Share your religion

[RedMouse]

I'm United Church of Canada.

[StoryWitch]

[...]since nobody can definitively prove God does or doesn't exist[...]

Isn't that agnosticism?

It is. I think she's saying that even though she can't prove God DOESN'T exist, she firmly believes it (unlike agnostics, who won't commit to saying whether God exists or not). Thus, she's an atheist, and atheism, like any religion, is faith-based. ^_^

[Inevitable]

[...]since nobody can definitively prove God does or doesn't exist[...]

Isn't that agnosticism?

It is. I think she's saying that even though she can't prove God DOESN'T exist, she firmly believes it (unlike agnostics, who won't commit to saying whether God exists or not). Thus, she's an atheist, and atheism, like any religion, is faith-based. ^_^

*Exhasberation*

Except it's not, because you don't need to prove the non-existance of something; that's not how the world works.

For more, see every other time I, and others, have brought this up. I can't be bothered to go in-depth again.

[Komrade]

Except it's not, because you don't need to prove the non-existance of something; that's not how the world works.

For more, see every other time I, and others, have brought this up. I can't be bothered to go in-depth again.

Perhaps that's how Western knowledge works, innocent until proven guilty and what-not. Many ancient societies believed quite the opposite, guilty at first accusation until proven innocent. I agree with you that atheism isn't faith based, since atheists often use logic and science to back themselves up. But be careful when you say, "how the world works". That's how YOU (and I) see the world works, not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

[mad_scientist]

[...]since nobody can definitively prove God does or doesn't exist[...]

Isn't that agnosticism?

It is. I think she's saying that even though she can't prove God DOESN'T exist, she firmly believes it (unlike agnostics, who won't commit to saying whether God exists or not). Thus, she's an atheist, and atheism, like any religion, is faith-based. ^_^

Atheists are not required to believe that gods don't exist, merely to not believe that they do. (What Idraena personally believes is her own business.) Not believing in gods requires exactly as much faith as not believing in the tooth fairy, that the sun is made of glowing apples or pots of gold at the end of rainbows. To call such conclusions 'faith' broadens the definition of the term to the point where it's meaningless.

[mad_scientist]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

[Baroness Peron]

I'm technically a Christian, but I have my own beliefs. I think everyone should question what they're told and dogmas, keep an open mind, pursue knowledge and find out for themself what their beliefs are instead of being told to believe or how to believe.

But yeah, if you threw Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism/Pantheism and the German author Hermann Hesse into a blender on purée, the end result would be my belief system.

That sounds really similar to me. Only, I've never read anything by Hermann Hesse so I'm not really sure what he's all about!

EDIT: Also, being a critical thinker and a scientist doesn't necessarily mean you're an athiest! I love science and it is my favorite discipline due to its natural inclinations towards finding definitive answers. But when you throw humans into the mix, things get all screwy, because you start getting disciplines like art and philosophy where the scientific method doesn't hold so well since these disciplines are by nature almost entirely subjective. This can be very engaging, but I find it too frustrating to try to make a career out of studying these kinds of topics. Then if you believe in spirits/a spiritual world (which is in itself a pretty subjective belief--you either believe in it or you don't, for reasons that are often difficult to define) we simply don't have any scientific ways to investigate these worlds. Your best bet is metaphysics and intense spiritualism, both of which can make me slightly uneasy...yet still, I think there's something to them.

[Næt.]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

[Henny]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

I don't know about the Scientific Method, but using a scientific methodology, marxist Isaac Deutscher and conservative Robert Conquest can describe the history of the Soviet Union roughly the same.

[Komrade]

I don't know about the Scientific Method, but using a scientific methodology, marxist Isaac Deutscher and conservative Robert Conquest can describe the history of the Soviet Union roughly the same.

Ooo, History! I love when history comes up! Well, all of Marxism is essentially taking a very scientific eye to history. The historian-philospher Herbert Butterfield believed that facts and numbers were the core of history, but I say fooey. It's the emotions, beliefs, and experiences of the unexceptional people, not the exceptional ones like leaders and famous folks, that forms the backbone of history! History to me is the story, filled with truth and myth, that binds all of humanity together on a single thread, leading from the agricultural revolution of 10,000 B.C. to wherever our future brings us!

...Ahem, ending High School teacher mode. Well, logic is near and dear to me, don't misunderstand. But if believing in a teapot between mars and here is what makes you respect others, fight for justice, and live a happy life, I have no problem with that. But don't forget, cold hard logic and science is what brought us things like the eugenics movement. If you do not respect and treat kindly others, I don't care if the teapot told you or your scientific method did, I'm gonna exercise my arm muscles to propel my hand into your face.

[MetalGoblin]

There is actually a simple mathematical formula for whether or not a god exists: f(x)=x/0.

I don't think that one can combine science and religion. Science revolves around objectivity, while religion is often more concerned with subjective moral or ethical philosophy. It doesn't make sense to involve one in an argument about the other. Also, didn't the OP say that this thread was not for arguing?

[mad_scientist]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

[mylittlehazmat]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

[mad_scientist]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

[mylittlehazmat]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

[Sally]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

[mylittlehazmat]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

I will have the last word!! :evil:

[Komrade]

*buried under quotations*

[Sally]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

I will have the last word!! :evil:

OK, we just can't do this anymore. Enough.

Ha! :lol:

[Stormy Wether]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

I will have the last word!! :evil:

OK, we just can't do this anymore. Enough.

Ha! :lol:

Do what?

[mad_scientist]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

I will have the last word!! :evil:

OK, we just can't do this anymore. Enough.

Ha! :lol:

Do what?

QUOTE PYRAMID!

This is why sensible forums have a quote embedding limit.

Anyways... religion, yeah. We're totally on-topic. *whistles*

[Næt.]

not everyone agrees that science trumps all, and we have no right to feel superior.

I think we do, actually. (Critical thinkers and scientists, I mean, not Westerners.) Most reliable known tool for discovery and all that.

I think it depends what you're trying to find out. How would you use the Scientific Method with regards to History, for example?

Very true, the levels of 'proof' for areas where data is limited (such as history) are much lower, by necessity, than for investigating the world around us. Critical thought is definitely used by historians and the same basic principles apply, but practicality demands a slightly different application. History is more closely related to observational science than experimental science (it is not, of course, technically either).

I don't think it was the original intent to imply that science denies a belief in God. Just that science was not a grounds for moral superiority.

I know, that's what I'm addressing. (Well, not moral superiority, but closer to reality.) I think that people who rely on science and critical thought can consider such conclusions more reliable and dependable than the methods that lead to, say, astrology, or powdered rhino horn as an aphrodesiac.

Apologies, by the time I had gotten to your post I was a wee bit fed up, so I skimmed over yours and apparently I wasn't addressing you. :P

I have nothing to say here; I just wanted to add one more level. :lol:

I will have the last word!! :evil:

OK, we just can't do this anymore. Enough.

Ha! :lol:

Do what?

QUOTE PYRAMID!

This is why sensible forums have a quote embedding limit.

Anyways... religion, yeah. We're totally on-topic. *whistles*

That is beautiful.

[Komrade]

Back on topic, my religion has now changed to worship of the infinite forum pyramid.

[Sally]

Back on topic, my religion has now changed to worship of the infinite forum pyramid.

We as the Creators accept your worship.

[Stormy Wether]

Back on topic, my religion has now changed to worship of the infinite forum pyramid.

We as the Creators accept your worship.

A very good being to worship too. Doesn't interfere in government or make a nuisance of itself on street corners.

[Member33070]

Currently the only label I can really apply to myself is panentheist. I believe in some sort of divine but don't fully understand it yet.

I was raised Christian - Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Mormon, and contemporary Evangelical. I never really fit in there and studied Wicca for a while as a teenager. I like some of the concepts and have done quite a few spells and things, but never really got anywhere with spells. I am good at divination, working with spirit guides, and past life regression as a result of this, though, so I still believe in all of that.

I am also very interested in Buddhist philosophy and generally agree with their teachings. So I use that as well.

I don't know, I've bounced around quite a bit. I think the closest thing to what I believe is Baha'i, but I believe it in a panentheist way and I don't worship the messengers of God...*shrug*

Still exploring.

[NothingHere]

Closest thing I can really define myself as, religiously, would be as an Ietsist or Deist. It's tough though, because a lot of deists are more actively religious than I am, and Ietsists are not as 'sure' as I am. So I guess the best way to place me would be Deist, even though I don't quite fit.

[Streløk]

All that my religion contains is in this quotebox:

...nothing. I'm an agnostic-atheist and I'm completely irreligious. I'm also a bit of a nihilist, but I still place my own subjective value on morality because I look at it through more of a pragmatic stance. It benefits everyone in our society when people abide to a tolerant and empathetic moral code. Cooperation, and improving the way we cooperate has a mutual benefit.

Agnostic-atheist, by the way, would mean that I do not believe in the existence of God(s), but I also don't think it is possible to have knowledge on the existence or non-existence of God(s). Hence the joining of atheist and agnostic.

[Rhaenys]

I've followed Christianity ( Catholic ) , Hinduism ( because my area's main religion is that ) and some aspects of Zen and Nichiren Buddhism.

[SillyLily]

But yeah, if you threw Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism/Pantheism and the German author Hermann Hesse into a blender on purée, the end result would be my belief system.

:o

Aw, why the face?

Yeah... I don't really have much of religion, just a hodge-podge of beliefs.