Religions

[Snowtsuku]

I'm don't believe in the theistic God. Whether there is a higher being, I don't thing I know enough to say. Even if they did exist, I don't think they need to be worshiped.

That being said, I don't hate religion. I hate the extremists from the religious and the non religious though.

[Darklord Rooke]

On the second part of your post, I wonder if a thread about personal beliefs would be interesting.

 

Would be interesting. Sweet suggestion :3

[Mr Poltroon]

True. However, would you not agree that it functioned, at that crucial time, much like totalitarian state rule? In that it was fundamentally opposed to criticism and disagreement? While it had a stabilising effect on populations, this is, at best, a mixed blessing.

I didn't say it was a good thing, but it was pretty much necessary at the time. 

[Yeah Way]

I'm don't believe in the theistic God. Whether there is a higher being, I don't thing I know enough to say. Even if they did exist, I don't think they need to be worshiped.

That being said, I don't hate religion. I hate the extremists from the religious and the non religious though.

It's unfortunate, but one can only put so much blame on the extremists without at least critiqueing their holy text. I think/hope that the majority of today's Christians choose not to believe Leviticus, when it says that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination". However, when a child is told this as unquestionable fact for their entire lives, it becomes a feat of will to challenge this belief. Had such a rule not been made part of doctrine in the first place, this problem wouldn't exist. Is the doctrine, or rather, its author(s), not at least partially at fault?

 

Would be interesting. Sweet suggestion :3

Shall I do the honours, or shall I leave it to you? ^^

[Snowtsuku]

It's unfortunate, but one can only put so much blame on the extremists without at least critiqueing their holy text. I think/hope that the majority of today's Christians choose not to believe Leviticus, when it says that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination". However, when a child is told this as unquestionable fact for their entire lives, it becomes a feat of will to challenge this belief. Had such a rule not been made part of doctrine in the first place, this problem wouldn't exist. Is the doctrine, or rather, its author(s), not at least partially at fault?

The reason I used the word religion is because I am talking of religion in general. Not all religions are based on doctrines though I get it that most of them are.

Also I don't think most religious people read their doctrine cover to cover. They just listen to what's being said by their leaders and that's it. I do think it's the leaders that brought those kinds of texts to the masses.

[Darklord Rooke]

And unfortunately it still seems to start religious wars in this day and age, so I'd go as far as to say that it's disadvantageous to the society. But it was a crucial part of our past, and we can't just up and get rid of it. 

 

Depends on the religion. There has been no wars fought in Buddhism's name, yes there have been acts of violence but violence is a reality when dealing with any set of beliefs, and more specifically when they clash with alternate beliefs - this ranges from culture clashes to the local footy match (heh.) And the art of transcendental meditation Buddhism teaches is very beneficial to… everyone.

 

Also Jainism believes in equality and non-violence and all that jazz. Taoism is fairly peaceful also.

 

Shall I do the honours, or shall I leave it to you? ^^

 

I'm going to have to turn in. Definitely not feeling so good

[Mr Poltroon]

Depends on the religion. There has been no wars fought in Buddhism's name, yes there have been acts of violence but violence is a reality when dealing with any set of beliefs, and more specifically when they clash with alternate beliefs - this ranges from culture clashes to the local footy match (heh.) And the art of transcendental meditation Buddhism teaches is very beneficial to… everyone.

 

Also Jainism believes in equality and non-violence and all that jazz. Taoism is fairly peaceful also.

Well, but some religions still do. Even if most of them were peaceful, religion as a whole, (nowadays, anyway) isn't as important to a society as it once was, so starting wars, even if it's just a minority, is less than advantageous to it. 

[Yeah Way]

Since so many others are posting their personal beliefs here, I'll do the same.

I am an ignostic. I had been a catholic at first, and then a deist; but began questioning my beliefs again after watching a load of debates with Richard Dawkins. For a brief time I considered myself atheistic until I first came across the term "Igtheism" in an article on faith.

 

Basically, ignosticism or igtheism is the belief that every religious/spiritual term has to have a coherent definition, and that such terms or concepts must be falsifiable before a position on God's existence can be taken. If the theist, atheist, etc. cannot provide a coherent definition (ie. a giant man literally floating above the Earth in a cloud), or use some non-falsifiable rhetoric ("God exists, but can't be seen," or "God can be 'experienced', but not measured"), the argument they are trying to make is meaningless.

 

The difference between atheism and ignosticism is that ignosticism acknowledges the fact that saying "God doesn't exist" is just as meaningless as saying "God exists." Pantheism is, basically, the belief that the universe itself can be considered "God". If so, then an atheistic position on such a God would mean that the atheist doesn't believe in the universe.

[Chewy]

Religion definitely influences society in a both good and bad way. Good way because of things like karma in a few religions encourage better "behaviour", the sins in the Bible prevent people from wanting to commit crimes etc.However, if there are slight contradictions or differences in values, people tend to fight..

[Fiddle]

I'm sorry for butting in despite not fully following along with the discussion in this thread, but I would like to point out something in response to the consistently mentioned point that religion or atheism causes wars and such.

 

A war has been fought over some guy's ear.

[Mr Poltroon]

I'm sorry for butting in despite not fully following along with the discussion in this thread, but I would like to point out something in response to the consistently mentioned point that religion or atheism causes wars and such.

 

A war has been fought over some guy's ear.

You know what? To hell with humanity, religion or no religion we'll still murder each other over it.  

 

I'll go hide in the basement with my laptop now.

[Flutterz]

Since so many others are posting their personal beliefs here, I'll do the same.

I am an ignostic. I had been a catholic at first, and then a deist; but began questioning my beliefs again after watching a load of debates with Richard Dawkins. For a brief time I considered myself atheistic until I first came across the term "Igtheism" in an article on faith.

 

Basically, ignosticism or igtheism is the belief that every religious/spiritual term has to have a coherent definition, and that such terms or concepts must be falsifiable before a position on God's existence can be taken. If the theist, atheist, etc. cannot provide a coherent definition (ie. a giant man literally floating above the Earth in a cloud), or use some non-falsifiable rhetoric ("God exists, but can't be seen," or "God can be 'experienced', but not measured"), the argument they are trying to make is meaningless.

 

The difference between atheism and ignosticism is that ignosticism acknowledges the fact that saying "God doesn't exist" is just as meaningless as saying "God exists." Pantheism is, basically, the belief that the universe itself can be considered "God". If so, then an atheistic position on such a God would mean that the atheist doesn't believe in the universe.

Actually, the most basic atheistic position isn't "god doesn't exist" because you're right, that's basically the same thing as saying one does exist, but rather "I don't believe a god exists". Of course, some people take it one step further and say "god doesn't exist", but that's a different story.

But at the end of the day they're all just labels anyway.

[PlotTrapDevice]

I'm actually an Atheist so I wouldn't know nothing about any religions beside the ones I come across to. I don't worship the idea, but I believe they existed for a purpose and reason.

[Kaguya]

Actually, the most basic atheistic position isn't "god doesn't exist" because you're right, that's basically the same thing as saying one does exist, but rather "I don't believe a god exists". Of course, some people take it one step further and say "god doesn't exist", but that's a different story.

But at the end of the day they're all just labels anyway.

Stop everything. Someone missed details on the internet.

Being an atheist means you don't believe in god and that you don't follow a religion. There are religions with no god. Both of those statements are equally important~

 

Other than that, you're right.

[Zenophilious]

On the second part of your post, I wonder if a thread about personal beliefs would be interesting.

I would really recommend that this thread not be made.  I have nothing against the free exchange of ideas, but just discussing religion without insults or arguing is hard for some people.  If we're gonna bring in politics and other beliefs, I have no doubt things will get ugly.  Not saying that everyone here is unable to control themselves, but remember, it only takes one person to light a powder keg, and there's a lot of them in politics alone.

 

There's several things I like about religion, even though I'm an agnostic.  The fact that they introduced moral codes so early in history is impressive, even if the supposed punishment(s) for disobeying said code can be rather draconian in some cases.  I also have to say that they really bring a community together, and provide a sense of togetherness that is pretty hard to achieve otherwise.

[AMMSY]

Stop everything. Someone missed details on the internet.

Being an atheist means you don't believe in god and that you don't follow a religion. There are religions with no god. Both of those statements are equally important~

 

Other than that, you're right.

 

Thats why Buddhism seem to me like the most sensible religion. Thou I've experienced the evil side of religion for many years that my opinion is certainly not objective.

 

I'm sorta agnostic - It seem very (very) likely that god doesn't exist thou I can't really say because religion has perfected this concept for so many years they managed to avoid the need for proofs, but because I don't really care about god/religions I often say that I'm a firm atheist to make things easier on myself.

[Flutterz]

Stop everything. Someone missed details on the internet.

Being an atheist means you don't believe in god and that you don't follow a religion. There are religions with no god. Both of those statements are equally important~

 

Other than that, you're right.

According to the most basic definition atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, and nothing else. Of course it's generally used to mean people who aren't religious too but that's not a requirement.

But once again, it all depends on how you decide to label yourself and others. While Buddhists can, with this definition call themselves atheists, why would they?

[Forsythe]

I was raised as a Roman Catholic but I'm an agnostic now.

I didn't choose my initial religion. I haven't met anyone who had that privilege. 

I'd like to say that my break with RC was a result of me discovering that there's something rotten in religion but unfortunately, that wouldn't be true. After a few years, I've calmed down from my Radical Atheism and I've come to accept that what caused the break wasn't a religious issue at all. I just didn't want to go to church every Wednesday and Sunday, as my school mandated. I became an atheist and rationalized it by referencing the things I found objectionable about the Bible and the Church's influence on scientific progress.

Looking back, my motive seemed trivial and silly and it was. I was a lazy teenager and I appropriated a valid stand to mask my real motive. After that I just stuck to my guns because admitting the truth was embarrassing. 

Having said that, I wouldn't say that my being an atheist now is regrettable. In fact, I don't believe that I can genuinely be one of the Faithful again. The scientific method is just a more credible process of understanding how the world works. That said, "explaining how the world works" is only a small part of religion. There's still the matter of what a person does with that knowledge and it is in this that I think my soul searching, motivated as it was by trivial things, bore a lot of fruit.

When my endless cries of "RELIGION IS EVIL" got too tiring even for me. I started asking myself, "what should I believe in?" After all, God or no God, I was still more or less following the moral standards of Christianity. I re-evaluated everything that I considered "the right way to live". It fell apart. 

I think that when you examine any of the truisms that adults spout, like "Honesty is the best policy" and "always try to be friends with others", you'd find that there will always be a situation where they're not beneficial to you, your loved ones or to society at large. This was a problem. I've always viewed religion as providing a black-and-white guideline to being a good person. I no longer had that. I became apathetic. 

I continued searching. I devoured information from Psychology, Politics and other social sciences and I evolved. It wasn't a beautiful evolution at the start. I was drawn to Objectivism and very faintly, fascism. That hate you feel when you become an atheist can lead you to some ugly things.  

I hated Communism though perhaps because I saw it as no different than religion.
"A desirable dream used to control the masses". 

My breakthrough came when I thought I've given up. Well, after burying myself in countless textbooks and dropping out of school because I used all my time to study social sciences, I said "Fuck it" and just started watching anime. I was watching a HS rom-com/drama, I think and I remember thinking, "it must be nice to live like this".  It wasn't instantaneous of course but the sentiment grew within me. I remembered how great having friends was... how satisfying it was and how happy I was. Then I realized, "in the end isn't all of this just a quest to feel fulfilled?"

I mean, why did I want to become a good person in the first place? Wasn't it because I assumed that good things happen to good people
and that would make me happy? Isn't it more important to pursue the things that make you happy instead of worrying about complex systems that bring no satisfaction? I got the feeling that I got lost in the details and forgot my original goal. 

After that I decided that I'm not going to worry about "correct" religion or "proper" politics anymore than necessary and that it is only necessary to do so in pursuit of happiness. After all, I don't know all of science and all of science can't explain all of reality yet. There's a large possibility that any answer that I prepare in advance for future problems will be wrong.

I'll just live with the fact that I will probably make mistakes but as long as I learn and as long as I don't give up on happiness, I will be okay.

I'll have what I need to live. 



-----------------------------
YAAAA-----! That took too long. I hope it wasn't too rambling. It's been ages since I've expressed an idea. 
 

[Kaguya]

According to the most basic definition atheism is just a lack of belief in a god, and nothing else. Of course it's generally used to mean people who aren't religious too but that's not a requirement.

But once again, it all depends on how you decide to label yourself and others. While Buddhists can, with this definition call themselves atheists, why would they?

When you break down the word in my language it means "one who does not follow any religious doctrine". May be different in english, though.

[Yeah Way]

When you break down the word in my language it means "one who does not follow any religious doctrine". May be different in english, though.

Oh wow, that is pretty different. What language is this?

 

In English, 'atheism' literally means "without god(s)".

[Kaguya]

Oh wow, that is pretty different. What language is this?

 

In English, 'atheism' literally means "without god(s)".

It's brazilian portuguese, but (from what I looked up just after my post was quoted) it's different from the usual norm and is not acknowledged in the south of the country. In the usual they kinda take the word from the same roots as yours; in the one I'm used it merged with the native tribes that lived here before. It comes from the Pirarrã tribe, a curious group of natives (that now is pretty small) that doesn't have any religious belief (the only tribe I know that is like this, lol. Pretty interesting, they not having a creation myth).

[Chewy]

It's brazilian portuguese, but (from what I looked up just after my post was quoted) it's different from the usual norm and is not acknowledged in the south of the country. In the usual they kinda take the word from the same roots as yours; in the one I'm used it merged with the native tribes that lived here before. It comes from the Pirarrã tribe, a curious group of natives (that now is pretty small) that doesn't have any religious belief (the only tribe I know that is like this, lol. Pretty interesting, they not having a creation myth).

Well they either are like people who believe logic or people like me who don't care about logic nor do I care about how the universe was created. We are here and we will be for some time longer (hopefully fairly long) and then we die. It doesn't make a difference if the Big Bang happened or some gods made us does it?