Poll: What's your religion?

[AntiAntagonist]

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...

I'm a little unclear on this- Do I automatically believe I'm better than Bill Gates because I don't want to buy Windows?

 

[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...

I'm a little unclear on this- Do I automatically believe I'm better than Bill Gates because I don't want to buy Windows?

No, that's just a fact I think LadyZephyr cleared up my confusion.

 

[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.

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.

"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?"

That would be willful ignorance, so no. And I don't believe religion is needed to keep a just and good society. I think religion promotes inequality and prejudice more than it doesn't. Many times in history when religion was the focus of society, things were Bad (i.e. Dark Ages, modern Middle Eastern countries, etc).

I think that it is to the benefit to society to be just and kind and to have structure. Religion has nothing to do with it. If the world became atheist, there would be no big surge in crime. I'd argue there would be a drop in it, if anything.

As for God setting up the laws of science... I'm not sure I understand. Science continues to prove God is not necessary to explain why the universe is the way it is... I think the sort of god you are referring to is not "God" at all, but a catch-all term for order and structure in nature.

[holy "structure" and "society" overuse, batman! sorry, I suck at being eloquent today]

ETA:

I'm a little unclear on this- Do I automatically believe I'm better than Bill Gates because I don't want to buy Windows?

Heh. :runs Ubuntu Linux:

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

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.

What a fascinating point of view. Since you put it that way, Deism does look an awful lot like triangulation for the sake of appearances.

I suspect, however, that the inward reality for most Deists is a bit less cynical. They're raised to believe in a creator and have difficulty imagining a universe without one. Yet the world around them seems to behave as though its creator doesn't take an active hand in things, doesn't play favourites, and cannot be bribed with prayers or sacrifices. Despite all these things though, they can't quite shake the feeling that something deliberately made all this stuff. So they end up with Deism.

Any Deists out there who'd care to comment? Was I too patronizing?

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

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?

Not an atheist, but I'll answer anyway.
That first word in your question, "if", is the key word.
Authoritarians of all stripes, both religious and non-religious, always claim that rulers are needed to prevent humanity from indulging in its basest instincts. But that leaves us with another question: aren't the rulers subject to the same instincts as the ruled? And isn't it true that systems of power and authority give the rulers far greater opportunity to indulge those instincts? And isn't it true that those same systems magnetically attract the very people who are most likely to do just that?

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?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking what atheists would believe if we discovered a scientific proof of the existence of the gods? If so, I'd have to ask the question: which gods? You seem to be referring to Yaweh, the god of Abraham. I'd be very interested to see the experiment that determined the universe was created by Yaweh, and not, say, Ahura-Mazda (another monotheist emanation of the Tetragrammaton).

 

[Tolkienfanatic]

Non-religious.

Whoo smart people.

 

[goodman528]

"logical argument based on a faulty premise."

lol. That's exactly what I mean by circular, if you believe the assumption of God, i.e. you are in this logic frame, then you can use everything else within the frame to eventually lead you to prove the original assumption is correct.

Most of us believe in Science, because we are taught it in school. Science is empirical.

You observe the world.

You form a theory of how the world works (difference between a scientific theory and any random idea, is there must be a way to prove if a scientific theory is wrong).

You then test out your theory with controlled observations.

If your theory is not disproven, then it's eventually accepted and becames the assumptions on which other scientific theories are based.

Our common perception of "Scientific fact" as some sort of absolute truth is strange, because Science is empirical. Religion works differently, it tries to be absolute, so a lot of people are asking for evidence for religion, well, that's just it, everything around you is evidence for God, everything. You see the difference in thinking?

We live in the "free" and scientific world, so we don't think religiously. For those of you saying religion is "internally incoherent", well, There is a lot of disagreement within religion, a lot of different schools of thought, it may seem confusing and inconsistent, but each and every one of them is trying to complete that perfect logic frame. A lot of priests and Christians are pretty ignorant of their own religion, that alienate a lot of people.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

For those of you saying religion is "internally incoherent",

Um, actually I said "inconsistent", not "incoherent". It's an important distinction.

well, There is a lot of disagreement within religion, a lot of different schools of thought, it may seem confusing and inconsistent, but each and every one of them is trying to complete that perfect logic frame. A lot of priests and Christians are pretty ignorant of their own religion, that alienate a lot of people.

The other approach is to simply accept those inconsistencies and paradoxes as part of your world-view. That's how I deal with it. The advantage is that it forces you to be humble, because you don't have all the answers. The disadvantage (in the opinion of some) is that it makes it very hard to convert people to your perspective. Why should someone switch to your way of looking at things when your way is, by its own admission, paradoxical?

However, if you're not at all intersted in making converts, it's all to the good.

 

[LadyZephyr]

For those of you saying religion is "internally incoherent",

Um, actually I said "inconsistent", not "incoherent". It's an important distinction.

well, There is a lot of disagreement within religion, a lot of different schools of thought, it may seem confusing and inconsistent, but each and every one of them is trying to complete that perfect logic frame. A lot of priests and Christians are pretty ignorant of their own religion, that alienate a lot of people.

The other approach is to simply accept those inconsistencies and paradoxes as part of your world-view. That's how I deal with it. The advantage is that it forces you to be humble, because you don't have all the answers. The disadvantage (in the opinion of some) is that it makes it very hard to convert people to your perspective. Why should someone switch to your way of looking at things when your way is, by its own admission, paradoxical?

However, if you're not at all intersted in making converts, it's all to the good.

I would argue that that it is not all good. Why do theists live with that, with not knowing the truth and with accepting their belief system's flawed answers. Some evanglicals handwave away all the contradictions and ignore evidence pushed against their beliefs, but if you're right and others just accept these contradictions... what kind of way is that to live? If there is something in your beliefs that you know is paradoxical and inconsistent, why continue to believe that way?

:honestly boggled:

 

[Stormcloud23]

Norse paganism..... At least a few of us have to keep it alive

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Authoritarians of all stripes, both religious and non-religious, always claim that rulers are needed to prevent humanity from indulging in its basest instincts. But that leaves us with another question: aren't the rulers subject to the same instincts as the ruled?

To reference Plato the guardians and rulers must be told a noble lie. That they are special and superior, and that they rule and protect for the weak, empty-headed lower classes. They must be made to think they rule because it is right, not because they can.

That's kind of what I think is going on with the conservative movement. These organizations like the Discovery Institute are too smart to believe in creationism, but they think the public isn't and needs religion to placate their stupidity.

I agree with them, though not to the impediment of science.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I would argue that that it is not all good. Why do theists live with that, with not knowing the truth and with accepting their belief system's flawed answers. Some evanglicals handwave away all the contradictions and ignore evidence pushed against their beliefs, but if you're right and others just accept these contradictions... what kind of way is that to live? If there is something in your beliefs that you know is paradoxical and inconsistent, why continue to believe that way?

:honestly boggled:

To be honest it doesn't matter much to me what others believe until they start encroaching on others' lives. Unfortunately evangelicals do stand out in that regard.

I was consternated with religious circular logic for a long time, but nowadays it's a bit like Pepsi VS Coke.

 

[shufflemonkey16]

I've put this down somewhere before but can't find the thread I dumped it in, so I'll pop it down again.

I'm a Charismatic Evangelical Christian. Basically, I'm not part of any of the established churches like the Catholic or Anglican, or really anyone else like the Methodists. The nearest you get to my little corner of the Denomination Room is the Pentecostals- the Assemblies of God and Elim type folks. But my church isn't part of them either.

I voted Monotheist, even though there's all that Trinity business to get your head around.

Did you add the charismatic party yourself?

It's like saying "I'm a gorgeous Agnostic."

"charismatic" refers to the Pentecostal Assemblies of God kinds of denominations, and it doesn't mean that they're well liked and good at making speeches. I'm not sure why it's called that, maybe the adjective has some kind of secret other meaning that refers to extra long, high energy worship and emphasis on the experience of the Holy Spirit, but that's what it's called.

I am a non-denominational Christian, which ironically makes me technically of the non-denominational denomination. Basically, I believe that if you believe the core tenant of Christ, you are a Christian and I don't care at all if you're baptist, Presbyterian, or "charismatic". I also have a great deal of respect for others religious beliefs and especially enjoy inter-faith dialogue. Muslim, Buddhist or whatever, it's cool.

 

[GothmogII]

A question I always wanted to ask: as a jew, isn't christianity a religion which believes in more than one god?

Well...I don't really know how it stands in other denominations, but in Catholicism there is a triumvirate of sorts...The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost or Spirit. Thing is it's all god split into three. Always thought it needlessly complicated things, I mean, okay, there's god, and there's Jesus, worship them and do as they say, don't need this messing around with trinities...

However, the idea I think is older than that, as many old religions contain the notion of three gods/goddesses, as in sometimes, one being with three aspects, as god is mentioned as being.

 

[Redlac]

Wow.. it's been 7 pages and not a single flamewar. Truly impressive for a thread of this subject matter. Normally by page three it turns into an ugly mess.

It does not surprise me that on a gaming forum most of the folks vote 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'non religious'. Turn on your headset and head onto any FPS, it's no Church in the Online world.

Now onto inu-kun's question. Pay attention, it gets complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Good old Wikipedia, I could never put it down like that. And I did a degree in Theology. >.<

Personally, I think there is a very strong case for a Trinity in Christian scripture. However I'm of the view that God is a being that is absolutely nothing like the image we humans have tried to mould from our experiences over the years. God is not an old bloke with a beard. Not a bloke either.

Can't wait to meet 'em either cos well, they orchestrated my arrival on this little blue grey ball I call home.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

"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?"

That would be willful ignorance, so no.

Here's where I find this a little odd, because you'll believe in ideas like Communism and Capitalism which are equally nonsensical. (Communism fails because of Greed, Capitalism fails due to finite resources)

And I don't believe religion is needed to keep a just and good society.

But a Moral Code of Laws is, surely? And Religion does do a reasonable job of that, which Science is yet to provide.

I think religion promotes inequality and prejudice more than it doesn't. Many times in history when religion was the focus of society, things were Bad (i.e. Dark Ages, modern Middle Eastern countries, etc).

Hrrm...that seems to be fallacious reasoning. The Dark Ages was due to Religion questioning the power of Science (where the reverse is true today), and the Middle East is far more due to the family traditions than Islam. Pol Pot and Adolf did a lot more damage through 'Enlightened Science'.

I think that it is to the benefit to society to be just and kind and to have structure. Religion has nothing to do with it. If the world became atheist, there would be no big surge in crime. I'd argue there would be a drop in it, if anything.

As for God setting up the laws of science... I'm not sure I understand. Science continues to prove God is not necessary to explain why the universe is the way it is... I think the sort of god you are referring to is not "God" at all, but a catch-all term for order and structure in nature.

Ok, let's take a reworking of Genesis for Modern Times:

* First day: God creates electromagnetic radiation. ("Let there be light!")
* Second day: God creates weak gravitational forces, separating the Earth from the sky.
* Third day: God creates strong gravitational forces. The Seas part. He also creates the ability for cells to mutate.
* Fourth day: God creates Fusion, allowing the Sun to light the Earth.
* Fifth day: God strikes the Sea with Electricity, bringing forth the first mutations.
* Sixth day: God accelerates the mutations on the land and sea, forming hundreds of creatures at random. The ones that didn't survive are left for the others to feed on, and possibly produces fossils. One race mutates the knowledge of self-awareness and God declares that one Adam and Eve.
* Seventh day: God creates time (thus allowing for the day of rest) and watches to see what happens.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking what atheists would believe if we discovered a scientific proof of the existence of the gods? If so, I'd have to ask the question: which gods? You seem to be referring to Yaweh, the god of Abraham. I'd be very interested to see the experiment that determined the universe was created by Yaweh, and not, say, Ahura-Mazda (another monotheist emanation of the Tetragrammaton).

I'm asking what happens if Science becomes equal to Divinity, where we are able to create our own Universe. At that point, it doesn't really matter if it's God, Buddha or who/whatever because we ourselves will be Gods.

Random chance at that point reaches an infinitely low point, because we will have proven it's more reasonable to assume that "God" exists rather than doesn't.

 

[Ares Tyr]

Unfortunately for you, those who practice Hinduism and Buddhism have also both shed blood.

I think the point he was trying to make was that Buddhist never killed people in the name of Buddhism and never forced anyone to convert to Buddhism under threat of death.

Perhaps. But whatever the reasons, Hindus and Buddhists have killed human beings for the sake of their faith. The reasons for the killings are seldom of any great importance to the dead, or those who cared for them.

Believers (and unbelievers) of all stripes need to be wary of the xenophobia and hatred of the "other" within themselves. We're all vulnerable.

Unfortunately I have heard of one instance when a sect of Buddhists [link="http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1726/17260840.htm"]fought{/link] in regards to religion.

I haven't read enough yet to make an opinion on the matter, but it is an obscure subject at the moment.

While I rather enjoy Zen Buddhist teachings or practices, I've never been a fan of religion requiring hierarchy.

This is all news to me. From what I've heard and researched myself, the only "violent" sect of Buddhist were those of the Shaolin Temple in China, who developed fighting arts that because kung fu and almost every other martial art through out the Eastern Asian continent. And these were developed soley for self-defense and excersise.

I could be wrong, but any sect of Buddhist monks who conduct violent activities are more along the lines of extremists in my eyes, and are corrupting the very clear message of non-violence in the earliest Buddhist teachings.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

I don't really believe in any religion.
I used to say I was a Greek Paganist though. Mostly because I find it so interesting... and I thought it would be so awesome if it was true.

 

[Lulzovich]

Atheist... I used to go to church with my grandma, she was VERY religious. But I usually just slept in churches, it was really boring... My parents, grandparents from my mothers side and my uncle are atheists too, so that probably reflected on me.

But, yeah, I would be a Norse Pagan if I had to be SOMETHING... But, because I don't...