Are you religious?

What is your religion?


  • Total voters
    435
Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
In today’s climate religion is an important issue, in my opinion more so than any other time in history. Where you sit in the fence defines who we are and our stances on a significant number of political and moral issues.

I am an Atheist and consequently a big fan of Richard Dawkins, he is leading the charge on the non-believers front. I was brought up in a very lax Church of England family and at an early age I finally decided religion was not for me. I find it too hard to discount and ignore scientific evidence to believe in something that I believe to be as unlikely as it is outdated.

The reason for my post is I am curious how religious the average populous is. This has no correlation to any military setting; I don't use any other forums apart from www.richarddawkins.net and I have a sneaky suspicion the results there would be slightly bias.

Any conversation I bring up on this matter seems to be with people who are Atheists, such as myself, or don't have an opinion or care. It makes me believe the non-believer front is more popular than initially thought.

Please post your creed in the poll and feel free to post any healthy debate from both sides of the coin.

Just an afterthought but whenever I'm asked,

"What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

I always respond:

"I don't know, but it certainly wasn't the fcuking farmer!"

Edd
 
#3
There is no God. I beleive in the Bunsen Burner.

Seriously though, I hate religion. It should be something that provides one with a purpose in life, very often it does but more often it causes friction. Like this thread will do.

My wife is religious and part of the reason why we can no longer stand each other, the self righteous freak. Good cook though.

The church has been in the pockets of poor people since the birth of Christianity.
 
#4
I would say belief in a Deity but no belief whatsoever in any of the organised religions.

Sort of "there's got to be more to it" but not "lets all fall down flagalating ourselves to that chippie nailed to a bit of Roman MDF" or the worse one, "lets all worship a peadophile"
 
#5
In reflection, you're right. Maybe the green eyed monster was trying to plug votes. I'll change it.

But then of course we maybe moving into the realms of semantics. Is there any difference between not believing because you don't care or because you have weighed up the evidence?

Edd
 
#6
edd1989 said:
In today’s climate religion is an important issue, in my opinion more so than any other time in history. Where you sit in the fence defines who we are
Bollocks. I'd postulate that during the Reformation it was a tad more important. Same with the Thirty Years War.
 
#7
edd1989 said:
In reflection, you're right. Maybe the green eyed monster was trying to plug votes. I'll change it.

But then of course we maybe moving into the realms of semantics. Is there any difference between not believing because you don't care or because you have weighed up the evidence?

Edd
You could argue that it is getting into the realms of semantics, but apathy is not the same as taking a reasoned look. It has also been argued in the past that atheism is a belief in it itself, and then the same arguments can be levelled at atheism which atheists level at "believers."
So perhaps it is necessary to be pedantic with wording (Atheistic agnostic is my label of choice, keeps all the bases covered imo).
 
#8
Is this "Deity" you speak of just a euthamism for what we just don't understand...yet.

Edd
 
#9
Carcass said:
edd1989 said:
In today’s climate religion is an important issue, in my opinion more so than any other time in history. Where you sit in the fence defines who we are
Bollocks. I'd postulate that during the Reformation it was a tad more important. Same with the Thirty Years War.
You are placing the issue of the importance of religion and when more important. We are no longer tortured and mutilated for defying God as we were in the Dark Ages. Now we are free to question it, we do and people see religion for what it is. Religion has not provided one answer. Nothing to help the human race in its suffering. Except faith, have faith!
 
#11
Trick said:
It has also been argued in the past that atheism is a belief in it itself, and then the same arguments can be levelled at atheism which atheists level at "believers."
You are correct; atheism could be put on the same level as any religious belief. Isn't atheism itself a religious belief?
However with one crucial difference, I am willing to change my believe based on the evidence that we find, discover, prove, challenge and explore. If it could be proved that God, any God, is true I would happily move my belief in that direction.

Any other religion will stick to their guns (or book) regardless of the evidence.

Edd
 
#12
edd1989 said:
Is this "Deity" you speak of just a euthamism for what we just don't understand...yet.

Edd
Its euphemism.
Religion has always been a crutch for the ignorant but many believe that it also satisfies a basic human need for spirituality. Can this void be filled entirely by logic or philosophy?
I'm interested as to where religion ends and philosophy begins. I'd like to think of myself as a Rational Utilitarian, rather than a Humanist. Does the lack of a deity preclude them from being religions?
 
#13
PandaLOVE said:
Carcass said:
edd1989 said:
In today’s climate religion is an important issue, in my opinion more so than any other time in history. Where you sit in the fence defines who we are
Bollocks. I'd postulate that during the Reformation it was a tad more important. Same with the Thirty Years War.
You are placing the issue of the importance of religion and when more important. We are no longer tortured and mutilated for defying God as we were in the Dark Ages. Now we are free to question it, we do and people see religion for what it is. Religion has not provided one answer. Nothing to help the human race in its suffering. Except faith, have faith!
Keep the faith!
 
#14
Carcass said:
I'd like to think of myself as a Rational Utilitarian, rather than a Humanist. Does the lack of a deity preclude them from being religions?
Is their a great deal of difference between the two? And where do you draw the line with utilitarianism? Greates pleasure for the most people could excuse slavery, sadistic torture etc.
 
#15
PandaLOVE said:
Carcass said:
edd1989 said:
In today’s climate religion is an important issue, in my opinion more so than any other time in history. Where you sit in the fence defines who we are
Bollocks. I'd postulate that during the Reformation it was a tad more important. Same with the Thirty Years War.
You are placing the issue of the importance of religion and when more important. We are no longer tortured and mutilated for defying God as we were in the Dark Ages. Now we are free to question it, we do and people see religion for what it is. Religion has not provided one answer. Nothing to help the human race in its suffering. Except faith, have faith!
(does your first sentence even make sense?)
We're free to question religion, free to completely disregard it and [my point is that] this fact makes religion entirely irrelevant.
 
#17
I generally approve of religion, as long as it is for others. It is after all, a needed opium of the weak minded. In that it provides those people with a framework to use to live by, it should be seen as a good thing. Some people need help, after all.

However, my trouble is that while most of the weak minded are ok, some are not. Some become loons.

My issue lies as the problems in the majority of the world's problem areas are with these "true believers/fundamentalists/extremists/fcuk wits"

For myself, I can make up my own mind.
 
#18
Trick said:
Carcass said:
I'd like to think of myself as a Rational Utilitarian, rather than a Humanist. Does the lack of a deity preclude them from being religions?
Is their a great deal of difference between the two? And where do you draw the line with utilitarianism? Greates pleasure for the most people could excuse slavery, sadistic torture etc.
Pleasure does not equal greatest benefit.

If I, as a utilitarian dictator, thought I could create pleasure for vast numbers of my supporters by publicly executing dissidents, I still wouldn't do it in the knowledge that it would trigger a civil war.
 
#20
leveller said:
I dont understand how you can be 'agnostic', you must lean one way or the other?
Agnostic literally means (from ancient Greek) 'lack of knowledge.' Agnostics simply say that we do not have enough information to make an informed decision yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top