Any one here religious?

[El_Gato]

Every religion thinks its god is the one, others are fake.

You religious people (religious in practice, not the majority) are just destroying your own. Which one is the real one then?

Also, as religion obviously isn't god, why not just call yourself simply spiritualist? Accepting your religions is denying the science and future. The directly designated by the catholic god (the pope) forbids the use of CONDOM!! I just can't see how anyone can still believe such shit. Or you just take what you're interested in?

If you then, call yourself spirituals and deny any religion and their dogmas, what does it separate from agnostics? the certainty?


The most important point that religious people hold is the creation of the universe. God was the one who created it. The universe was there and can't be created, just changes.

Well, there is science and philosophy and both of them try to explain but I don't understand blind faith in some compilations of stories hundreds years ago.


edit: I fuckin continue

So, if religion isn't followed by you at 100%, why do you need it? For some moral directions? I shit bricks with your morals.

Where are religious and clergy when we try to save the planet?

our rights?

There's a anti gay marriage parade and every fundamentalist goes out in the name of the family values lol (accepting your family as gay is the correct for the family IMO). There's one against poverty and where are them? Cause I see less and less people in those and no clergy at all.

2nd edit: if anyone is offended, apologies. I don't like religions, what doesn't mean that I haven't religious friends and get along, just don't like organized religions

 

[ahjteam]

I believe in what I believe, things like afterlife etc, but I don't believe in organized religion.

 

[JBroll]

I believe in eternal life through STUPID THREADS THAT NEVER DIE AAUGH!

Jeff

 

[coldthrn]

Speaking of Gods here is one for the Norse.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

Making scientific proof a prerequisite for the existence of God requires a tremendous amount of faith that science is the only true measure of reality.

Well, it's certainly more reliable than dowsing rods, ain't it?


Science is the only true measure of reality. Science is the observation of evidence. Anything else is just wishful thinking.


As per the original subject: Atheist. Born Presbyterian (Scottish Protestant), woke the fuck up on 9/11. Opened my eyes and saw that organized religion and morality are rarely mutually inclusive. Can cite numerous examples if required.


My apologies to the believers, but scripture written by prehistoric goat herders with little to no knowledge of the workings of the universe, constantly contradicts itself, and claims to have all the required knowledge for living life, is well, preposterous.


Science constantly updates itself based on available evidence. Religion, because of it's very nature, cannot change.

To put this into practical terms: Today, I don't believe in a god/deity. The day amputees start regrowing limbs due to the power of prayer is the day I drop on my knees and worship the almighty. Until then, religion falls into the "bullshit" category alongside crystals, ghosts, and Santa Claus.

 

[kaomao]

nope.. best check your english. that definition most definitely lends itself more to supporting uncertainty than indifference.

Anyway in Italian it works the same as English.
What I meant is: because I know that's something unknownable/unknown, I don't waste my time seeking the truth, looking for the existence of a god.
Plain and simple.
At least is my point of view about agnosticism
Regarding agnostic atheist post made by slashvanyoung: I don't accept a agnostic atheist or agnostic religious, they're totally against the meaning of agnosticism and you can write 100000 words on this board to show me this but as wiki says: unknown/unknowable.

 

[James Murphy]

Anyway in Italian it works the same as English.
What I meant is: because I know that's something unknownable/unknown, I don't waste my time seeking the truth, looking for the existence of a god.
Plain and simple.
At least is my point of view about agnosticism
Regarding agnostic atheist post made by slashvanyoung: I don't accept a agnostic atheist or agnostic religious, they're totally against the meaning of agnosticism and you can write 100000 words on this board to show me this but as wiki says: unknown/unknowable.

yep, and we all know that Wikipedia is the authoritative source for everything... i mean, it's not like anyone can just go in there and write whatever they want..... er, wait

 

[K Odell]

Religious......yes

Care to argue my beliefs.....no

 

[Kazrog]

SCIENCE!!!!!

 

[kaomao]

yep, and we all know that Wikipedia is the authoritative source for everything... i mean, it's not like anyone can just go in there and write whatever they want..... er, wait

Even dictionaries have a thousand way to show the meaning of this word.
Never seen dictionaries telling the same thing about this topic.
I was pointing out a wiki page that is about the correct meaning of this word (at least to me), I know that wiki it's not cast in stone once the page is written.

 

[JeffTD]

I really don't get why the fuck you guys are arguing so much about beliefs.

James, I'm pretty much in the same exact boat as you, but the manner in which you're so fervently defending your agnosticism/atheism and nitpicking about little stuff that really doesn't matter in peoples posts is just as bad as any of the religious zealots you'd just as soon criticize. If you're trying to give agnostics/atheists a good name, you're failing miserably.

 

[JeffTD]

yep, and we all know that Wikipedia is the authoritative source for everything... i mean, it's not like anyone can just go in there and write whatever they want..... er, wait

I don't get the Wikipedia bashing - it's one of the most reliable sources out there for the simple fact that anyone can just go in there and write whatever they want. It gets fact-checked out the ass by way more people than any kind of academic paper or government study or anything like that. I'm not saying I'd trust Wikipedia over either of those sources, but it's not like the site is chaulk full of ridiculous shit that is completely off base - 99% of the time it's dead on.

 

[James Murphy]

Even dictionaries have a thousand way to show the meaning of this word.
Never seen dictionaries telling the same thing about this topic.
I was pointing out a wiki page that is about the correct meaning of this word (at least to me), I know that wiki it's not cast in stone once the page is written.

the bottom line here Maurizio, is that your comprehension of english is relatively poor compared to mine. i've been speaking it my whole life, it is my native language.

and i assure you, even if there were only one official definition of Agnosticism, exactly the same in every dictionary, and that definition was that God is Unknown or Unknowable, that would NOT mean that the agnostic person "does not care"... you are just dead fucking wrong about that one, there is no better way to put it.

and let's be clear here... we are not discussing only the definition of the word agnostic, we are discussing the definitions and implications of the words "unknown" and "unknowable"... mostly the implications of how those definitions should make an agnostic person feel regarding the existence or nonexistence of god... because that's your assertion: that it means that the agnostic has no opinion or simply doesn't care about the issue..... that's your erroneous assertion.

 

[James Murphy]

James, I'm pretty much in the same exact boat as you, but the manner in which you're so fervently defending your agnosticism/atheism and nitpicking about little stuff that really doesn't matter in peoples posts is just as bad as any of the religious zealots you'd just as soon criticize. If you're trying to give agnostics/atheists a good name, you're failing miserably.

not gonna say much, since we discussed it privately on AIM, but i will say this.... not trying to be a representative for anything. i have my opinion, and i express it under Sam Harris' concepts for the "new rules of conversation" regarding religious topics.


google it, those who are interested.

 

[JeffTD]

I still love Wikipedia!

 

[amarshism]

You guys will care when the fundamental movement controls the majority American vote and their beliefs and dogma become law. One nation, under god.

Fuck.

 

[JeffTD]

You guys will care when the fundamental movement controls the majority American vote and their beliefs and dogma become law. One nation, under god.

Fuck.

Religion is one thing... politics is another, one I actually give a shit about.


I'm curious - what makes you honestly think this is going to happen? The Constitution is not a death pact.

And not to pull this card, but really - how much about our system do you know as an Australian? You can buy into conspiracy theories all you want, but I've not seen one piece of concrete evidence indicating that this is remotely possible, if even plausible.

Sounds like a Zeitgeist rerun, to me...

 

[James Murphy]

You guys will care when the fundamental movement controls the majority American vote and their beliefs and dogma become law. One nation, under god.

Fuck.

exactly... Theocracy is a cool band wave:hi matt!), but it would a terrible system of government to live under... and make no mistake, this is what the religious right wants; total theocracy.

and that's at the root of my problem with religious moderates, because they have championed this "it's taboo to discuss religious beliefs critically" nonsense that is empowering the extremist religious right to get away with shit like "jesus camps" and ultimately a move toward a theocratic state.

 

[James Murphy]

Religion is one thing... politics is another, one I actually give a shit about.


I'm curious - what makes you honestly think this is going to happen? The Constitution is not a death pact.

And not to pull this card, but really - how much about our system do you know as an Australian? You can buy into conspiracy theories all you want, but I've not seen one piece of concrete evidence indicating that this is remotely possible, if even plausible.

Sounds like a Zeitgeist rerun, to me...

no Jeff, it's quite possible... all they need is votes, not a conspiracy.

and they do want it.... and work towards it actively. the organized religious right i mean... they have lobbyists, kiddy conversion camps to breed brainwashed little Xtian soldiers, and a large sector of the american vote.

i asked, point blank, the last evangelicals that came knocking on my door: "do you desire to live under a theocratic state?"... they seemed shocked by the directness of my question, but they didn't hesitate long to say that yes, they would indeed be behind such a movement.

 

[JeffTD]

Right - theoretically possible... but do you have that little faith in the American people? I'm sure like 80% of the population is retarded, but I still have more faith in us to think that we'd allow something like that to happen.

The amount of checks and balances in our system and how difficult it is to amend the constitution alone has me sleeping pretty well at night.

If it does... thank god for the 2nd Amendment is all I have to say.