Poll: What's your religion?

[Najos]

Wow, that is really interesting. Are you a Hindu?

No, but Hindu comes pretty close. I don't practice any type of ceremonies, prayer, etc. Growing up I was raised Christian (Pentecostal to be exact) and around 13 or so decided I was Agnostic, which later on (around 17 or so) lead to Atheism and then finally to some system of beliefs that I've formed over the years.

I know I don't believe in a God, but that's not to say that the world itself can't be viewed as spiritual. That's why Pantheism seems to work best for me. I guess you could say it as "God is all", but it isn't like God is a white guy with a beard to me. God is more synonymous with nature than anything.

Anyway, I'll stop before I confuse you and myself even more. Sorry for taking so long to respond.

 

[Alex_P]

I leave you atheists out there with Pascal's Wager:

___________________________Live by God's ways__________________Live as Atheist
God Exists_________________Infinite postive outcome______________?????????????????
God does not exist___________Finite negative outcome______________Finite positive outcome

Since risk = probability x consequence, so the infinite consequence of the top left cell outweighs all other risks. Therefore any logical man would believe in God.

Haha, no. That's not how math works.

If you get to say that the rewards for living by God's ways are "infinite," I get to say that the likelihood of the existence of the specific God of the Bible who will reward you for following those specific ways are infinitesimally small.

Infinitely small thing x infinitely large thing = undefined.

It's also trivially easy to expand that chart to include more gods, at which point the whole thing is full of "infinite positive outcomes" and "infinite negative outcomes" -- a total farce.

Just retelling the little box diagram thing totally missed the point of Pascal's long write-up, which has to do with existential uncertainty and a bunch of other philosophical stuff. As I recall, it's a pragmatic justification for why one should seek to develop an honest faith in God rather than a "logical" argument.

-- Alex

 

[Random Argument Man]

100% Atheist and proud of it.
I think that if science can prove that mankind evolved from apes, then why can't it explain how the Earth and the universe came into existence, we just don't know how yet.

I was reading Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and there is a a childish explaination for the existence of God:

'I bet you I can prove God exists!'
'Bet you can't'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now is that perfect perfect perfect thing real?'
'No, it's only in my mind'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All Atheists are fools'.

Ah, lulz all around.

Also do people forget that men wrote the Bible, not God?

I know this is from a book. If you happen to have a Christian friend who says that argument.
I have a question for your Christian friend. If he was real, how could be that perfect? What happens, if he is less perfect than you imagined? What happens if your idea of perfection isn't what god is?

 

[LadyZephyr]

RE: Pascal's Wager

:clears throat: Quoting page 104 of Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion (AKA: My bible)

[[Pascal's wager could only ever be an arguement for feigning belief in God. And the God you claim to believe in had better not be one of those omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception.
[... and here's the important part]
But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do to please God is to believe in him? What is so special about believing? Isn't it just as likely that God would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity?]]

:snaps books shut: One of the things that convinced me that I was an atheist was the notion that if God would send me to Hell for daring to question his existence- for being a freethinker, for being inquistive and open to different interpretations of the universe....

Well, even if God did exist, he doesn't seem worthy of my belief.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

One of the things that convinced me that I was an atheist was the notion that if God would send me to Hell for daring to question his existence- for being a freethinker, for being inquistive and open to different interpretations of the universe....

Well, even if God did exist, he doesn't seem worthy of my belief.

So, you became an Atheist because you didn't think God was worthy of your belief?!?!?

Damn, my thoughts on Atheism are true. It's not that you think God doesn't exist, it's that you're better than him. Grief...

 

[goodman528]

Pascal's Wager

I find it very surprising that someone who has studied the philosophy of religion to the extent you have done, would be taken in by Pascal's Wager.

An omniscient god would see through a person trying to game the system like that. And then there's the problem of religious diversity. How can you be sure that your method of "living by God's ways" is the correct one, when many others (who have studied their various holy texts just as carefully as you) have come to different conclusions?

Pascal's approach was to first prove if God exists, then the Christian God is the only True God. The point about gaming the system was made by Dawkin as well, this is really a question about whether God wants us to live as decent and honest human beings or whether God wants us to live by God's laws set out in the Bible. Most people think the Bible says you should live as a decent and honest human being, but what the Bible actually says is you should live by God's law (Half of the truth is no truth at all). That means if you are an honest Atheist, then you are still in trouble; if you are a dishonest Christian gaming the system, then you are in fact not a Christian (since you are not living by God's law), since you need to be honest.

I think the major issue many atheists have with religion is that religion attempts to create a logic that is infallible, where each and every point in the logical argument is proven by every other point. So to someone inside of this logic frame, it is the absolute truth, everything within it is true therefore it must be the whole truth. But to the atheists outside of this logic frame, you see a circular argument. In our world of "free thinking", most of us have trouble accepting any absolutes. We think "freedom" means doing whatever we want to do, believing in whatever we want to believe, and accepting no patriachy. Now imagine a kind of "freedom" where: whatever we do is the (only) right thing to do, whatever we believe is the (only) right thing to believe, and whatever order we live by is the (only)right order of things. That's why most of us are fed up with religion and think of religious people as arrogant and self righteous and brainwashed; but most of us (me included) has never experienced that second kind of freedom.

I wasn't saying (in the previous post) that I'm some kind of expert in religion, merely that I studied the Bible before, and that is more than what most people have done.

 

[LadyZephyr]

So, you became an Atheist because you didn't think God was worthy of your belief?!?!?

Damn, my thoughts on Atheism are true. It's not that you think God doesn't exist, it's that you're better than him. Grief...

You'll notice I said "one of the things". I have myriad reasons to not believe. Though, you have a point. I suppose that's not a reason for atheism. That's a reason for disliking the idea of God himself. My apologies. I should have phrased it differently.

ETA: For clarity's sake, I don't believe in God because I believe mysticism is just society's way of filling in the gaps of our knowledge. I believe that in the distant future, most of our answers about the nature of the universe will be answered by science. There is no place for theism in a rational society.

I hope that's more clear.

 

[TimMc]

I'm a Christian who thinks most Christians ignore the true teachings of the Bible in favor of doctrine, tradition and private interests.

And they do it loudly and seriously. The bastards.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

I'm sorry to be so contrarian, but Pascal did not resolve the problem of religious diversity. It remains unresolved to this day, and barring the imminent arrival of any particular version of the Rapture, it seems unlikely that it ever will be resolved.

Consider this as well: do you want to give your servitude to a being who would condemn honest atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists, agnostics and so on to eternal fire and everlasting pain? Is such a being consistent with what Jesus taught during his sermon on the mount?

I think this is the main problem atheists have with religious paradigms. It's not that their logic is circular (although that might stick in their craw), it's that they are internally inconsistent. An all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely benevolent creator is incompatible with eternal torture for well-meaning people. There are torturer-gods, it's true. But do you really want to worship one of them?

(If so, be sure to check the "Left-Hand Path" option in the poll.)

 

[ButtFuckingChrist]

I'm pretty much Atheist due to common sense and reasoning. I know this basically goes against most religions but untill they can prove religion to be a more viable, reasonable, logical explanation than Evolution, the big bang ETC, then I am remaining totally convinced there is no "God".


However, as I believe this is my right to not believe, it is everyone elses right to choose whether or not they believe also, ergo, I do my best not to force my opinions onto anyone, and I expect similar treatment from them.

Anyone else ever get the feeling that being an atheist can, occasionally, create problems for you? In my original home town, filled with racist religious nuts, I was pretty much excluded for being a Young atheist Black male.

 

[LadyZephyr]

I think this is the main problem atheists have with religious paradigms. It's not that their logic is circular (although that might stick in their craw), it's that they are internally inconsistent. An all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely benevolent creator is incompatible with eternal torture for well-meaning people. There are torturer-gods, it's true. But do you really want to worship one of them?

That's why atheists (in general) don't have a problem with deism. As in Einstein's God, which was an indifferent creator who didn't care what you did. He just made the universe and has no rules on morality he wants creation to follow. I always thought theism was very arrogant. This guy you worship made a fucking universe. Why would he care if you shagged someone before marriage or ate pork or whatever?

ETA:

But of course, incontrovertible proof would remove the need for belief in this god, I just would not want to worship him in any way. I think that is what LadyZephyr is implying.
Belief does not equate worship, and if this god does exist and this is proven (not sure how this would be done, though), rational people would have to acknowledge that it existed. That does not mean they would have to worship it.

That is what I meant. I just fumbled it completely. Thanks for being more eloquent than me.

 

[Alex_P]

It's not really circular logic anyway. More often it's "logical argument based on a faulty premise." Thomas Aquinas is the king of this stuff, pretty much: long chains of logic about the nature of reality or the temperature of devil semen where all the little bits follow logically but the whole thing started out from a silly premise so you get garbage out the other end, too.

-- Alex

 

[LOOY]

Still don't get any religion, I can't understand why people believe in something just becausce they like the idea of such a thing existing. It seems to me that along the lines somewhere people just thought "I don't want to die, surely we must live on afterwards" and then wanted it so hard they made up excuses for how it could be real.

 

[Semper_Fidelis53]

I'm a sort of druidic celt with a zen after taste. Though, I doubt it actually counts as a religion, I don't believe that there's a higher force out there who made and controls everything really. I believe in the elements and their overall balance as well as spirts and the like.

 

[SteinFaust]

meh i don't believe in much of anything, but i do believe in being honorable, and ruining the lives of people who do evil things to honorable people. um... i guess i believe in... batman?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So, you became an Atheist because you didn't think God was worthy of your belief?!?!?

Damn, my thoughts on Atheism are true. It's not that you think God doesn't exist, it's that you're better than him. Grief...

You'll notice I said "one of the things". I have myriad reasons to not believe. Though, you have a point. I suppose that's not a reason for atheism. That's a reason for disliking the idea of God himself. My apologies. I should have phrased it differently.

ETA: For clarity's sake, I don't believe in God because I believe mysticism is just society's way of filling in the gaps of our knowledge. I believe that in the distant future, most of our answers about the nature of the universe will be answered by science. There is no place for theism in a rational society.

I hope that's more clear.

Thanks. Much clearer. It did sound a little OTT.

Question for the Atehists though : If Religion does provide a stable social structure that protects Mankind from it's own worst excesses, wouldn't it be prudent to have it, even if there is proof of Non-Divinity?

Second part : If Science is found to be equal to Divinity: I.E. 'God' created the Laws of Science so that we could one day understand and re-join him, would that cause you to believe?

(From what I'm lead to believe though, even Dawkins bases his Atheism on Occam's Razor, rather than scientific fact.)

If your god is the prime cause (if there is such a thing) and that is all, why call it a god? Why look for supernatural explanations for the first cause when all other causes we have yet to find are natural.....?

Why not? If your to believe the human body is self-replicating, self-healing, self-sustaining and all the other miraculous things it does by random chance, you're talking a miniscule chance.
And to all intents and purposes, the only thing differing natural from supernatural is the limits of Science at the moment.

 

[LadyZephyr]

I think this is the main problem atheists have with religious paradigms. It's not that their logic is circular (although that might stick in their craw), it's that they are internally inconsistent. An all-powerful, all-knowing, infinitely benevolent creator is incompatible with eternal torture for well-meaning people. There are torturer-gods, it's true. But do you really want to worship one of them?

That's why atheists (in general) don't have a problem with deism. As in Einstein's God, which was an indifferent creator who didn't care what you did. He just made the universe and has no rules on morality he wants creation to follow. I always thought theism was very arrogant. This guy you worship made a fucking universe. Why would he care if you shagged someone before marriage or ate pork or whatever?

I dislike Deists more then Theists. Theists are at least intellectually honest.
Deists claim that there is some kind of supernatural force that created the universe. By what basis? Since it has not interfered since, how do you know it exists? You can't base the existence on any holy book, because it is not divinely inspired by this creator.
The only reason for deism is to placate would be inquisitors.

If your god is the prime cause (if there is such a thing) and that is all, why call it a god? Why look for supernatural explanations for the first cause when all other causes we have yet to find are natural.....?

No, theists at least I understand. The world is a frightening place and there is a lot of convincing people with holy books out there. But deism...not so much.

Huh. I obviously am not the best person to explain it, but I can sometimes understand why someone is a deist because of the "divine design" argument, that everything seems so well put together that some guy in the sky must have set it up. But, as you say, "why call it a god"? I think society has put so much into that word, it has become a sort of catch-all for this sort of thing.

 

[BlackWaltz3]

Satanist for me.

www.ChurchofSatan.com