Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(POLL) What religion do you consider yourself?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bagpipe_foreskin
    replied
    Religion is not always a bad thing. It often builds a sense of community and provides a moral framework. It gets bad when people start engaging in destructive practices like human/animal sacrifices and bloodletting rituals, or think they are superior to others because of their religion.

    That being said, I respect anyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as long as they aren't harming themselves or others because of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tomjones
    replied
    Regardless of what one believes, perhaps we may find our answers in death after we die.

    Leave a comment:


  • greg_b
    replied
    Originally posted by bagpipe_foreskin View Post
    I'd consider atheism to be specifically the belief that there is no god, rather than just the lack of belief in God.

    I'm raised Catholic, and still value the moral teaching, but as far as existence of a god, I'm agnostic. There really is no way to know currently why our universe came into being (or what's responsible for the basic laws of nature), so I find it reasonable to admit that you don't know if a higher power (or God) exists.
    Thanks for giving your definition of atheism. I find it difficult at times to have a good dialogue, because there are so many different ways people define atheism.

    But the definition you use is not the one I use. I consider myself an atheist, but not defined the way you are defining it. I have no belief there is NO god. I simply have not seen any credible evidence that there is, so I do not believe in that for which there is no credible evidence. Simple.

    If, in the future, I find credible evidence that has no reasonable explanation except that there is a god, then at that point I will change to a view that there is a god of some sort, based on that evidence. In other words, I can foresee changing based on credible evidence, but until then, I am an atheist.

    Part of the difficulty is semantics. We use words that imply things, but we may not actually agree with those implications. Uncircumcised is a good example. I try not to use that word, because it implies that a circumcised penis is the norm, so the word UNcircumcised indicates an "uncut penis" is deviating from that norm. Instead, I try and use intact, or take the long way around and include the actual word "foreskin" in what I am saying.

    Similarly, since belief in god was so pervasive and well embedded in our language, the word atheist was a shorthand way to say one didn't believe in god. But that word, implies, as you say in your definition, that one BELIEVES there is no god. But that is, for me at least, a distortion, an artifact of the convenience of using that word, atheist. Easier and more efficient to communicate perhaps, but as you have so kindly pointed out, incorrect for at least some atheists.

    My view is actually very similar to yours, I think. And I was also raised Catholic. The nuance that sets us apart, perhaps, is that as far as I can see, the question of if there could be a god has been pretty well debunked over and over, by many lines of evidence, so I feel no need to ponder it much or keep the possibility in my world view.

    Regards
    Last edited by greg_b; 10-17-2021, 09:14 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bagpipe_foreskin
    replied
    I'd consider atheism to be specifically the belief that there is no god, rather than just the lack of belief in God.

    I'm raised Catholic, and still value the moral teaching, but as far as existence of a god, I'm agnostic. There really is no way to know currently why our universe came into being (or what's responsible for the basic laws of nature), so I find it reasonable to admit that you don't know if a higher power (or God) exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mybody
    replied
    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
    I don't do religion. ALL religions are nothing more than a mechanism to control the masses thru fear and intimidation while those running the scam live a cushy lifestyle at their followers expense. Not to say I don't believe in a higher power, God if you will. Something created all that is, it didn't just happen. Religion is evil. More people have been killed over whose imaginary sky friend is better than all other causes COMBINED, with the sole exception of natural death. Just be a good person while you're here and make a positive difference and you'll be good to go.
    You sir are a woke-ass-messiah as i like to say. We think alike. Nicely said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
    Not athiest, just anti-religion. You can still believe in God (something created all of this, it didn't just happen) and be a good person without being a slave to some man made construct. Just don't be a dick. Religion IS bullshit.
    You're a Deist then.

    Leave a comment:


  • parsecskin
    replied
    Not athiest, just anti-religion. You can still believe in God (something created all of this, it didn't just happen) and be a good person without being a slave to some man made construct. Just don't be a dick. Religion IS bullshit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Violator View Post
    Just a simple poll, although some here think I'm militant anti-religion this is not the case, I disagree with extremist views, and have my own agnostism, but there is no hate here in this poll, I'm simply curious how diverse the religious views are among restorers on this forum. Please don't use this thread to attack anyone or anything of the sort.
    And 0 votes as Jewish

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
    I don't do religion. ALL religions are nothing more than a mechanism to control the masses thru fear and intimidation while those running the scam live a cushy lifestyle at their followers expense. Not to say I don't believe in a higher power, God if you will. Something created all that is, it didn't just happen. Religion is evil. More people have been killed over whose imaginary sky friend is better than all other causes COMBINED, with the sole exception of natural death. Just be a good person while you're here and make a positive difference and you'll be good to go.
    This I expected, most people here are atheists. Which makes sense because I only realized that circumcision was mutilation after becoming a deist, shortly before becoming an atheist.

    Leave a comment:


  • smt19
    replied
    Grew up Mormon, now Agnostic.

    Leave a comment:


  • LovesWarmHugs
    replied
    I agree with what your saying regarding definitions. Its the reason why when you look up a word in a dictionary is actually not defining the word but giving you the way the word "can be used." Thats why you have 1. 2. 3. etc. Listed as usages when you look something up. I feel like most religious agendas do tend to leak heavily through when we talk about the usage of the word athiesm and try and argue definitions instead of actual issues.

    Debates I have had with statements like well your not really a atheist but an agnostic... ok well atheism goes to what you believe and agnostic goes to what you know. You can be a agnostic atheist... I don't state that no god or gods exist but in absence of not knowing I believe no god or gods exist and live my life accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • greg_b
    replied
    Ah, well thanks for clarifying. Yep, missed that, sorry.

    I agree that many people are not capable of engaging in dialogue on this topic, whether you do a good job of defining terms or not. While I am not sure language is divisive by its very nature, I am quite confident religion is.

    Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by greg_b View Post

    Well, I disagree with the way these definitions are worded. But it is difficult since religion and the idea that everyone "has to believe in something" is so prevalent in our society. For Atheist, I like the following definitions best, they are what I relate to.

    https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...hat-is-atheism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...definition.htm

    Thus, I find it is often quite valuable to ask what a person means when they use these terms, before going further in a dialogue.

    Cheers!

    I'm sure a lot of people would also disagree with the quote I provided, not just you. That was my point. So apparently I wasn't as clear as I could've been.

    Definitions, and particularly definitions having to do with religion, are always open to manipulation by groups and their agendas; manipulation from the outside, and from the inside; they are never universally agreed on. Need I mention the clinical vs lay vs the intactivist definition of "circumcision" as an example?

    The problem with first determining what a particular person means by his chosen label, is ... that's where the debate easily begins and ends, without moving on in the discussion. The two or more parties either argue about a preamble, or they have to agree to disagree from that point on, before any common understanding is reached. Guess what usually happens. Not exactly the end of the world, but certainly it can be the end of discussion. Discussion about specific labels is always potential understanding in the larger sense (this takes place on this forum from time to time), and it can become potentially common ground even when the formal positions differ.

    And I feel the need to also point out:

    The underlying, REAL, issue in all this, in 'religions', 'religious positions', 'labels', 'definitions', et al, is that the seeds for separation and division are in all of us before we start. That's where it all begins. The easiest way to spot an agenda is when someone insists on an all inclusive label, ie, "them/they", "us/we", "parents", "doctors", "victims", etc. You can see this in a current thread, and in many past threads, here and the old forum.

    By its very nature language is divisive, which was my other point. By all means, try for a working definition in order to establish common ground in a discussion. I remember that D always promoted that people first define terms before a conversation began. But my contribution would be to recognize that we have to first describe your label as coming from your own personal view. That's the freakin' nature of choosing. Recognize that it would be only a working definition, for the sake of discussion, and never to be used for anything in the larger sense. However much you'd like your own personal view to be the larger definition, it won't be.
    Last edited by ; 08-23-2016, 06:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • greg_b
    replied
    Originally posted by Info View Post

    And I'll add this quote:
    A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.


    A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.

    The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.

    So..........word definitions change over time, and pick up added meaning depending on the context of culture, and are constantly argued and redifined. This is always the problem with definitions, they're hardly ironclad, with definitions of religion particularly problematic, but as greg says, communication (as murky as it gets in the first few seconds) is the issue. You gotta start somewhere. So someone who stands apart (the meaning of "a") from theism ("atheist") is actually as defined a position in religion as any of the schisms which don't. This is true by virtue of language, which... just... doesn't ... allow... you... to let go of the symbolic and iconic, rather than deal with the reality LOL.
    Well, I disagree with the way these definitions are worded. But it is difficult since religion and the idea that everyone "has to believe in something" is so prevalent in our society. For Atheist, I like the following definitions best, they are what I relate to.

    https://www.atheists.org/activism/re...hat-is-atheism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    http://atheism.about.com/od/definiti...definition.htm

    Thus, I find it is often quite valuable to ask what a person means when they use these terms, before going further in a dialogue.

    Cheers!


    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by LovesWarmHugs View Post
    I would call atheism lack of belief in a god/gods and I don't feel like it should be included personally as a religious category. Saying atheist says nothing about what you actually believe except on a narrow part of one subject and it has no tenants or dogmas. Its the default position when your born... and you get programmed later. Its essentially defining something someone does not believe instead of something someone does believe.
    And I'll add this quote:
    A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.


    A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.

    The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.

    So..........word definitions change over time, and pick up added meaning depending on the context of culture, and are constantly argued and redifined. This is always the problem with definitions, they're hardly ironclad, with definitions of religion particularly problematic, but as greg says, communication (as murky as it gets in the first few seconds) is the issue. You gotta start somewhere. So someone who stands apart (the meaning of "a") from theism ("atheist") is actually as defined a position in religion as any of the schisms which don't. This is true by virtue of language, which... just... doesn't ... allow... you... to let go of the symbolic and iconic, rather than deal with the reality LOL.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X