Are you religious?

[Volbet]

No I haven't, but that does sound awesome.

I don't know (as I've said). I just... kinda naturally am this way. I have been since I met Him. That's a sentence wrapped in lots of strange (potential) context that you guys don't have. Just take it at face value. 

If you are talking about personal experience, I'll probably can't and never will understand the context of which you are speaking. I will take it as face value. If you feel that you have enough reason to believe in a deity, who am I to say otherwise. 

 

This is what Kierkegaard is speaking of exactly. You and you alone is the only one that can understand a given personal experience (or experiences), and it is through those experiences that one comes to a personal relationship with God.

 I will recommend reading some Kierkegaards books, especially Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, since those are the ones dealing with this subject. They are difficult to read, especially in English, but I think it's worth the time.

 

Edit: I see that the religious debate has begun. We had a good run boys.

 

Edit 2: I guess I owe it to the OP to actually answer the question. I'm an atheist and I always have been. I don't even consider myself spiritual in any way.

As you might see from my earlier posts, I do not mind religion nor religious people.  

[Advent]

If you are talking about personal experience, I'll probably can't and never will understand the context of which you are speaking. I will take it as face value. If you feel that you have enough reason to believe in a deity, whom am I to say otherwise. 

 

This is what Kierkegaard is speaking of exactly. You and you alone is the only one that can understand a given personal experience (or experiences), and it is through those experiences that one comes to a personal relationship with God.

 I will recommend reading some Kierkegaards books, especially Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, since those are the ones dealing with this subject. They are difficult to read, especially in English, but I think it's worth the time.

 

Edit: I see that the religious debate has begun. We had a good run boys.

 

Edit 2: I guess I owe it to the OP to actually answer the question. I'm an atheist an I always have been. I don't even feel consider myself spiritual in any way.

As you might see from my earlier posts, I do not mind religion nor religious people.  

His books are actually a good read.

As far as a debate goes, it is civil thus far. One should never shrink from a healthy debate as long as it can remain civil.

I have nothing against religion or its practitioners up to a point. That "line in the sand" comes when they try to deny science and push their own quasi-science into the class room. (See Young Earth Creationists, Scientology, Christian Science etc). Or when people use their faith/scripture to justify their bigotry, hatred or acts of violence. Or when they cherry pick from their scripture as to what they follow. I figure if you are going to be religious you should adhere to the tenants of your faith and not sway from them out of convenience. But that brings up the problem of the fact that most relgions are older than 2,000 years. Many things have changed since then. If religion is to maintain it needs to evolve. If that happens core tenants and belief systems will have to adapt. To do this would threaten to undermine the word of their God(s). To do so would cause discord.

Other than these things I don't care.

[Volbet]

His books are actually a good read.

As far as a debate goes, it is civil thus far. One should never shrink from a healthy debate as long as it can remain civil.

This is very civil, and I had misunderstood the context when I wrote my post earlier. Just carry on (As if you need my permission). 

[iruixos]

"Apatheism" pretty much sums it up for me.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity, so it applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life.

[smjpl]

There was no option for me.

 

I have faith but I have no religion (Please add to poll)

 

I am not a religious person. I come from a very catholic background but I do not believe in my own or any other religion. Do I believe in God? I don't know. I am not sure what God is to be honest. The creator of the universe I guess but I still have no idea what that is. I amazed by the science behind it and I think it just looks like too beautiful a design for it to be a fluke. The evolution from early universe to planets to living organisms and then to intelligence. Then there is the big question, what's the point of it all? I have no idea but I do believe there is a point. I don't know why but it all just seems too perfect for it to be pointless. Something had to set this in motion. 

[Advent]

There was no option for me.

 

I have faith but I have no religion (Please add to poll)

 

I am not a religious person. I come from a very catholic background but I do not believe in my own or any other religion. Do I believe in God? I don't know. I am not sure what God is to be honest. The creator of the universe I guess but I still have no idea what that is. I amazed by the science behind it and I think it just looks like too beautiful a design for it to be a fluke. The evolution from early universe to planets to living organisms and then to intelligence. Then there is the big question, what's the point of it all? I have no idea but I do believe there is a point. I don't know why but it all just seems too perfect for it to be pointless. Something had to set this in motion. 

See Agnostic.

[Mooshi]

Brothaaaaaas!

... But seriously, you describe me TopWargamer. I believe it. Yet for whatever reason, every time I've actively tried to be a part of a Church or the usual "social" aspects of Christianity, it never works out. Like, helping people, I love and do when possible. 

However, I have no natural desire to socialize. I am so completely content alone. I don't even feel lonely. I desire the things that come with socializing (i.e. friends, and potential future family, and such), but at the same time, I don't desire the activity that leads to that in the least. And it's not really because I don't like it (though I very much don't), it's more like, ... I don't know. 

It's ... frustrating. But oh well.

As a kid, I always imagined how my life would end up. Would I be a millionaire and have all that I desire of this world, or be a bum living a lonely and broken life? 

I didn't care back then, and I still don't now. Because I know God will always be there. So I am content in loneliness because I'm never really alone. I am content in having nothing because the only thing I ever really care about is always here. Him. 

This comes with good and bad things.

Good things being no matter what I face, I am happy and it is hard to take that from me.

Bad things are that all my natural desire that would make me strive to improve or be greater is ... pacified I suppose. Because I'm always in a state of "Well, if I do/have it, that's cool. If not, ok." 

Ugh. Humans are too complex. Back to video games.

 

 

There is good and bad, it depends on the person trying to interpret. All different perspectives. Some people are genuinely good while others are obnoxious, even borderline awful. I've had Christian friends that helped out and had kind hearts, I've also washed my hands of going to church ever since trying to go back.

 

See, my aunt was a born again Christian and wanted me to go to church with her. I gave in and went a couple of times and the community felt nice..then, of course. the negative had to creep in leaving feeling disgusted. Here it is 2013 and I am sitting there listening to an idiot rant on about anti gay rambling...that is when I left and never returned. I have a girl I love to death, but also some friends who are gay. These so called Christians that say "Only God can judge" that go around judging themselves are disgusting and a disgrace to the very religion they claim to follow. 

 

Like I said, it's all different perspective. Religion or not, people need to not be dicks to each other. it's alright to disagree and even have heated discussion, but if you're in it for the sole purpose of being an ass, that is not how life should be. At least, that's my take on it. Mutual respect is an amazing thing. 

[smjpl]

See Agnostic.

 

"Atheist without wanting to say a word". That ain't what wiki says.  I am not sure if agnostic completely fits me "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities" but I suppose its the closest thing.

 

I still think there should be a "I have faith but no religion" better describes it. Less chance of creating bias in the poll?

[Camul]

This pertains to the topic I think?

 

It may be true, but I have met just as many Atheists that go out of the way to tell other people what they believe is wrong. Atheists are usually far more insulting about it too.

[Mooshi]

"Atheist without wanting to say a word". That ain't what wiki says.  I am not sure if agnostic completely fits me "an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities" but I suppose its the closest thing.

 

I still think there should be a "I have faith but no religion" better describes it. Less chance of creating bias in the poll?

 

Yes, it's the equivalent of someone shouting "I KNOW the world is flat!" and then someone responding with "No! The world is a tetrahedron and that's a FACT!" While agnostic is the third person that responds with "I'm not committing to either without solid evidence."

 

 

It may be true, but I have met just as many Atheists that go out of the way to tell other people what they believe is wrong. Atheists are usually far more insulting about it too.

 

 

 

Yes, militant Atheists are obnoxious. "The Amazing Atheists" is a perfect example.

[Matsy]

Agnostic is wrong.

An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't claim god exists or not, but doesn't believe god does exist, due to no factual evidence to persuade otherwise.

Its the default position of "I don't know"

Or another way: doesn't believe in gods, but doesn't claim to know there are no gods.

 

It's what everyone is when they are born.

I won't go any-more deeper than that, as I will offend people with my choice of words.

[AlwaysFSX]

It may be true, but I have met just as many Atheists that go out of the way to tell other people what they believe is wrong. Atheists are usually far more insulting about it too.

I do have to give them credit that they try to at least give some points of why what they believe is correct, but they're still asses.

[Matsy]

I do have to give them credit that they try to at least give some points of why what they believe is correct, but they're still asses.

There are many types of atheist.  These types are Strong/Explicit : lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist 

 

Other types are what most people are.

[Mooshi]

CHURCH OF GRUMPTOLOGY!

 

CLEANSE YOURSELF AND KNEEL BEFORE YOUR GODDESS TARDAR SAUCE AND ASK FORGIVENESS FOR YOUR SINS!

 

 

When I play Civ V, I actually do name my religion "Grumptology" and spread grumpyness to the world.   

[Crabtr]

I was raised to be religious (Christian) and became rather devout but within the past 3-5 years I've gone to Deist, Agnostic, and finally Atheist/Anti-theist. In short I "believe" in supported fact and feel that it's my obligation to do so. I think religion teaches people what to think and not how to think and discourages being pragmatic. I think it can too often be used as a tool for oppression and blind hatred (racism, homophobia, etc.). I've read the Bible multiple times and still read it but the contradictions and lack of supporting evidence are just too blinding. More importantly though I know that when I became truly religious I spent my high school years depressed, suicidal and a shell of the person I once was and until the end of my junior year and onward I never even realize it. Tack on the racism and homophobia I spoke about as well as a nice persecution complex (that Duck Dynasty stuff, oh boy) and a hefty amount of cognitive dissonance and strawmen and that's who I was. It definitely sucked but since having thrown religion away I've come a long way out of the black hole I was in and I still have a ways to go.

 

Despite all of this though I know I shouldn't necessarily let what I went through or my ideals be reflected in how I treat people. If you're religious it makes you happy then I don't care. But just as you don't want me spewing my anti-theism I don't want you spewing your theism; harmony I suppose is all I want. We work towards the common good and a better society and all is well. I even still go to church and it's actually by choice. Why? Because I love my mom it makes her happy. She doesn't know how depressed and suicidal I was and frankly I don't want her to know so if dealing with an hour of church every Sunday keeps her from knowing and puts her at ease with my decision then by all means.

 

You know what they say, there's never an atheist or unbeliever on the battlefield.

Assuming you're religious and not just trying to stir the pot if you want people to take you and/or your opinion serious then please don't say this, it's incredibly false.

[cjeffcoatjr]

 

MEH LORD AND SAVIOR (seriously though, i'm christian)

[Vitalius]

By Evil Epicurus meant an anti-God (see Satan). Not the acts of man.

Ah, then that makes more sense.

To be honest, the whole idea of Satan isn't very well fleshed out. In Job, Satan obeys God, though, to torment Job.

You might say that is God doing evil. However, I must ask, "how is this evil?". God gave Job life and all that Job had. For Him to take it back, is only to take what is rightfully His. And in doing so, He never leaves the ones He takes from. 

When we owe Him everything, our very existence, how can what He does in relation to us be considered Evil? 

Mind you, ultimately, there literally has to be a point where we say "We can't understand the will of the Almighty." Because that's a necessity for Him to be God. To be beyond us. A point where we can't judge Him because we don't understand Him. 

This goes back to the "reality beyond our own" thing. It's essentially the same thing. 

 

It isn't a circular argument. For religion to be considered fact it must be falsifiable.

To make it falsifiable would disprove the notion of a perfect God.

To disprove the notion of a perfect God stands to disprove the very existence of a God.

Scientific fact. However, I didn't realize that was what you were trying to say. I was talking about whether we could "see" or "experience" the things that make up our reality and we take for granted as real. 

I mean, if we want to go down that rabbit hole, I'm going to jump to the end where I bring up the Matrix and how we can't truly trust our senses (which is kind of literally all we have) in regards to how we perceive reality. And that ultimately devolves to a Mexican Standoff (no one wins) of whether we take this on faith or not (i.e. we believe we aren't being lied to). 

So yeah. Been there, done that. Not fun.

I suppose then, yes, that would disprove it. However, that implies that religion inherently needs a "God's Word" to rely on to exist. I would argue it doesn't. Simply because the idea that a perfect all powerful God must rely on a very inefficient and easily abused form of communication (i.e. writings specifically) to communicate with His Creation seems ... dumb I suppose. 

Rather than the easier way of Him just living with us. Or things of that nature. 

For example, I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but that doesn't mean it's perfect and unerring. Only that it is a book written by Man on his relationship with God. I use it personally as a guide. And I believe that if you take the time to read and understand the context of situations therein, ultimately, it is right. 

And, to be perfectly honest, when discussing whether the Bible is perfect or not (it's not, ultimately being right =/= perfect), the first thing I think of, again, is Job. 

There is a metric butt ton (thanks for that phrase Linus), of scientific stuff mentioned in Job that someone in 3,000 B.C. (give or take 500 years for when Job was written) couldn't know. 

They literally couldn't. Examples include the Earth being round, Mountains upon the ocean floor, Celestial entities direction and velocity, etc etc.

And don't go "Aliens". Because that's just funny (in the meme kind of way). My fall back position on that is "If they were here at one point and had so much influence on our existence, where are they now?"

Or we can Godwin law our way out of all of this, but that's no fun. 

[Advent]

I won't go any-more deeper than that, as I will offend people with my choice of words.

 

That's only one type of Atheist (the dooshbag type)

Other types are what most people are.

You should have probably stuck to your first statement.

[Matsy]

You should have probably stuck to your first statement.

 

What I said after that doesn't go any deeper than I did in my first post.

What I meant with that is I won't go any deeper on the "what everyone is when they are born part" as I could explain what happens after birth to make people switch to whatever.  That is when things get hairy.

 

These threads will always cause drama, its what these discussions do.

[Advent]

To be honest, the whole idea of Satan isn't very well fleshed out. In Job, Satan obeys God, though, to torment Job.

You might say that is God doing evil. However, I must ask, "how is this evil?". God gave Job life and all that Job had. For Him to take it back, is only to take what is rightfully His. And in doing so, He never leaves the ones He takes from. 

 

So if a mother gives birth to a child it is her right to kill it? I think that would be a pretty evil thing to do.

 

 

However, that implies that religion inherently needs a "God's Word" to rely on to exist.

A Poly/Monotheistic Religion that is not nature based does require the word of their God(s) to operate. Otherwise it is a Shamanistic-type religion where they have Dieties and the Shaman interprets their will. Without God(s) telling you what is right/wrong (via your religious text, or via your Shaman) what to do/not to do etc then you don't have a religion.

 

 

I believe that if you take the time to read and understand the context of situations therein, ultimately, it is right.

I've studied Theology for the better part of a decade. I do not believe in any religion because of this fact. Having read and studied the various texts to death has lead me to my conclusions.

 

 

There is a metric butt ton (thanks for that phrase Linus), of scientific stuff mentioned in Job that someone in 3,000 B.C. (give or take 500 years for when Job was written) couldn't know. They literally couldn't. Examples include the Earth being round, Mountains upon the ocean floor, Celestial entities direction and velocity, etc etc.

Early man/civilization isn't the kind of primitive beast that most people think they are. Ancient civilizations had a wealth of knowledge. Also hardly anyone believed the world was flat. That is a myth perpetuated by bad history classes in schools. The Maya were experts at Celestial navigation and calendar keeping. Many ancient civilizations built structures that we would have a hard time building today with out "advanced" machinery. Using technology and scripture as evidence of truth is a cop-out.

[TechFan@ic]

Why is religion more prominent in developing countries and dying in industrial and westernized societies ?
A theory is that hardship promotes the religious conscious because faith signifies hope when hope is all what a human has left.

Personally I'm a hopeful person, a realist and pragmatic first but also hopeful and as such I can't bring myself to see others take away the hopes of others especially when hope is the main driving factor for their every day lives.

Stephen Fry who's a prominant atheist figure and a brilliant man said that during hardships even he would rely on faith.
http://youtu.be/vi3wEqtSYos?t=24m4s

[Advent]

What I said after that doesn't go any deeper than I did in my first post.

What I meant with that is I won't go any deeper on the "what everyone is when they are born part" as I could explain what happens after birth to make people switch to whatever.  That is when things get hairy.

 

These threads will always cause drama, its what these discussions do.

A discussion is one that is civil usually. Using the inflammatory term "Douchebag" when referring to someone and their way of thinking is not conducive to the discussion.

[Matsy]

A discussion is one that is civil usually. Using the inflammatory term "Douchebag" when referring to someone and their way of thinking is not conducive to the discussion.

 

The word dooshbag was used in a way to describe that particular type of atheist (one who asserts the non existence of god) similar to the opposite thing.

These types of people act in a "dooshbag" way or if you prefer another word...errrr....disrespectful or jerks or what ever other word you choose.

However dooshbag accurately describes (to me) the way these type of people operate and assert they are right when they can't possible KNOW they are right.

I have no issue with these people they can do what they want, but i still think they are not good people.

 

Again....these threads always cause tension in one way or another.

 

If you are offended for some reason, I apologise, otherwise lets just drop it.

[Vitalius]

If you are talking about personal experience, I'll probably can't and never will understand the context of which you are speaking. I will take it as face value. If you feel that you have enough reason to believe in a deity, who am I to say otherwise. 

 

This is what Kierkegaard is speaking of exactly. You and you alone is the only one that can understand a given personal experience (or experiences), and it is through those experiences that one comes to a personal relationship with God.

 I will recommend reading some Kierkegaards books, especially Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, since those are the ones dealing with this subject. They are difficult to read, especially in English, but I think it's worth the time.

 

Edit: I see that the religious debate has begun. We had a good run boys.

 

Edit 2: I guess I owe it to the OP to actually answer the question. I'm an atheist an I always have been. I don't even consider myself spiritual in any way.

As you might see from my earlier posts, I do not mind religion nor religious people.  

Thanks. I'll look into them.

And you are right. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to. 

 

There is good and bad, it depends on the person trying to interpret. All different perspectives. Some people are genuinely good while others are obnoxious, even borderline awful. I've had Christian friends that helped out and had kind hearts, I've also washed my hands of going to church ever since trying to go back.

 

See, my aunt was a born again Christian and wanted me to go to church with her. I gave in and went a couple of times and the community felt nice..then, of course. the negative had to creep in leaving feeling disgusted. Here it is 2013 and I am sitting there listening to an idiot rant on about anti gay rambling...that is when I left and never returned. I have a girl I love to death, but also some friends who are gay. These so called Christians that say "Only God can judge" that go around judging themselves are disgusting and a disgrace to the very religion they claim to follow. 

 

Like I said, it's all different perspective. Religion or not, people need to not be dicks to each other. it's alright to disagree and even have heated discussion, but if you're in it for the sole purpose of being an ass, that is not how life should be. At least, that's my take on it. Mutual respect is an amazing thing. 

Just to be clear, Saying homosexuality is a sin isn't judging homosexuals. To say an action is wrong isn't judging the people who commit said action. Hating those people for committing said action or considering them less than you (or anything similar) is judging them. 

I think (ironically) Phil Robertson put it best, after he said all he did about that subject:

 

 

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

[Advent]

Just to be clear, Saying homosexuality is a sin isn't judging homosexuals. To say an action is wrong isn't judging the people who commit said action. Hating those people for committing said action or considering them less than you (or anything similar) is judging them. 

I think (ironically) Phil Robertson put it best, after he said all he did about that subject:

 

Homosexuality isn't "an act". It is who a person is. They are homosexual. It isn't an act that they commit on a whim simply because they wish to do so. Nor more so than you being attracted to the opposite sex. It is biologically hardwired. To say something is a sin is to pass judgement. Whether on the act or on the person themselves in this case. Last I checked the Bible said only God can judge people. And if you believe that God created everyone and loves everyone then being Homosexual must be just fine.

And as far as sins and the Old Testament go, the New Covenant threw out the old laws. As Jesus said "those who live under the law are living under a curse" to paraphrase Galatians 3:10.

The New Testament does touch on homosexuality but it also has a myriad of other things that are considered "abominations/sins" that are not harped on or enforced either. So why is it that the religious use their scripture as a crutch for their bigotry? Why keep enforcing this one sin and not the others in the NT that are overlooked? Last I checked a sin was a sin. Why the obvious discrimination?