved. Fundamentalist atheism is as hypocritical and paradoxical as Christians who take the Bible literally.

Read The God Delusion.

A book not created for critical analysis but purely to condemn an entire creed and culture of people because the author has a bee in his bonnet about them. Dawkins is, at best, a guy who hates religion and tries to factor it into everything that he sees wrong with the world. At worst he is a biggot who seeks to convert the entire world to his way of thinking and erradicate the beliefs of those who disagree.

I agree. Now allow me my little rant here (directed at all the militant atheist who think anyone with a religion is an idiot), then I'll be finished with this thread.

As far as I can tell, Dawkins is to atheists what Kend Hovind is to fundamentalists. That is, they're both jerks that make their respective belief groups seem worse merely by virtue of them supporting said beliefs. Dawkin's book is no more irrefutable fact than a Rush Limbaugh commentary or John Hagee sermon. It's all their opinions. Science cannot ever prove that God (or a god) cannot exist (because there are an infinite number of possibilities outside of perceivable input data, and God could always exist there). Religion has to be viewed differently than Science.

Let me put it this way: Would you treat a lab experiment the same way you'd treat a philosophical debate on the ethics of theft? Do you see why this doesn't work? You're applying supposition, theory and provable data to an abstract concept that exists outside of the physical realm and (usually) the perceivable senses. You can't solve an abstract problem with a concrete solution.

Okay, now I'm done.

 

[MajukaRinye]

Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.
  - Kurt Vonnegut

If God did exist, I'm pretty sure he'd share that flaw with us. =P

 

[neoman10]

Go Jesus!

I'm Christian because when i go to church, the sermon very often applies to my life and that things i over hear from people also apply.

call it coincidence all you want but there has been WAY too many of them as it is so I say go God go!