Poll: Are you religious?

[orangeban]

Well, I voted agnostic (more specifically, agnostic atheism, because in general atheists get with lighter punishment than those who believe in a different religion, also I'd rather not devote my life to something that may not exist.)

I truly believe agnosticism is the best choice for those who follow SCIENCE and skepticism, because there is no phrase more scientific than, "I don't know". Because we don't know, and I think that declaring that there is no god is just as irrational as declaring there is one. Both theories are unproven.

 

[Del-Toro]

The kids these days are too hip for religion,. I am kind of bashing it, fully realizing the hypocrisy inherent in voting "agnostic" and writing the previous sentence.

Heh, using "kids" and "too hip". Surely you've found a way to look way smarter than them, haven't you.

I sure have! First, you'll never hear me follow up the statement that "I'm not religious" with "but I'm spiritual". Second, I usually avoid theistic debates on forums (this being the exception because it isn't framed as a debate). Finally, I don't respond to crappy jokes with vague challenges.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I'm an atheist. I can't say that I've studied every religion so I can't say for sure that I'm right but I also find it ridiculous that a god (or gods) would expect me to spend my whole life researching every possible religious denomination in an adequate amount of depth just so that I could discover that they were the true god(s) and that I should worship them. I'm also 99% sure that Christianity is complete bullshit.

 

[CarlMin]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

Nope, an agnostic is more like "undecided". Not a believer but not an atheist either.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is not "uh man, I can't decide which one do I believe, let's just wait until one dissapears and join the other one".

Agnosticism is not having solid proof to demonstrate either of the theories. Agnostic is a person that believes these are just theories and we have not discovered the truth yet. Agnostic is someone that is awaiting for the absolutely truth to be discovered. Agnostic is a person that doesn't blindly follow faith, nor made-up stories, not theories that do not have any proof behind them.

No, you are just assigning your personal philosophy to the world.

An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know whether there is a God or a higher force, or doesn't think that there is any way of knowing that. Thus the word "a-" (without) "gnosticism" (knowledge).

That's why I think the word "undecided" could describe it pretty good.

That's just what I said, with less words. An agnostic is someone that doesn't KNOW, not someone that hasn't decided, like you said in your first post.

Undecided - has yet to decide whether there is a God or not. Now we're just discussing semantics. And if we are basically saying the same things, why did you feel the need to "correct" me in the first place?

Is there an "I Think" option?

Also, I'm getting kind of sick of all the snarky atheists who think they're smarter than religious folk. Get the fuck over yourselves, ESPECIALLY the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing. That doesn't make you look smarter; that makes you look like an asshole.

Also, i'm Jewish. 'Nuff said.

Ha, the FSM thing... Why are you irritated by people that use that as an example? It is not used just to be smartass or to be an asshole. It is used as a tool to prove a point. There's no point on going on about how a religious theory can be wrong when you can just make a direct comparison and make the theist answer their own question.

The FSM thing has grown as a joke to piss off theists, because, let's face it, they are REALLY easy to troll. They get upset by the slightest mention to their beliefs.

It usually goes like this: Religious makes statement regarding God.

Atheist says he disagrees

Religious demands proof (by the way, people should stop using this comeback, just because we are atheists doesn't mean we are experts in every single field of science)

Atheist uses FSM to make the same statement religious person made in the first place with a few tweaks

Religious person claims that's stupid

And bam, the conversation ended right there. The religious person answered himself and the atheist didn't have to explain anything at all. FSM is used to make religious people question themselves about their beliefs, not to be snarky douchebags that try to poop on everyone's party.

Okay, I don't know who you wanted to quote but I assume it wasn't me seeing as I never wrote that. But I'll answer it anyway.

The guy basically meant that there is no reason for atheists to try to insult Christians, and arguably, if you compare God to a flying spaghetti monster then that's probably insulting. And I like how you first say that Christians are easy to troll, then somehow denies that atheists use this comparison to mock (troll) Christians but only to prove a point. Which one is it?

Secondly, you seem to be locked in this idea that atheists and Christians wage a war against each other and only atheists are right. In general, my opinion is that if you can't leave people that you disagree with alone, or have to question or mock them, you're probably an asshole no matter whether you call yourself an atheist or a Christian.

 

[sergnb]

The kids these days are too hip for religion,. I am kind of bashing it, fully realizing the hypocrisy inherent in voting "agnostic" and writing the previous sentence.

Heh, using "kids" and "too hip". Surely you've found a way to look way smarter than them, haven't you.

I sure have! First, you'll never hear me follow up the statement that "I'm not religious" with "but I'm spiritual". Second, I usually avoid theistic debates on forums (this being the exception because it isn't framed as a debate). Finally, I don't respond to crappy jokes with vague challenges.

well you just did, my man. What exactly you accomplish by doing this? You are just disregarding discussions on forums as troll-fests and general nonsense where no consensum could ever be reached.

Well guess, what, being this a forum or not, we are still people talking here, we are expressing our real opinions, and I'm sure you would at least be respectful enough to not dismiss someone inmediately without even hearing what he has to say.

But I understand your position, I try to avoid drama on the internet too. I just thought that this comment you made here is pretty much useless and serves no purpose other than pissing off people that were having their own thing in there. You keep telling to yourself you are better than the rest, see how far that gets you.

 

[orangeban]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

Nope, an agnostic is more like "undecided". Not a believer but not an atheist either.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is not "uh man, I can't decide which one do I believe, let's just wait until one dissapears and join the other one".

Agnosticism is not having solid proof to demonstrate either of the theories. Agnostic is a person that believes these are just theories and we have not discovered the truth yet. Agnostic is someone that is awaiting for the absolutely truth to be discovered. Agnostic is a person that doesn't blindly follow faith, nor made-up stories, not theories that do not have any proof behind them.

No, you are just assigning your personal philosophy to the world.

An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know whether there is a God or a higher force, or doesn't think that there is any way of knowing that. Thus the word "a-" (without) "gnosticism" (knowledge).

That's why I think the word "undecided" could describe it pretty good.

That's just what I said, with less words. An agnostic is someone that doesn't KNOW, not someone that hasn't decided, like you said in your first post.

Undecided - has yet to decide whether there is a God or not. Now we're just discussing semantics. And if we are basically saying the same things, why did you feel the need to "correct" me in the first place?

Is there an "I Think" option?

Also, I'm getting kind of sick of all the snarky atheists who think they're smarter than religious folk. Get the fuck over yourselves, ESPECIALLY the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing. That doesn't make you look smarter; that makes you look like an asshole.

Also, i'm Jewish. 'Nuff said.

Ha, the FSM thing... Why are you irritated by people that use that as an example? It is not used just to be smartass or to be an asshole. It is used as a tool to prove a point. There's no point on going on about how a religious theory can be wrong when you can just make a direct comparison and make the theist answer their own question.

The FSM thing has grown as a joke to piss off theists, because, let's face it, they are REALLY easy to troll. They get upset by the slightest mention to their beliefs.

It usually goes like this: Religious makes statement regarding God.

Atheist says he disagrees

Religious demands proof (by the way, people should stop using this comeback, just because we are atheists doesn't mean we are experts in every single field of science)

Atheist uses FSM to make the same statement religious person made in the first place with a few tweaks

Religious person claims that's stupid

And bam, the conversation ended right there. The religious person answered himself and the atheist didn't have to explain anything at all. FSM is used to make religious people question themselves about their beliefs, not to be snarky douchebags that try to poop on everyone's party.

Okay, I don't know who you wanted to quote but I assume it wasn't me seeing as I never wrote that. But I'll answer it anyway.

The guy basically meant that there is no reason for atheists to try to insult Christians, and arguably, if you compare God to a flying spaghetti monster then that's probably insulting. And I like how you first say that Christians are easy to troll, then somehow denies that atheists use this comparison to mock (troll) Christians but only to prove a point. Which one is it?

Secondly, you seem to be locked in this idea that atheists and Christians wage a war against each other and only atheists are right. In general, my opinion is that if you can't leave people that you disagree with alone, or have to question or mock them, you're probably an asshole no matter whether you call yourself an atheist or a Christian.

Heh, it's funny, atheists and the religious (expanding it from just Christians) do seem to wage a bit of a war against each other but do you realise that agnostic atheists/religious are just sitting in the corner silently disagreeing with both of you?

Because we totally are, we are smug fucking bastards, with our skepticism caps.

 

[zajohnson]

Christian, however I don't even remember the last time I went to church...

 

[LightspeedJack]

I think agnostic is still in the "no" category.

 

[orangeban]

I think agnostic is still in the "no" category.

Actually, agnostics can still be atheist or religious. I for one am agnostic atheist, saying that I don't honestly know if there is a god but I believe the most sensible option is not to worship, in case I choose the wrong god and waste my time.

But some people don't know but still choose to worship a god. Basically as an agnostic you say, "I see neither of these sides as proven, but I align with one because of other reasons."

 

[Liudeius]

Wow... 81% are not religious? That can't be accurate to the general populace.
So are gamers more likely to be atheists or is it young people? (who I assume are in greater number on this site)

 

[Reaper195]

I have no problem with people believing in any religion (Although I must admit, there are some which seem somewhat more fictional than the popular "OMG! Let's make fun of Scientology!". I'm looking at you, Catholicism.), but personally.....I just don't care. I'm not a 'science prooves stuff, religion doesn't, blahblahblah.". But unless anything religious starts helping me do my job better, then I simply don't care.

 

[sergnb]

Wait, why is agnosticism a third option? Surely it's covered by "No"?

Nope, an agnostic is more like "undecided". Not a believer but not an atheist either.

No, it isn't. Agnosticism is not "uh man, I can't decide which one do I believe, let's just wait until one dissapears and join the other one".

Agnosticism is not having solid proof to demonstrate either of the theories. Agnostic is a person that believes these are just theories and we have not discovered the truth yet. Agnostic is someone that is awaiting for the absolutely truth to be discovered. Agnostic is a person that doesn't blindly follow faith, nor made-up stories, not theories that do not have any proof behind them.

No, you are just assigning your personal philosophy to the world.

An agnostic is simply a person who doesn't know whether there is a God or a higher force, or doesn't think that there is any way of knowing that. Thus the word "a-" (without) "gnosticism" (knowledge).

That's why I think the word "undecided" could describe it pretty good.

That's just what I said, with less words. An agnostic is someone that doesn't KNOW, not someone that hasn't decided, like you said in your first post.

Undecided - has yet to decide whether there is a God or not. Now we're just discussing semantics. And if we are basically saying the same things, why did you feel the need to "correct" me in the first place?

Is there an "I Think" option?

Also, I'm getting kind of sick of all the snarky atheists who think they're smarter than religious folk. Get the fuck over yourselves, ESPECIALLY the whole "Flying Spaghetti Monster" thing. That doesn't make you look smarter; that makes you look like an asshole.

Also, i'm Jewish. 'Nuff said.

Ha, the FSM thing... Why are you irritated by people that use that as an example? It is not used just to be smartass or to be an asshole. It is used as a tool to prove a point. There's no point on going on about how a religious theory can be wrong when you can just make a direct comparison and make the theist answer their own question.

The FSM thing has grown as a joke to piss off theists, because, let's face it, they are REALLY easy to troll. They get upset by the slightest mention to their beliefs.

It usually goes like this: Religious makes statement regarding God.

Atheist says he disagrees

Religious demands proof (by the way, people should stop using this comeback, just because we are atheists doesn't mean we are experts in every single field of science)

Atheist uses FSM to make the same statement religious person made in the first place with a few tweaks

Religious person claims that's stupid

And bam, the conversation ended right there. The religious person answered himself and the atheist didn't have to explain anything at all. FSM is used to make religious people question themselves about their beliefs, not to be snarky douchebags that try to poop on everyone's party.

Okay, I don't know who you wanted to quote but I assume it wasn't me seeing as I never wrote that. But I'll answer it anyway.

The guy basically meant that there is no reason for atheists to try to insult Christians, and arguably, if you compare God to a flying spaghetti monster then that's probably insulting. And I like how you first say that Christians are easy to troll, then somehow denies that atheists use this comparison to mock (troll) Christians but only to prove a point. Which one is it?

Secondly, you seem to be locked in this idea that atheists and Christians wage a war against each other and only atheists are right. In general, my opinion is that if you can't leave people that you disagree with alone, or have to question or mock them, you're probably an asshole no matter whether you call yourself an atheist or a Christian.

I said in the post that religious persons are easy to troll by people that want to do it, and FSM has became a perfect tool to do so.

However, this is not the goal of this "religion". It is just a way to show people how stupid a religious belief could be.

Now, as I have stated before in other post, I would be PERFECTLY fine with people believing what they want if this didn't DIRECTLY INTERFERE with my personal freedom. Yes, I do think theists and atheists are in a constant war. Check the news, you'll see that shit everywhere.

Religious people VOTE for a party that has a belief that clashes with my own, so tell me, is it really not okay if I try to reason with someone? I will leave ANYONE alone if that doesn't interfere with me or the people I care about, but it DOES interfere. That's why I feel it's just logical to have a debate with someone and try to make them see their beliefs may be hurting me indirectly.

And yes, I do think atheists are right. But that's just my opinion, I'm not trying to say everyone that does not follow it is stupid, and I will never do. I will never say someone is, inherently, stupid. I will claim a particular belief he has is stupid. I will say a particular action he does is stupid. But I believe everyone is intelligent enough to see for themselves, I will never force my opinion down anyone's throat.

 

[Kamehapa]

(snip)

Possibly the dumbest thing I have heard (in a while). Just replace that idea with anything else:

I say, "If a magical unicorn that craps gold exists, he must dance to me in order for me to believe."

You say, "By having a test for a magical unicorn that craps gold, and demanding that they comply with it, aren't you basically admitting that unicorn must exist? It has to, in order to decide to fulfill or not fulfill your requests."

I say, "No the whole idea is asinine, which is why I want some serious proof in order to believe this thing that so many other people believe is self evident."

Just because it works for my example doesn't mean it works for all examples. But I was under the impression an atheist is someone who flat-out denies the existence of God, not somebody who would believe in God if sufficiently convinced - that's closer to being agnostic, though not quite.

Additionally, part of having faith - the only important part, really - is believing in something that cannot actually be verified. That's why faith is irrational (and though I have it, I don't deny that it is). Part of religion is making, and accepting, the irrational belief. Not believing because it is irrational is fine, but demanding proof of something which, by definition cannot be proven is ridiculous and circular.

Not circular at all, a God can prove himself if he does exist, but his non-existence is unprovable.

Also, there are two types of Atheism:

1) Strong Atheism - I believe that God does not exist
2) Weak Atheism - I do not believe God exists

Both of which operate on the basis of belief, meaning that sufficient evidence could possibly sway it. Weak Atheism is more open to the idea God MIGHT be real because they do not directly think God is impossible, just that they have no reason to believe he is real.

Agnosticism is something completely unrelated dealing with whether it is even possible or not to know if God exists, though many people use it as a mask for weak Atheism

 

[orangeban]

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, although I personally make it my duty to be more liberal then some of the Ultra Conservative nutters that you see in a lot of other christian religions.

My stance on it is this, Jesus talked more about who you should care about then who you should ostracize from society and treat horribly, he wanted us to love one another and treat others as we want to be treated, I'm pretty sure that he'd be willing to have a pleasant meal with an Athiest or Pagan or even Scientologist and not try to cram christianity down their throats.

I respect Athiestic and Agnostic beliefs (My dad's an agnostic), I can honestly say that both sides need each other, Athiests and Agnostics keep this world from falling into a theocratic crap sack where your rank in society depends on what you choose to believe and wars are waged at the drop of a hat, and Religions keep this world from falling into a "Total Reason" society where things are based more off of results rather then any form of morality or humanity.

Alright, you seem like an awesome lovely person who has sensible beliefs (and interesting ones to, a liberal Roman Catholic? I am genuinally intrigued) so I'm just gonna link these videos about why religion is not a pre-requisite for morality. http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/7/T7xt5LtgsxQ

Very interesting videos those, well worth a watch. Also, agnostics can be religious.

 

[sergnb]

(snip)

Possibly the dumbest thing I have heard (in a while). Just replace that idea with anything else:

I say, "If a magical unicorn that craps gold exists, he must dance to me in order for me to believe."

You say, "By having a test for a magical unicorn that craps gold, and demanding that they comply with it, aren't you basically admitting that unicorn must exist? It has to, in order to decide to fulfill or not fulfill your requests."

I say, "No the whole idea is asinine, which is why I want some serious proof in order to believe this thing that so many other people believe is self evident."

Just because it works for my example doesn't mean it works for all examples. But I was under the impression an atheist is someone who flat-out denies the existence of God, not somebody who would believe in God if sufficiently convinced - that's closer to being agnostic, though not quite.

Additionally, part of having faith - the only important part, really - is believing in something that cannot actually be verified. That's why faith is irrational (and though I have it, I don't deny that it is). Part of religion is making, and accepting, the irrational belief. Not believing because it is irrational is fine, but demanding proof of something which, by definition cannot be proven is ridiculous and circular.

Not circular at all, a God can prove himself if he does exist, but his non-existence is disprovable.

Also, there are two types of Atheism:

1) Strong Atheism - I believe that God does not exist
2) Weak Atheism - I do not believe God exists

Both of which operate on the basis of belief, meaning that sufficient evidence could possibly sway it. Weak Atheism is more open to the idea God MIGHT be real because they do not directly think God is impossible, just that they have no reason to believe he is real.

Agnosticism is something completely unrelated dealing with whether it is even possible or not to know if God exists, though many people use it as a mask for weak Atheism

Where did you pull these types of atheism from, exactly? And how is one "weaker" or "stronger" than the other?

You just basicly said that an atheist can be a Gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. And no, not both of them operate on the basis of belief. One does (agnostic). One doesn't (Gnostic)

Agnosticism is not a third option in the middle of the two, nor it is a "mask" for "weak" atheism.

It is just another philosophical position.

There is not black and white, and some gray in the middle. It's Gray, Gray, Gray and Gray. Being these Gnostic and Agnostic Theism, and Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism.

If you want an indepth explanation of these positions, wikipedia is your friend. And no, this is not my opinion, these are, in fact, the official possitions regarding atheism and theism you can have.

 

[orangeban]

You know, I've been thinking in this thread, and as an agnostic I'm open to the idea that god might exist. But which god I wonder?

What if this god rejects homosexuality, or black people, or women, or transexuals. I wouldn't be able to support this god. Would I be crazy to activelly protest against this god?

I recently watch The Man Who Crossed Hitler, a true story about a Jewish lawyer who, in 1932, attempted to expose Hitler as a purjeror. Is it possible to have the Man Who Crossed God?

 

[Delsana]

I like to believe I am while no one else is... wrap your heads around that.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I am proud to say that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that any of the Gods from any religion that I have heard of are real or can possibly be real, but I don't know with certainty that there is NO god or creator or divine being.

 

[CarlMin]

Now, as I have stated before in other post, I would be PERFECTLY fine with people believing what they want if this didn't DIRECTLY INTERFERE with my personal freedom. Yes, I do think theists and atheists are in a constant war. Check the news, you'll see that shit everywhere.

The only western country where believers and no believers are so clearly divided and religion plays such a huge part in politics, must be America. Is that where you live?

Religious people VOTE for a party that has a belief that clashes with my own, so tell me, is it really not okay if I try to reason with someone? I will leave ANYONE alone if that doesn't interfere with me or the people I care about, but it DOES interfere. That's why I feel it's just logical to have a debate with someone and try to make them see their beliefs may be hurting me indirectly.

Which Christian believes do you think might indirectly hurt you? What of Jesus teachings do you think would make the world a horrible place?

Sounds to me like you are speaking of pseudo-Christian republicans and conservatives. Those guys are nuts, not because they call themselves Christians but because they are freaking nuts. I don?t think you wage a war against religious values (at least not the truly Christian values). I think it?s more about the intolerance of the far right.