Opinions on religion...?

[Henny]

I'm a New Ager.

I personally believe that Fear is the root of all Evil and (spiritual) love is the source of all Good.

I'm not sure about a deity but I believe that there is a part of me that survives the death of my physical body and may incarnate in another physical body at a later time and place.

Beyond that I do not know.

If you want to know what religions best fit your beliefs (or lack thereof), try this quiz (it's quite interesting):

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Qui...liefOMatic.aspx

I got 100% Secular Humanism, which doesn't surprise me in the least.

Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul.

As if that could applied to the legal system! :lol:

[Myr]

So even if there was a god (here's hoping for Thor - he has a goddam homing hammer!)...

:lol: That's awesome!

[Synthesthetic]

I have seen 'Religulous' and think it is a fantastic movie. However, I don't believe that it proves that Jesus Christ did not roam the earth at some time. I believe it might show that the emphasis that people put on Jesus now might be a bit much. I believe that Jesus was just a good man that wanted what we all want. Peace and happiness. I don't think that he was anything special, but that he only seemed special in a time where things seemed very, very bad. You know, when everything seems like it can't get any worse and a man shows up that is generous and kind to people he doesn't know, without having to be. That could seem like something more than it is to someone who is hurting at the time.

Those were two seperate thoughts ^^ But thanks

I like that theory....they're all on LSD!

[Synthesthetic]

QUOTE (Akiraluckystar @ Nov 8 2009, 11:42 PM)

QUOTE (Henriksson @ Nov 8 2009, 10:15 PM)

QUOTE (Akiraluckystar @ Nov 8 2009, 11:07 PM)

I'm absolutely against religion, I don't classify myself as an atheist either because in a way its a religious stance on its own, I feel no need to label myself as something stating a belief that God doesn't exist as it in a way gives the view there is something to argue against, I simply believe in none of that crap, and in my opinion all religion is moronic shit in itself.

Hmm, do you actually profess a belief that god doesn't exist, classification or not?

I believe professing a belief that God doesn't exist then allows for the idea of the chance of God existing.

Looks like you're trying to dodge the issue. Completely rejecting an idea doesn't seem very rational, since it suggests that you haven't even bothered to examine it's propositions. It's hardly a very constructive way to communicate with theists.

Now, I don't completely reject the idea of deit(ies), in about the same way that I don't completely reject the idea of Santa Claus. I think that's quite an important distinction to make.

Alright...so I very much so disagree...I think that calling oneself Atheist is not admiting that there may be a god...I think it's more-so admiting that there are people who do think there is a god...does that make sense?

Because the deffenition of

[AkiraCoinTykiGotBetaMuffin]

I'm absolutely against religion, I don't classify myself as an atheist either because in a way its a religious stance on its own, I feel no need to label myself as something stating a belief that God doesn't exist as it in a way gives the view there is something to argue against, I simply believe in none of that crap, and in my opinion all religion is moronic shit in itself.

Hmm, do you actually profess a belief that god doesn't exist, classification or not?

I believe professing a belief that God doesn't exist then allows for the idea of the chance of God existing.

Looks like you're trying to dodge the issue. Completely rejecting an idea doesn't seem very rational, since it suggests that you haven't even bothered to examine it's propositions. It's hardly a very constructive way to communicate with theists.

Now, I don't completely reject the idea of deit(ies), in about the same way that I don't completely reject the idea of Santa Claus. I think that's quite an important distinction to make.

I didn't dodge any issue I just decided to clarify my position as it was less strenuous, as for my idea being rational, I would rather say its a logical step with my own belief, I was not attempting to discuss rather state my meaning so whether it was constructive in communicating holds little meaning, as for what it apparently suggests I could not care that's simply idle speculation.

Anyway I might clarify everything better after I've slept, my long amount of time awake compared to sleep is tiring and clouding my mental process's so I am hardly in the mood to continue.

[Blerdivor]

I'm agnostic...it's whatever. Not for me though.

[cait]

I would say I lean entirely toward New Age. Which actually isn't a religion at all. After my parents cast off their highly traditional Christian upbringings in favor of a more Eastern tradition, or at least a Western Buddhism (which was probably totally outlandish in their time), I figure my only option to rebel is to take it a step further and just cast off this type of organized well contained community all together. Plus I'm just a loner by nature.

I believe in essentially all spiritualities, only I choose strongly not to adopt most of their languages. Some of them are down right creepy. Especially that stuff about fearing God (no offense, but who says that?)

I believe in quantum mechanics, alternate dimensions, universal flow of energy, energy healing, spirit worlds, contact with "extra terrestrial" spirits, stages of reality between life and death, reincarnation, psychic phenomena, divination, eternity, human reality, etc. Whatever, I just believe in everything. Oh yeah, except for heaven and hell--they're not places, they're just fear and euphoria. And there is no special place only for special people of a certain religious system or belief, that's a bunch of crap. And I'm glad for empirical science, but I think it's got a stick up its ass in a lot of ways. Not to be overly negative or anything, I appreciate everything in some sick kind of way, really I do, but they can get on my nerves.

Basically religion itself has it's important characteristics I think are essential to human life, but at their essence religious systems, and the way they are marketed are often used simply as vehicles to manipulate people. And I don't really like that. It's dishonest. Where religious get to political or politics get religious I am totally against it.

But I am by no means an atheist. That is probably the most boring state of mind I can possibly imagine.

[Mizal]

What we know about life, is that everything we see in-front of us will one day perish. What religion does is try to fill in the blanks to what happens afterwards. As one of my favourite religious quotes states:

A samurai once asked Zen Master Hakuin where he would go after he died.

Hakuin answered 'How am I supposed to know?'

'How do you not know? You're a Zen master!' exclaimed the samurai.

'Yes, but not a dead one,' Hakuin answered.

[TheMuffinMan]

The only thing science ever demands is evidence, you know. Perhaps that's "having a stick up its ass" but it seems rather reasonable to me. Otherwise you might as well believe anything.

[osito]

A samurai once asked Zen Master Hakuin where he would go after he died.

Hakuin answered 'How am I supposed to know?'

'How do you not know? You're a Zen master!' exclaimed the samurai.

'Yes, but not a dead one,' Hakuin answered.

Nice!

To WHOM It May Concern

The urge to pray, to send out on the great blog in the sky a theological SOS and/or thank-you note, is so strong a human impulse that even people who don’t believe that anyone hears their prayers, people who have no religious dogma that tells them to whom they ought to pray, pray anyway. I am one of them.

For many people, prayer may be nothing but an atavism from a time when more people believed that someone really did hear their prayers. That kind of prayer may be just a language tick: “Please god let it not rain on the day of the picnic” or “The flight should land in New York by midnight, deo volente” (which I used to think meant, “If God is flying,” since so many of my Latin-knowing friends said it only about air travel).

Some non-Muslims as well as Muslims add “Insh’ Allah” after any cocksure statement that makes them fear the evil-eye, such as, “I think I can make the cross-country drive in two days. . . . Insh’ Allah.” The line between piety and superstition is always hard to draw.

But to whom do the godless pray? My father, the founding publisher of Pulpit Digest (a weekly collection of sermons), used to joke that atheists had a special Dial-a-Prayer number (dial it and no one answers) or that they prayed “to whom it may concern.” Agnostics, too, may pray, like Swinburne in the Garden of Proserpine, to “whatever gods may be.”

But words have power, and the formulas of prayer are often comforting in themselves, even if they are sent out in mental envelopes marked “address unknown.” For many people, the habit of prayer simply comes down to acknowledging that we are not in control of our lives, and hoping against hope that somebody else is. And to the extent that that realization is often calming and empowering, all prayers are answered.

Dr. Wendy Doniger

Professor of the History of Religions, Mircea Eliade Chair

University of Chicago School of Divinity

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.../wendy_doniger/

I am one of them too.

But nail me down on what I think is real and I can be as hardassed a hardliner naturalist as the best o' em. :) It's just not the whole story, brethren and cistern.

I'd forgotten about that Dial-A-Prayer for Atheists. :lol:

[Sally]

The only thing science ever demands is evidence, you know. Perhaps that's "having a stick up its ass" but it seems rather reasonable to me. Otherwise you might as well believe anything.

And indeed, people do.

[cait]

The only thing science ever demands is evidence, you know. Perhaps that's "having a stick up its ass" but it seems rather reasonable to me. Otherwise you might as well believe anything.

Of course it's reasonable. That's the whole thing about science.

But the greatest scientists were the people who believed in stuff that's never been evident before. There are people out there who are just so hardlined about scientific evidence, but not thinking about anything themselves, they kind of throw away imagination as trivial, but without it science never would have gone to the trouble of trying to prove anything. So maybe it's not science itself with the stick, more like some people just really see science as an already established thing rather than something that's always changing. You know when people are like "well you can't believe in that, because nobody's ever proven it! It doesn't make sense with what we know in science." In order to prove it someone has to believe it first. To me putting too much emphasis on established science is just stagnant and not a very encompassing view of what existence is.

Yeah, people believe in some pretty crazy stuff. (Me being one of those people) But I think we kind of need it all to keep everything running and in balance.

I guess I have faith in anybody's beliefs as long as they are thinking about them deeply though.

[Kin]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)

2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)

3. Nontheist (81%)

4. Liberal Quakers (78%)

Sounds cute. No idea what that last one is, but now I'm curious, so I sure am going to find out.

I consider myself agnostic. (Atheist leanings because I find it hard to believe in the existence of something for which there is no solid proof, or is nonscientific. It's not that I don't want to -- it's that I can't.)

My slogan: I respect religion when it respects me (and other people, especially those on the outside).

[Henny]

But I am by no means an atheist. That is probably the most boring state of mind I can possibly imagine.

I'm sorry? Do you rate the truth value of claim on how personally entertaining it is? I guess you can totally dig leprechauns, then.

And I'll counter: Theism is probably the most boring state of mind I can possibly imagine.

[Guest member25959]

Atheism must be a pretty lonely state though?

Atleast religious people have something/one to follow and believe in?

On the good side, your decision aren't influenced by God

[Sally]

Speaking personally, theism isn't boring.

Speaking as an observer of others, atheism isn't lonely.

[Henny]

Atheism must be a pretty lonely state though?

"I'm lonely, therefore god exists" is hardly a good argument. I guess you're confusing what you want to be true with what is likely to be true. You're comparing belief in god to belief in imaginary friends. Anyway, I'm frankly confused why an atheist would be "lonely". Can you elaborate?

Atleast religious people have something/one to follow and believe in?

There are two false assumptions here: That all atheists are non-religious and that religion has the copy right of "something to follow and believe in".

[AFlyingPiglet]

Started out with a blank sheet of paper. Was then Athiest, then Agnostic and after a lot of soul searching am now a Christian

[TheMuffinMan]

Of course it's reasonable. That's the whole thing about science.

But the greatest scientists were the people who believed in stuff that's never been evident before.

Mind if I ask for an example? Somehow I have a hard problem imagining oh, say, Einstein saying "I believe in the theory of special relativity!" and going from there to prove what he believed.

There are people out there who are just so hardlined about scientific evidence, but not thinking about anything themselves, they kind of throw away imagination as trivial, but without it science never would have gone to the trouble of trying to prove anything.

I think there's quite a difference between curiousity, creative imagination and inquisitiveness, all things conducive to science, and insisting that a fantasy you have is not only true, but proving science wrong just because it's there (religion.)

So maybe it's not science itself with the stick, more like some people just really see science as an already established thing rather than something that's always changing. You know when people are like "well you can't believe in that, because nobody's ever proven it! It doesn't make sense with what we know in science."

If something contradicted everything you knew and, at the same time, there was no evidence whatsoever for its existence, wouldn't you be skeptical?

In order to prove it someone has to believe it first.

Ummm, no? I mean, they can suspect it. Sort of like in a crime-they can see which way the evidence points and draw conclusions.

To me putting too much emphasis on established science is just stagnant and not a very encompassing view of what existence is.

An ever-expanding base of knowledge about the way the universe works is stagnant?

Yeah, people believe in some pretty crazy stuff. (Me being one of those people) But I think we kind of need it all to keep everything running and in balance.

I fail to see how everything would stop 'running' if people stopped having silly beliefs unsupported by any evidence. Also, in balance with what?

I guess I have faith in anybody's beliefs as long as they are thinking about them deeply though.

Someone who believes something with no evidence isn't really thinking about it very deeply, are they?

[Cynicus]

That depends if you mean factual consideration or consideration of what you want/need in life.

I personally put a lot of thought into what beliefs fit me, it wasn't factual consideration (except maybe beyond the fact of what a particular belief meant),

but it was consideration, thought.

[Synthesthetic]

Well...Atheism isn't really lonely...it's a...more down to earth way of thinking...I guess? I don't know how to describe it without offending anyone...

In my opinion, religion is like...people haven't taken off their rosey little kid glasses, so they still see things that aren't there...and religion causes another whole set of problems...there is corruption within the church and religious community, people brainwash their children at an early age when they can't even comprehend what's being told to them to decide for themselves...the "holy wars"....etc....

I'd rather not think everything I do has to please some jealous man in the sky who pretty likely doesn't care about us if he's there at all...

Pastafarianism is the way to go -nod nod- it just makes so much more sense...

If this post made any sense to anyone, I'll be amazed...it's 4 o'clock and I've just woken up ^^;

[cait]

So it turns out I don't care about this subject enough to do research about scientists so I can prove my point in a web forum. I have school and all.

Maybe my point was that I like to speculate about things. And sometimes I feel belief toward the things I speculate about. If I had all the time in the world I would do lots of research about everything. But I don't.

I also think there's a big difference between empirical evidence and personal evidence.

I see what you mean between suspecting something and believing something I suppose. But I guess my mind works differently. When I suspect certain things there is definitely a level of belief attached. Otherwise I wouldn't suspect it at all.

Have you ever seen how passionate theory physicists get about their work? They make theories and then someone goes to try and disprove it basically. I would definitely say from what I've seen, the theorists in science believe in things that have never been proven. The people who do the experimenting are not the same type of thinkers, and they don't likely believe something before proving (or rather disproving, because you can't really prove most things, but only disprove).

But I dunno, maybe I just assume that in order to have any kind of passion for something there has to be some kind of belief or faith involved, otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard at it.

And what I'm dissing about science, is the people who read text books and think they know more than everyone else with an imagination.

[Asterion Orestes]

alucard:

Religion is a joke.

Reminds me of a a Japanese saying about eating the (allegedly delicious but potentially poisonous) puffer fish: He who eats fugu is stupid. But he who does not eat fugu is also stupid.

I don't really understand what kind of point you were trying to make. Can you elaborate?

Sorry I'm late in revisiting this purple place!

Put it this way: If religion appears a joke, then irreligion does also.

[alucard]

alucard:

Religion is a joke.

Reminds me of a a Japanese saying about eating the (allegedly delicious but potentially poisonous) puffer fish: He who eats fugu is stupid. But he who does not eat fugu is also stupid.

I don't really understand what kind of point you were trying to make. Can you elaborate?

Sorry I'm late in revisiting this purple place!

Put it this way: If religion appears a joke, then irreligion does also.

Yes, I can see why one would look at it that way, given that many irreligious people and atheists fall for trying to deny the 'word of god', effectively taking a joke seriously while they're at it.

As if the people who make up the religion at any given time today and the history involving it had nothing to do with it being a joke.

[Henny]

alucard:

Religion is a joke.

Reminds me of a a Japanese saying about eating the (allegedly delicious but potentially poisonous) puffer fish: He who eats fugu is stupid. But he who does not eat fugu is also stupid.

I don't really understand what kind of point you were trying to make. Can you elaborate?

Sorry I'm late in revisiting this purple place!

Put it this way: If religion appears a joke, then irreligion does also.

So let me get this straight:

1) Religion is a joke.

2) If religion is a joke, it follows that the opposite of religion is also a joke.

3) Therefore, "irreligion" is a joke.

How does 2) follow from 1)?

[Asterion Orestes]

[Dracula backwards]:

Yes, I can see why one would look at it that way, given that many irreligious people and atheists fall for trying to deny the 'word of god', effectively taking a joke seriously while they're at it. rolleyes.gif

Not what I had in mind, but I suppose you could make the claim.

As if the people who make up the religion at any given time today and the history involving it had nothing to do with it being a joke.

Since you've defined it necessarily as "a joke", it would seem any such specifics wouldn't matter.

Henriksson:

So let me get this straight:

1) Religion is a joke.

2) If religion is a joke, it follows that the opposite of religion is also a joke.

3) Therefore, "irreligion" is a joke.

How does 2) follow from 1)?

It doesn't necessarily. But the fugu saying is what came to mind. No, it's not a logical argument.

[alucard]

1) Religion is a joke.

2) If religion is a joke, it follows that the opposite of religion is also a joke.

3) Therefore, "irreligion" is a joke.

How does 2) follow from 1)?

How does 3) follow from 2)?

As if the people who make up the religion at any given time today and the history involving it had nothing to do with it being a joke.

Since you've defined it necessarily as "a joke", it would seem any such specifics wouldn't matter.

I did no such thing. I just made an ambiguous statement, leaving the details for anyone reading it to guess on their own.

[Henny]

Henriksson:

So let me get this straight:

1) Religion is a joke.

2) If religion is a joke, it follows that the opposite of religion is also a joke.

3) Therefore, "irreligion" is a joke.

How does 2) follow from 1)?

It doesn't necessarily. But the fugu saying is what came to mind. No, it's not a logical argument.

I wonder if this fugu thing you're going on about is supposed to be some sort of joke. If "If religion appears a joke, then irreligion does also" is not supposed to be a logical argument, then what is it?

[PiF]

religion is like sexuality

it should be a personal thing...it only gets annoying when you try and force it on others

[Inevitable]

It doesn't necessarily. But the fugu saying is what came to mind. No, it's not a logical argument.

Like religion then.

And no, you can't deny this: Religion is inherently illogical. It's believing in something which you have no evidence for. There's no logic in it.

Doesn't mean Religion should be destroyed mind, there's lots of illogical things in the world.