Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

[SexyGreyFox]

recently i have being watching Ancient Aliens which is very intresting .....

I've watched every one and I've just finished 313 which is all to do with 'The Secret Code' and never in my life have I shouted 'no' at a TV series so much.
The people who they have on there are complete nutters and Giorgio A Tsoukalos is a complete knob but I'll keep watching it.

 

[Mr Krugga]

I don't have to define a huge pink pig to know that there isn't one either. I know what you're getting at, you want me to prove that there's no deity, and I can't, but I'm saying that since you can't prove there IS a deity that's good enough for me.

You just proved it works both ways and you're just on the other side of the scale.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't have to define a huge pink pig to know that there isn't one either. I know what you're getting at, you want me to prove that there's no deity, and I can't, but I'm saying that since you can't prove there IS a deity that's good enough for me.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's faith based.
And goes against what you first said.

 

[RomanNose]

So there might be a god I just don't believe it = Faith

There is no God= Faith

Also negative atheism is virtually identifiable to agnosticism, agnostics fall under the scope of negative atheists.. Because they don't believe in a god, yet at the same time don't claim there isn't a god and don't claim there is a god.
I don't know where you stand, but I guess you are an agnostic and if so you are saying that your position is faith based..

 

[semi-pro waster]

Learn the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism please, they are completely different. Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.

Positive/negative and strong/weak atheism is in essence an argument about the vehemence of the belief and whether you explicitly/implicitly state it. To take a position that there is no god (as you must under classically defined atheism) is to take a position on an unknowable and probably unanswerable question - that's perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with a faith based position but it's worth recognising what it is.

Okay then, i'm an Atheist. But i believe that all religions should be given a fair chance. They should prepare a paper detailing their proposal, the thinking behind it and the evidence for it. They should then push to get this paper published in a reputable scientific journal, to be read and scrutinized by the community. If it is found that their theory holds up; that there are no errors in the methods used as proof, gaping holes in the thinking or unexplainable contradictions with currently accepted scientific 'knowledge' then they should be allowed to live on as popular scientific theories, with the same privileges as any other. This includes the freedom for others to debate it, and most certainly does not include the vast accumulation of wealth, extravagant buildings and specialized schools for indoctrinating children against the majority of accepted science. If they don't then they should call it a day and come up with a better theory.

That's what science is all about - coming up with as many ideas as possible, whittling away the rubbish until you're left with what can only be described as 'the truth'. In my mind the fact that we'll never actually get to that point makes it all the better. Anything pretending to be independent of these methods, or that the idea of eliminating bias does not apply to is counter to this, and such is counter to the progression of humanity. It only does so because it wouldn't last ten minutes as a 'proper' scientific proposal.

I'm pleased that you believe religion should be given a fair chance but really that's just lip service isn't it because you're then trying to shoehorn religion into the limitations of science. Science is a truly wonderful thing but please don't try to apply it into situations where it has no business. Science is something where you aim to get predictively accurate results from previously observed evidence, religion doesn't have to exist within that framework.

On a practical level science is great, on a theological one it's out of its element and that's fine because it was never intended to answer such questions. To assume it can answer those questions is to impute it with meaning that it was never designed for.

Why do I have to quote the dictionary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

It could be a question of ignosticism, unless we can agree on the meaning of a deity then any further questions are irrelevant.

 

[easyrider]

Athiest, in so far as I don't believe in a god, rather than believing one doesn't exist.



That has to be some of the idiotic crap I've ever heard.

Why? You have quickly decided you don't believe in GOD...

You have taken the easy Path...Why anyone would not investigate with the gift of Human conciousness is beyond me.

I leave that to the cats and dogs and cows in the fields.

 

[Naffa]

You have taken the easy Path...Why anyone would not investigate with the gift of Human intelligence is beyond me.

I leave that to the cats and dogs and cows in the fields.

What an utterly stupid thing to say. You are implying that any investigation into the question of whether there is a god would result in the discovery of one. I have spent so much time investigating and considering the question, and have arrived at the conclusion that I think the universe is unlikely to be the an object of design.

 

[PermaBanned]

Why? You have quickly decided you don't believe in GOD...

You have taken the easy Path...Why anyone would not investigate with the gift of Human intelligence is beyond me.

I leave that to the cats and dogs and cows in the fields.

There is no more reason to believe that god exists than Sherlock Holmes does. One could argue that you have taken the 'easy path' because you can slack off in life "knowing" that you'll get time to enjoy things when you're dead, rather than having to accept the fact that this is your one chance - you are one of the lucky ones.

But then, we weren't so petty as to bring that up

 

[easyrider]

What an utterly stupid thing to say. You are implying that any investigation into the question of whether there is a god would result in the discovery of one.

No The discovery of God is Faith based

I have spent so much time investigating and considering the question, and have arrived at the conclusion that I think the universe is unlikely to be the an object of design.

What does the design of the universe have to do with God?

 

[Dolph]

The lack of evidence is evidence

It's not infallible, perhaps later we'll find out I'm wrong. But it's still evidence.

It's only evidence if you take, a priori, the assumptions of logical positivism to be true, and have sufficiently defined both the hypothesis and the evidence gathering approach to ensure that you are looking for the right evidence in the right place.

Atheism (strong or weak) is highly dependent on a priori assumptions (or if you prefer, assumptions that have to be taken on faith). That's why the truly scientific position is that of the agnostic, not that of the atheist.

 

[Camarilla]

Why? You have quickly decided you don't believe in GOD...

Lovely assumption there, considering I was raised Christian for 11 years (though never baptised or anything), praying every day at school, going to chruch for the harvest festival, easter, chrsitmas and so on, before gradually realising that I didn't truly believe in any of it, it was all just something I did because I was expected to.

You have taken the easy Path...Why anyone would not investigate with the gift of Human intelligence is beyond me.

And people who've quickly decided that they do believe in god have put more effort in? How many people have a religion based on the fact that they've spent years investigating each faith, weighing up its pros and cons, and then deciding which to believe in? Because it sure ain't 100%.

 

[PermaBanned]

I'm pleased that you believe religion should be given a fair chance but really that's just lip service isn't it because you're then trying to shoehorn religion into the limitations of science. Science is a truly wonderful thing but please don't try to apply it into situations where it has no business. Science is something where you aim to get predictively accurate results from previously observed evidence, religion doesn't have to exist within that framework.

On a practical level science is great, on a theological one it's out of its element and that's fine because it was never intended to answer such questions. To assume it can answer those questions is to impute it with meaning that it was never designed for.

So basically science 'doesn't have any business' with theories that there is no evidence for? Presumably it should leave conspiracy theorists alone as well?

 

[Naffa]

No The discovery of God is Faith based



What does the design of the universe have to do with God?

Urr... ARE YOU SERIOUS? CANNOT TELL IF SERIOUS.

 

[Glaucus]

So basically science 'doesn't have any business' with theories that there is no evidence for? Presumably it should leave conspiracy theorists alone as well?

Nope, it has no business in taking theories which are outside the scientific theory. Most CT are well within the boundaries of science.

Seems yet again a total misunderstanding of what science actually is.

 

[easyrider]

Lovely assumption there, considering I was raised Christian for 11 years (though never baptised or anything), praying every day at school, going to chruch for the harvest festival, easter, chrsitmas and so on, before gradually realising that I didn't truly believe in any of it, it was all just something I did because I was expected to.

You don't beleive in the Christian GOD? Or any God?

And people who've quickly decided that they do believe in god have put more effort in? How many people have a religion based on the fact that they've spent years investigating each faith, weighing up its pros and cons, and then deciding which to believe in? Because it sure ain't 100%.

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that its just as easy to say I don't believe in God as it is to say I do believe in God

The majorty don't investigate at all. They just go to Church like sheep.

 

[easyrider]

Urr... ARE YOU SERIOUS? CANNOT TELL IF SERIOUS.

Totally

Now answer the question!

 

[Naffa]

Totally

Now answer the question!

Answer the question of what god has to do with the design of the universe?!?? DO I REALLY NEED TO DO THAT?!

 

[ChrisJSY]

I believe religion should be a personal thing, self discovery.
Not something passed down by other people, that twist and interpret it to their own meaning. This is the one fallacy I can't get passed in religion in the first place, it's all hand-me-downs and the translations of someone else.

The second one would be the vastly differentiating religions (They all have their own story to tell) and modern incarnation of a religion, which show that people, despite what the facst actually are, will believe regardless and make anyone such as myself out to be disrepectful and rude.(Such as scientology).

I don't know what I am, I do not believe in a god but I can believe in the possibility that many ages ago, something could have been mistaken for one.

 

[churchhawk]

Atheism is for lazy people.

Awful comment.

 

[PermaBanned]

Nope, it has no business in taking theories which are outside the scientific theory. Most CT are well within the boundaries of science.

Seems yet again a total misunderstanding of what science actually is.

But my point is that they are only outside the bounds of science because they claim to be. There's no actual reason for them not to be scrutinised in the same way that most scientific theories are. The difference is that a scientist proved wrong would thank you for it. A theologist would just ignore you.