Poll: Are you religious?

[Jimmybobjr]

No, im not religous. For the basic, often quoted reasons;

1) There is no proof of any god, except for in a bool
2) I dont want to talk to air and hope that my life will be better
3) I dont want to have to rely on something that i cant see, hear or feel.
4) Religon is full of Double negatives.

 

[YoStone]

Agnostic, I just don't know. Objectively, I can't know. But I find it very implausible that there should be a personal emotional god like the Abrahamic ones. If I were to believe in a god, it would probably be a very distant and apathetic god, preferably just a force of sorts.

 

[Richardplex]

I'm agnostic, but I hate religion. Not faith, faith is good, I'm jealous of people who find confort in faith, but organised religion is bad.

there is nothing to be jealous about the ability to shove fault,responibility and credit to nonexistant things. If bad stuff happens its time to do something, not sit around wishing very very hard that spacegenie stops it.

Depends on the faith. Comfort about death, having a purpose in life, it can be good. Though I don't suffer a problem from the former thankfully.

I find the reality of death very comforting. Nothing matters anymore when you ceise to exist.
And when it comes to purpose in life, it's purpose is to give it one.Thats not a religious thing, if you got enough a little bit of self-esttem you know that your life matters and should lead to a goal of your choice. Thats all the purpose one needs.

My view of death as well. And it isn't necessarily a religious thing, but it's easier. No need to constantly question that purpose. Faith isn't necessary but it's a lot easier. And for those who don't share our view of death, faith can help stop one fearing it.

I guess you could say I'm agnostic. I believe there's something controlling everything but I'm not sure what. I believe in karma and that certain things happen for a reason.

That would be theist, but not religious. But agnostic would fit better than 'Yes' considering the question.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

Agnostic atheist here.

So that's a firm no. I am not religious in any way.

 

[CleverNickname]

As I am not a 13th-century illiterate peasant ready to murder anyone who looks funny at my potatoes, no, I am not in need of a Church's "guidance"

 

[0megaZer0]

I'd very much like a 'sort of' option.

 

[KingofallCosmos]

Not sure if this discussion is about religion or semantics...

 

[Legion IV]

Many will argue that those who would answer yes to this question (and I say many, not all) are the same people who have been raised to say yes from childhood and that invalidates that person's belief as it is not truly their own.

I was raised that way: a Christian from birth really. I was baptized without being asked (I was only a baby if I am not mistaken) and taken to church every week- something I just went with. It was around the time I was either 13 or 14 years old that I decided there wasn't this great God of all things as I was taught. I never really told my family, but coincidentally we started skipping church more and more often.

It was a good time after I had turned 15 that I met a boy who would change my life, and while I will not go into great detail for fear of irelavency, I will say that after a couple of months I ended up coming back to the Christian faith and I did so entirely by my own decision. He didn't even know I didn't believe in God at the time, he had no say in it, I am my own man and I chose this; I think I can say yes. =^_^=

Stop thinking everyone was forced. I have a friend who was raised as a strict strict atheist was told to not believe in any god what so ever its all lies ect ect from birth. So would that invalidate a "No"

I was raised by parents who were atheists but never ever spoke about religion, never said it was bad or good they went out of there way to say nothing!!, they wanted there kids (my brother my sister and me) to find our own way, i didn't believe really until i was 14 and found the lord on my own.

Not everybody is forced into this so stop assuming it, unless you see the other side like my friend, maybe just maybe alot of those "No's" are invalidated as well eh?

Ohhhhhh i only read the first sentance before i posted..... am sorry, should i even post this? I guess i will but please no harm am not mad i guess am just an idiot and this hostile thread has me on tilt... again ssorry.

 

[Madara XIII]

Nah, that whole idiotic money scam and testament to the gullibility of humanity isn't for me.

Sort of. I'm Catholic, but I don't blindly accept everything. If there is a policy or teaching I think is stupid or makes no sense, I will call them on it.

I don't understand this position. If you believe that The Bible is the word of God then what right do you have to disagree with it. If it's the work of a perfect divine being then it isn't wrong on anything. If The Bible's true then you'll be damned to Hell for having the audacity to put yourself before God and rewriting his most holy book to suit your whims.

I'm not a religious man, but if I was I'd be a fundamentalist. If I was a Christian I'd be in the WBC, if I was a Buddhist I'd be a monk, because those are the only intellectually tenable positions for a religious person. I don't see how you can disobey your God while still thinking that you follow Him and are in his good graces.

I think he takes that position because the Bible was written by man who was told to write down Gods word. Well after a few thousand years, that word could easily be misinterpreted, changed around and even have some books edited out of the current version of whatever religious texts there are.
He's not going against God, but merely his religions interpretation of his sacred text.

So then what's the point of following any part of The Bible if it's all suspect? If the parts of The Bible about how homosexuality, divorce, and mixing fabrics could be wrong then why can't the parts of The Bible about God, miracles, and the afterlife be wrong? Why would you believe such extraordinary claims from an imperfect book? If God does exist then how could you possibly follow him through a book that's been edited and rewritten? It'd be like trying to build a clock using instructions that tell you how to build a rocking chair. The only positions without cognitive dissonance are fundamentalism or atheism. Of course no holy book is true, but if you believe that they are true then the least you can do is obey them fully and not rewrite them to suit your tastes.

That's the oh so ironic part. Many fundamentalists have rephrased the bible to suit their own tastes so as to get people to believe unquestionably. Why is theirs right and why should I follow it like a rabid zealot?
This is why I analyze very unclear and metaphorical parts of religious texts so as to best interpret exactly what the hell they were trying to say. You see my faith is one that needs skepticism otherwise I'd be just another mindless sheep in the choir. And as my physics professor said "question everything". I know I may not find the absolute correct answers, just like everyone else, but I will do what I can to better understand what I believe and why.
Studies like that for me usually require analyzing other religious texts. Not just the bible

 

[Madara XIII]

I have faith that there is something greater than us. So... I do believe in a God.
What I do not believe is the unquestioned authority of the church because of two reasons:

1) Power corrupts. No man is immune to that.

2) History has shown us that many wars have been fought because some people did not think other people believed in what was correct. That has served as justification not only for war but also torture, inhumane experiments and even slavery. Do some basic research on the Middle Ages or people who are now considered to be great thinkers and people of science that lived in the Middle Ages.

Amen to that

 

[warprincenataku]

I teach religion, so no, I'm not religious. lol

 

[staika]

Yay I'm part of the very small minority that is Religious. I am a christian I was raised as one and when I was growing up I never really believed it that much but once I got older (about 17 if I remember correctly) I just seemed to find what I was looking for in christianity but I still am a bad christian though (I don't like to go to church ) but I still believe.

Now just because I found what I was looking for in religion doesn't mean everyone will do the same and I can respect it if you took the time to look at all the options and decided that religion isn't for you I'm not gonna force my religion down your throat. Also I don't hate gays or anyone who isn't a christian so please do not accuse me of being so.

 

[Delsana]

I think I was a Christian... but I was more Christian than any Christian I knew... and so I wonder if I ever was... and now I don't know if I want to be or if I can, or if I ever was, but I know I'm not faithless.

 

[Syzygy23]

Agnostic anti-theist. We haven't proven the existence or non-existence of God, so making assured statements about either scenario is unwise. Personally, the former scenario is unlikely enough for me not to give a f-ck either way.

That said, an assured belief in the supernatural leads to all sorts of nastiness that a scientific worldview prohibits.

well, I don't think religion's what's getting in the way of a universal scientific worldview. People bend even science to exert political control.

When it comes to controlling the masses, facts be damned!

here's someone who understands what's what. I get bombarded by idiots every day telling me religion is the source of all the worlds ills and that science is the only truth. These people have no understanding of any religious institution(s), an even looser grasp on exactly what constitutes as "science" (I'd bet most of 'em chalk it up to the force that makes Plasma Screens TVs and iPhones work, judging by how they use the term "science") and no grasp at all on how humans do things and HAVE done things since homo sapiens first came about.

Humans, ALL humans, in my experience, instinctively hate being wrong, or being told we're wrong. We will twist facts and turn a blind eye to anything, ANYTHING, to make others think we're still right even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sometimes we don't even do it to convince others, sometimes we just keep lying to ourselves, because we can't handle the truth otherwise.

And as for me, you could count me as Christian I guess. Not sure if I'm ROman catholic, Protestant, or methodist, I never bothered learning the differences. If there's a Church around and it's sunday, I usually just pop in for a quick "Thanks for not smiting us despite all that horse porn on the internet, how's your day been?" to God and be on my way.

 

[salthors]

Two words:

Occam's Razor

 

[Zorg111]

Yes I am Lutheran.

Also I must disagree with the comments saying that the agnostic option is valid, from the view of all religions, you are either a follower/believer or you are not, whatever reasoning or wording that you use does not change your faith or the lack there of.

 

[Felix 'Solomon' Hultgren]

Yes, I'm an evangelical lutheran. And I hope that some day people will stop confusing politics for religion. When I tell you that I am a Christian, I don't tell you my political opinions. I share with you that I believe in the existence of God and that mankind was saved by Jesus Christ, God's Son, on the cross. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Proud Muslim here.
I saw something on Discovery Channel once where they said said that a priest said that if you look at a watch you would see that it is perfect for what it does so it must have been made by someone and can not simply appear out of nowhere and an atheist(I think Darwin) replied that a clock can be perfected and changed and adapted to support his theory of evolution and the show went on to show a species of birds that have adapted to do different things in different environments. All the business about adapting is well and good but that still does not explain how the watch got there and how it was able to adapt, it only explains why it adapted.

Are you taking the piss? Whether it was intentional or not, your post made no sense. The watch did not adapt to anything. Living creatures did.

Plus, Darwin could not reply on a Discovery Channel show because he died almost a hundred years before the Discovery Channel was founded.

I am roughly quoting a show that quoted a debate between Darwin and a priest(it was a high ranking priest whose name I can't remember).
And the watch was used an a allegory for living creatures by the priest saying that the watch must have been created by someone.

Off-Topic: If anyone finds my post offensive I will edit it and delete the second part. I added it because I did not want to get a warning for a low content post as I thought one sentence would count as low content.