Religion

[waynewex]

Are you religious, a moderate practitioner, agnostic, apathetic or atheist?

[xylex]

Couldn't an atheist person who preaches atheism be considered religious?

[Zane]

Couldn't an atheist person who preaches atheism be considered religious?

That's kind of oxymoronic don't ya think.  Atheism isn't a religion and preaching it would just mean an atheist scrutinizing a room full of theists.

 

That aside, I guess I'm more of an agnostic .. or a christian/baptist that doesn't go to church.

[Philip]

I would say I'm agnostic. I lean more towards atheist, because I see a lot of the same ideas/principles of the scientific side... but show me solid proof (not the bullshit like "but theres the bible" or "the ten commandments") and I'd probably jump over to being a believer.

 

I can see this thread turning into a long heated argument

[Zane]

I can see this thread turning into a long heated argument

Yeah, I was wondering when this topic would come about... I can't remember if it's been throw or not, if so, I don't recall.

 

but show me solid proof (not the bullshit like "but theres the bible" or "the ten commandments") and I'd probably jump over to being a believer.

I see this one all the time.  Solid Proof, the good book, evolution, etc, etc.  I don't think there is any solid proof.  I believe that religion is sooo abstract that it can't be explained.  Religion is what you believe in, not someone else.  That's why I could never agree with going to church all the time.  I haven't done any statistics on the matter, but it seems to me that the ones who don't project their beliefs onto others are the true believers.  Everyone is raised differently and everyone goes through so many completely different tragedies in life that all I feel church really is... is a place for them to weep about it.  To ask God why he did this, to find answers, to find meaning in one's life, to find the answer to that one question "Why am I not dead right now?"

 

On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who go to church only to feel better about themselves.  As if they did something good for that week.  That 'good' thing being, listening to a preacher holler at everyone.  Then, as they leave they're confronted with a stranger looking for a ride home..a hitchhiker.  That "good" thing to do would be to give them a ride home, give them $5 if they needed it, give them a brand new pair of socks to wear, etc, etc, deodorant?

The 'smart' thing to do would be to say..I'm heading the opposite direction.. or just not say anything (depending on what city you're from)

 

What I'm getting at is.. if you're gonna go to church, give away your money to it, waste your time believing that good is being instilled within you by the preachers' repetitive words and then talk to your peers about how much that preacher changed your life.  It needs to be proved.  I'm not saying that an everyday charity run / carpool is going to make your life better.  But just being a 'good' person in general will. 

 

>> The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

It doesn't take half a brain to realize that when you're doing something that makes you feel uncomfortable...it is most likely a 'bad' idea.  If you believe that arguing with someone about something or another is going to make you feel better and MAYBE change someone's perspective (for the good), then I would consider you a religious person.

 

If you were to get shot in the head for arguing with that person, then I'd say you've done good just for the fact that 'evil' has been exposed and soon they will be exposed.... like a butterfly effect or something.

 

Like I said... religion is so abstract.. it would take something like a bible to explain it.  Actually, a near death experience can't hold a candle to the bible IMO.

[corbin]

I can see this thread turning into a long heated argument

 

Not as long as people only state their own beliefs and don't question each other's .

 

 

Anyway, I grew up Christian and still go to church every now and then (although usually just to appease my parents), but I would consider my self either atheist or probably more accurately agnostic.  I'm not sure that there is a god, but I'm not sure that there isn't either is what it basically comes down to.  It's also my feelings that if a god doesn't feel the need to display his existence to me, I don't see the need to blindly have faith.  (That's never made sense to me.  Why would God [as in the Christian god since that's what I'm most familiar with] essentially make us have faith?  If he wants us to worship him, why not show us that he exists?  I've gotten free will answers before, but that doesn't really make sense.  I think that to truly believe in Christianity is to not believe in free will.  Well, perhaps free will isn't the right term, since you can do what ever you want just not without consequences.)

 

 

Edit:  Typed this while zanus was posting apparently.  (Just stating, not saying if anything conflicts or agrees or anything.)

[nrg_alpha]

<-- Panendeism

[PugJr]

I would be the first, sort of. I do believe He exists but I don't believe that its a requirement to go to a church or give "donations". I believe that one can not decide their religious beliefs through the help of others (Excluding oppressed countries where religious freedoms are expelled) but only through their own actions will they find what is to be to them.

 

I always wanted to know the atheists view on why humans are the only intellectual beings in existence as clearly nothing else has the capacity to be more than animals hence being called animals. I won't say anything against your idea, just curious. I don't want this to turn into a flame war either.

[PugJr]

<-- Panendeism

 

What does Panendeism mean? I looked up the dictionary and couldn't find anything out.

 

[nrg_alpha]

<-- Panendeism

 

What does Panendeism mean? I looked up the dictionary and couldn't find anything out.

 

 

Panendeism is the belief that the universe (all that ever was, is now or ever will be) is part of a deity (God), but does not represent the fullness of God (in other words, this God deity extends beyond everything, yet contains everything) and does not directly act / interact on the universe ,nor does the universe in turn act / interact with God itself...

[Alex]

I'm agnostic atheist.

 

I feel like I should post at least some explanation, which would ultimately be pretty lengthy, of my beliefs otherwise the assumption is that I don't have any actual reasoning behind my beliefs (as holds true for way too many people). But I'm kinda busy and don't have the time to write something like that now. Perhaps if the topic gets into more of a debate.

[corbin]

I would be the first, sort of. I do believe He exists but I don't believe that its a requirement to go to a church or give "donations". I believe that one can not decide their religious beliefs through the help of others (Excluding oppressed countries where religious freedoms are expelled) but only through their own actions will they find what is to be to them.

 

I always wanted to know the atheists view on why humans are the only intellectual beings in existence as clearly nothing else has the capacity to be more than animals hence being called animals. I won't say anything against your idea, just curious. I don't want this to turn into a flame war either.

 

 

Just of curiosity, do you envision the Christian idea of god, or just the presence of a deity?

[PugJr]

 

 

Just of curiosity, do you envision the Christian idea of god, or just the presence of a deity?

 

The Christian idea. Protestant for that matter and if you didn't know, Protestant and Catholic vary quite a bit even though they believe in the same thing. I actually do believe that He acts on earth in very subtle ways, although if you ask me in which ways, you'll get the same reply as every other Christian will say.

[cags]

My personal opinion is that an advanced 'being' (or beings) may exist that many would consider to be god. That entity may or may not have either direct or indirect influences on our lives. I guess what I'm saying is I'm willing to accept that their could be in existance some living being that could be percieved (by us) to have godlike powers. I feel it would be ignorant to dismiss it out of hand. Assuming we are the most advanced species in existance is arrogant to the nth degree.

 

I disagree that true belief has much at all to do with any structured religion. I also believe that any god that requires worship is ultimately not worthy of worship. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against people worshiping their god, I simply believe it should be a choice not a requirement.

[Mchl]

I was raised as a catholic and only very recently realised, that I had been clinging to religion out of habit rather than faith. I consider myself an agnostic right now.

[RichardRotterdam]

Why not turn this one into a poll I'm kinda curious about what results would be for PF users.

I myself was raised as Hindu. However I am atheist as I need proof before I can "believe" something.

 

[Daniel0]

However I am atheist as I need proof before I can "believe" something.

 

I take it you don't believe in gravity or any other science then? Pretty much the only thing you can believe in is mathematics.

[RichardRotterdam]

No gravity has been defied by ninjas since they can walk on water.

 

But seriously darn it got me there but that doesn't make me convert to a religion just yet. You're not going to start on the string theory and gravitons right?

[Mchl]

I take it you don't believe in gravity ...

 

I for one am a proponent of Intelligent Falling

[.josh]

It's easy to defy gravity.  Just learn to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

[Daniel0]

No gravity has been defied by ninjas since they can walk on water.

 

But seriously darn it got me there but that doesn't make me convert to a religion just yet. You're not going to start on the string theory and gravitons right?

 

All I was saying was just that requiring proof before you believe something is an unreasonable requirement that ultimately prevents you from believing virtually anything. Science only comes up with theories and disproves theories and hypotheses.

 

Scientific theories are accepted based on past experience and observations. However, unlike with gravity, I have no past experience (or heard of others who did) makes that makes me believe any sort of deity exists. Even if a such deity would appear before me, how would I even verify that it is divine? It could also be the case that I am hallucinating, and the question of how you know whether you are sane or insane is also an interesting question.

[nrg_alpha]

It's easy to defy gravity.  Just learn to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

 

lol brilliant! 

[Alex]

All I was saying was just that requiring proof before you believe something is an unreasonable requirement that ultimately prevents you from believing virtually anything. Science only comes up with theories and disproves theories and hypotheses.

That's not 'only' what science does.. You're not exactly using the terminology correctly either. A theory is something that has already been proven and verified by different individuals and groups not directly related. Whereas an hypothesis or more or less an educated guess.

 

Are you saying that there is no proof of gravity?..

[.josh]

there is proof that it works. there is no proof on HOW it works.

[Maq]

All I was saying was just that requiring proof before you believe something is an unreasonable requirement that ultimately prevents you from believing virtually anything. Science only comes up with theories and disproves theories and hypotheses.

That's not 'only' what science does.. You're not exactly using the terminology correctly either. A theory is something that has already been proven and verified by different individuals and groups not directly related. Whereas an hypothesis or more or less an educated guess.

 

Actually I think you're confused.  A theory does not imply fact, it is merely and explanation or proposal based on principles and other known facts, the theory itself is not proven, rather accepted.  Although I do agree that a hypothesis is the lesser of the two, but are commonly used synonymously.