Poll: What is your religion?

[PapaLazaru]

Well it is good to see that the majority on here are sane and do not believe in the 'good book'.

The Old Testament is public religion in it's truest form. Control by fear.

The New Testament is the same book which has been diluted by the rich over the years, upon slowly realising that the poor were becoming a little more educated and wise, therefore keeping the fear, but making it a little more believable.

Jesus Christ is the same figure that the Muslims worship but they call him The Prophet Mohammed.

I also believe that the Catholic Church is the biggest terrorist organisation to have ever existed on this planet.

 

[meghatronic]

Jesus Christ is the same figure that the Muslims worship but they call him The Prophet Mohammed.

You might want to check that.

e.g. http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/English/weboku.asp?id=771&yid=30&sayfa=20

 

[PapaLazaru]

You might want to check that.

e.g. http://www.diyanet.gov.tr/English/weboku.asp?id=771&yid=30&sayfa=20

Yes, but in the dilution of time anything can be changed.

They are one and the same entity. It all came from the same place.

That is what I think anyway.

 

[Angilion]

Then you're agnostic.

I'm also an atheist. I'd be a theist if sufficient evidence was presented to me.

I don't know for sure that no gods exist.

I also don't know for sure that there aren't any undetectable unicorns prancing around my bedroom at this very moment, with undetectable pixies riding them and undetectable fairies flying in formation above them.

I don't believe in those, either.

 

[Angilion]

No no no no! Not this man again!

Look kiddies, it's simple.

Agnostic = accepts that something does or can exist.

Atheist = no God or gods exist.

Look kiddy, it's simple.

Agnostic = eats cornflakes and drinks tea.

Atheist = eats toast and drinks coffee.

Anyone can post any definition they like. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are accurate definitions.

 

[Angilion]

And I'm delighted to be able to offer you the chance to see it - find your nearest bible and start reading. That's proof that God exists. The millions of believers (from memory it's around 1 billion for the various forms of Christianity) are also proof.

Neither of those things (or any others) may convince you but that doesn't alter that they are proof.

The existence of people who believe something to be true does not constitute proof that it is true.

That argument becomes even weaker when you consider that in many cases different people belive mutually exclusive things.

Christianity started less than 2000 years ago. If Christianity is the proof that the Christian god exists, did the Christian god exist before 2000 years ago?

The universe is an armadillo.

If enough people repeat that, does it constitute proof that the universe is an armadillo? If not, why not?

 

[Lightnix]

I'm going to go with this definition of atheist:

Where atheist is described as (from dictionary.com)

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Has the emphasis on 'disbelieves', and disbelieves goes under this definition of disbelief:

n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

As opposed to this definition of atheist which some seem to hold and is basically synonymous with 'I would not believe there were a deity even if it came down, slapped me in the face, gave me the greatest pleasures a man could experience and told me why they'd been hiding for so long.' Basically I think it's reasonable to operate under the assumption that something doesn't exist if there's no proof or reasonable explanation for something existing.

Or is that agnostic? Perhaps it's atheistic agnostic. Either way it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Angilion]

Well it is good to see that the majority on here are sane and do not believe in the 'good book'.

The Old Testament is public religion in it's truest form. Control by fear.

Yes.

The New Testament is the same book which has been diluted by the rich over the years, upon slowly realising that the poor were becoming a little more educated and wise, therefore keeping the fear, but making it a little more believable.

No. The two are distinctly different, to the extent that some have argued that they refer to two different gods (this was, unsurprisingly, seen as heresy). Different message, different events described...they're not the same book.

Jesus Christ is the same figure that the Muslims worship but they call him The Prophet Mohammed.

Very wrong in two ways. Firstly, Muslims don't worship any of their prophets. That would almost certainly be seen as a very fundamental heresy, denying the one-ness of god that's a central part of Islam. Secondly, Muslims don't regard Jesus and Mohammed as being the same person.

also believe that the Catholic Church is the biggest terrorist organisation to have ever existed on this planet.

Possibly true, but obsolete by centuries.

 

[Phatjayunoi]

Due to my Chinese background, I guess it will be Buddhist, it's mainly just the standard incense burning rituals for honouring dead relatives etc. If I had another vote, I would also add in Taoism as that is also very much intergrated, and maybe even Confucianism, although this one is more philosophical in nature.

 

[manoz]

Yes, but in the dilution of time anything can be changed.

They are one and the same entity. It all came from the same place.

That is what I think anyway.

Wow, you really are laughable. You are right it all came from the same place; somewhere in the Middle East. There's a half century gap between Jesus and Mohammad(SAW) and you think they are the same "entity", what does that even mean lol?

 

[Naffa]

It's a little too early in our existence to tell and personally I feel that religion is merely the side effect of a far more ingrained problem with humanity, or any sufficiently advanced civilisation for that matter. In other words, take away religion and something else will replace it ... different name, same ****.

That's fair enough, I disagree though.

Left to their own devices, good people will do strive to do good things, evil people will strive to do evil things, but if you want a good person to do evil things then you need religion.

 

[Naffa]

Also, I forgot to mention that pantheism and deism have been missed off of the list.

 

[Lopéz]

For myself I'm an apathetic agnostic, I don't know if there is a god and don't much care - until and unless a god impacts on my life in some discernable way the question is moot except as a point of interest in debates from time to time.

Well done, you just summed me up pretty much perfectly.

 

[starfighter]

Atheist I suppose. But just because a God hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean there isn't one, or two or whatever. I am open but they have to prove it first, and when I say God I mean they created us, it is possible there are some kind of advanced alien race that consider us insects, they might have god like skills but didn't have anything to do with our creation.

and as said even if there was a proven god that created us, would we even worship him? probably not.

I don't ask my poo to worship me.

 

[Narj]

Sadly disappointed by the omission of "Pastafarian" in the poll so it get lumped in with "other"

 

[semi-pro waster]

Of course morality has not developed totally independently and separate from religion, that would be a ridiculous thing to say given how much of a part religion has played in our culture. It is fair to say, however, that we're becoming more reasonable in the absence of religion.

Possibly however equally it is possible that religion has provided the base on which our apparent increasing reasonableness stems from i.e. one has led to the other and would not have been possible without the example that religion has set. However I'm aware that I don't want to make this appear as an evolution (if you'll pardon the phrase) from religion to none or less. Society was much different even a couple of hundred years ago so it is difficult to say whether the prevailing mores and punishments (amongst other things) would be the different in a society of the time that was avowedly areligious as compared to the societies that existed which were religious.

I can't say with any certainty whether society of the time made religion what it was or whether religion had the greater part in making society what it was. But maybe the measures and approaches taken would have been similar irrespective of the state of religious belief.

Just to cite a couple of examples, I don't believe that infanticide (especially of one's own child) is permissible, could ever be justified in any way, shape, form or whatever yet that's not true for Christianity. I also don't believe homosexuality is immoral and I have no distaste for the female birth canal, unlike practically every religion. I don't see the need to murder infidels, whereas certain religions mandate such action.

I'm broadly in agreement in that I don't believe infanticide is acceptable (there may be circumstances when it could be justified but I'm struggling to think of any), don't care much about homosexuality etc etc. However I feel it is worthwhile pointing out that while extremism may appear to be on the rise there are vast swathes of religious believers who are becomng more moderate and share similar opinions to those you've just expressed.

The existence of people who believe something to be true does not constitute proof that it is true.

That argument becomes even weaker when you consider that in many cases different people belive mutually exclusive things.

Christianity started less than 2000 years ago. If Christianity is the proof that the Christian god exists, did the Christian god exist before 2000 years ago?

The universe is an armadillo.

If enough people repeat that, does it constitute proof that the universe is an armadillo? If not, why not?

I'd quite obviously disagree, they constitute proof that such a thing exists. It may be proof that I put no weight on (and indeed that you put no weight on) but it would be proof for the belief in question.

For the Christian God - I'll cop out by saying I don't share that particular belief so I wouldn't presume to speak for how long the Christian God has existed. One could assume that since the story is that they are the God of Creation that they've been around since the beginning of time but just because they were not worshipped in the current form for XX number of millenia doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exist. I suppose from there we've got the question of absolute truth and whether a) such a thing exists and b) whether it matters if no-one knew of it before XX point.

For your armadillo question, it matters not one jot to me whether the universe is an armadillo. It could be and it wouldn't affect my life or my understanding of it one iota. Again though it is proof for the belief in question - one which carries no weight with me but that's beside the point of it being proof.

 

[Raumarik]

Good thread this, been a while since I enjoyed reading one in GD so much

 

[PapaLazaru]

Wow, you really are laughable. You are right it all came from the same place; somewhere in the Middle East. There's a half century gap between Jesus and Mohammad(SAW) and you think they are the same "entity", what does that even mean lol?

Sorry. Drunk posting. Maybe I did not get my thoughts across properly.

I believe that the books we see today, The Bible and The Quaran, are both initially from the same source. They are diluted and changed versions of what was once a single piece of literature.

Half a century gap is also hardly what I would call a long period of time in the big scheme of things is it?

 

[Naffa]

Possibly however equally it is possible that religion has provided the base on which our apparent increasing reasonableness stems from i.e. one has led to the other and would not have been possible without the example that religion has set. However I'm aware that I don't want to make this appear as an evolution (if you'll pardon the phrase) from religion to none or less. Society was much different even a couple of hundred years ago so it is difficult to say whether the prevailing mores and punishments (amongst other things) would be the different in a society of the time that was avowedly areligious as compared to the societies that existed which were religious.

It would be impossible to say that our society would have definitely evolved like this, or like that in the absence of religion but one can still make educated assumptions. Society was much different a couple of hundred years ago, and that's when the first real signs of unbelievers in religion began to emerge (and I mean deists and atheists). This is religion began losing it's power over society, and over people.

I can't say with any certainty whether society of the time made religion what it was or whether religion had the greater part in making society what it was. But maybe the measures and approaches taken would have been similar irrespective of the state of religious belief.

I think it's worth pointing out that I believe the question of whether God exists to be separate from whether religion is man made. And again, one obviously cannot know for certain how society would be evolved without religion. It's difficult to judge because, as far as I'm aware, there's never been a state founded on secular morals and values.

I'm broadly in agreement in that I don't believe infanticide is acceptable (there may be circumstances when it could be justified but I'm struggling to think of any), don't care much about homosexuality etc etc. However I feel it is worthwhile pointing out that while extremism may appear to be on the rise there are vast swathes of religious believers who are becomng more moderate and share similar opinions to those you've just expressed.

Please don't think I judge religion on it's fringes, I don't. I judge it on it's foundational texts, along with the various canonical documents and texts that make up the values of the religion.

 

[manoz]

Sorry. Drunk posting. Maybe I did not get my thoughts across properly.

I believe that the books we see today, The Bible and The Quaran, are both initially from the same source. They are diluted and changed versions of what was once a single piece of literature.

Half a century gap is also hardly what I would call a long period of time in the big scheme of things is it?

Sorry I meant half a millennium which is a long gap. I guess in all of your wisdom you didn't notice my mistake. I take it you've read neither of them.