Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

What are your religious beliefs?

  • Christian

    Votes: 29 10.2%

  • Muslim

    Votes: 7 2.5%

  • Jewish

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Buddhist

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Hindu

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sikh

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Deist

    Votes: 3 1.1%

  • Agnostic

    Votes: 74 26.1%

  • Pantheist

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Atheist

    Votes: 159 56.2%
  • Total voters
    283
No it doesn't. Why get so emotional about it. Why can't you just exempt the example? Or is it because it has religious undertones and therefore unable to admit it, even though it makes no difference.
 
AcidHell2 said:
No it doesn't. Why get so emotional about it. Why can't you just exempt the example? Or is it because it has religious undertones and therefore unable to admit it, even though it makes no difference.
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. I am not and have never been rabidly atheist. The simple fact that some of the evolution evidence actually precludes an intelligent designer should be more than enough to suggest that they do not share the same evidence.

As to why I feel it cheapens evolution to compare them it is simple because that the origins of one is specifically to debunk the other and try and push an agenda. Evolution is agnostic, ID is, at it's very best, heavily disguised Christianity trying to lie.
 
It doesn't in the slightest. No evidence in evolution. Goes against the predictive data of ID.

It's a scientific theory, it wasn't created to debunk I'D. ID wasn't even about back then.
 
In response to the OP, i believe in a god and i pray to him in my own way. But i'm not a fan of organised religion. All organised religion have too much blood on their hands
 
stuartw_b said:
I wonder if people will just except the fact that we die and become compost rather than this need to believe there is something tangible at the end.
Click to expand...

So what is stopping us becoming compost right now?

The fact is the Body is always dead...Its the soul that makes it appear alive.

From a molecular level a dead person is no different in matter than when he/she was alive.

So your argument is flawed.
 
easyrider said:
So what is stopping us becoming compost right now?

The fact is the Body is always dead...Its the soul that makes it appear alive.

From a molecular level a dead person is no different in matter than when he/she was alive.

So your argument is flawed.
Click to expand...

So an animal has a soul? they seem very alive to me? what is a soul?
 
MrRoper said:
So an animal has a soul? they seem very alive to me? what is a soul?
Click to expand...

Of course an animal has a soul.

Soul is the essence of being.

You distinguish this every day of your life.

You don't say "I head hurts" you say "my head hurts" You have alread made the distinction between your body and soul
 
Take the motorcar

Its just a mass of mechanical bits leave it unattented in a car park and it will eventually turn to dust.

Now animate the Car with a driver "the Soul" the car appears alive...Its fed with fuel in order for it run...Its maintained and will run for a good few years if cared for correctly. We change tyres we change oil filters we change engines just like we have lung transplants, heart transplants, tooth fillings

When the car is old the driver leaves the car and the car appears dead..It will sit in the car park for 1000 years and eventually turn to dust.

The driver then finds a new car learns from the experience of driving the old one and becomes a better driver

Much like the soul and the body. The driver..."the soul" makes the person appear alive. When the driver "the soul" leaves the body it will stay in the car park and eventually turn to dust.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Take the motorcar

Its just a mass of mechanical bits leave it unattented in a car park and it will eventually turn to dust.

Now animate the Car with a driver "the Soul" the car appears alive...Its fed with fuel in order for it run...Its maintained and will run for a good few years if cared for correctly. We change tyres we change oil filters we change engines just like we have lung transplants, heart transplants, tooth fillings

When the car is old the driver leaves the car and the car appears dead..It will sit in the car park for 1000 years and eventually turn to dust.

The driver then finds a new car learns from the experience of driving the old one and becomes a better driver

Much like the soul and the body. The driver..."the soul" makes the person appear alive when the driver "the soul" leaves the body it will stay in the car park and eventually turn to dust.
Click to expand...

Nice metaphor. Apart from the fact that there's absolutely no reason to apply it to real life... cars!=people.
 
Naffa said:
I know this will turn into another circular debate, but before we reach the point of no return, I thought it would be cool to have a poll of OcUKistic convictions.

I don't want it to be too complex, but if there are any large and obvious positions/groups that I have omitted, point them out.

Are you a:

Christian
Muslim
Jew
Buddhist
Hindu
Sikh
Deist
Agnostic
Pantheist
Atheist

I don't want to add all the denominations of each monotheism, as I want the poll to be more of a demographic than a list of every person's individual position.

Also, as there will no doubt be dispute and debate as to what each of the above words mean (as there should), a short explanation of how you interpret it would be swell. :) But, be prepared to be challenged.

Personally, I am an atheist. It's a position based upon doubt, and reason. I didn't decide to become one, I merely realised that's what I was, after noting a number of things about the universe. I do not know that there is no god, or creater, or that there ever was. Realising that there is no way that anybody can know, it became obvious that anybody claiming to know was infinitely more likely to be wrong, than right. I have reasoned that the probability of god's existence is far less than the probability of god's nonexistence. I suppose, the scale of our universe is one reason, the fact that it is not fine-tuned for the existence of life and some others that I will save until the time is right. ;)

POLL PLEASE!
Click to expand...

I'm nothing from the above-described. I waste no time on religion nor actively search myself a label to describe my position on it.

Never interested in the past, not interested now. For others to squabble about.
 
When I call my dog Zappa he will come to me.

When Zappa's soul leaves the body I could call him for 1000 years and he will never come.

Zappa in essence is the same but the dead Zappa has no soul. In fact Zappa the body is always dead its only the soul Zappa that makes the dog appear alive.

That is the only difference on any level
 
I was Christened Greek Orthodox, whilst I do not necessarily follow my religion closely these days, I still hold some beliefs, and am certainly a spiritual person. Whilst I'm disappointed in myself for having lost a fair bit of my faith, I still enjoy going to a church and discussing the virtues and morality that some religious views bring about.

I personally feel that religion can live side by side in modern society, and appreciate modernist dioceses that try to integrate modern values with the staple ones that Christianity (and others) bring to our lives.

I'm not a bible basher, I have my beliefs, maybe not in an ultimate God, or ethereal power, however, I certainly believe we are in a transitionary state of existence and there is more to life than our physical form.

Take love for example, it's something that transcends everything, and something so powerful no one can define it or explain it - it's intangible yet has the power to influence us, control us and bring us joy and despair. I know this is just one example, but if that's how one of these conditions behaves, why can not other spiritualities affect us in the same way?

I don't feel sad or sorry for people who are atheists, they have chosen to go down that path, and are happy with that decision. Everyone has the opportunity to accept a faith in their life or not - everyone has a form of religion whether or not they choose to call it a "religion" or not is another story.

What I don't understand is the vitriolic response or incredulity that people show when you do admit to being a Christian and having certain beliefs. Whilst calling myself Christian is possibly a little erroneous I'm certainly spiritual and open minded to a greater ethereal prescence/mind/existence. However, I'd like to feel I live by Christian values - whether that means I get shafted or not well too bad, at least I'm doing the right thing by my standards. :)

However, to add a little controversy to my post, I also do believe in evolution and free will. However, I don't see why one cannot believe in both as they can tie hand in hand with one another easily enough.
 
AcidHell2 said:
They don't voice that exactly. They are well aware the variations, problems and redudent body parts. That means they do not think that they are perfect designs. You are mixing in creationism opinions.

How can you say we don't use redundant parts. We do it all the time.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but we dont, we may reuse components that have redundant parts on them, but those components as a whole still have a use.

We wouldnt build something and then put a part on that as a whole has no use

Intelligent Design would suggest that every part of an animal has a use as each and every animal was the product of a design. even if some parts of that component is redundant the component as a whole should have a use.

If this is the case why do some animals have eyes that will never need to use them?

Why are some features that are benificial missing from similar species?

Why have decisions been made that mean more materials are used than necessery?

Why do males have nipples?
 
AcidHell2 said:
It doesn't in the slightest. No evidence in evolution. Goes against the predictive data of ID.
Click to expand...

Some of the evidence in support of evolution is the sequence of certain genes or alelles in genes that pretty much prove that they came about randomly. This goes against the basic premise of ID that all is designed. Therefore ID cannot use all of the evidence of Evolution because some of it disproves ID. It can indeed use a lot of it, but certainly not all.

AcidHell2 said:
It's a scientific theory, it wasn't created to debunk I'D. ID wasn't even about back then.
Click to expand...

I was talking about ID not evolution. Evolution is indeed a scientific theory. ID is effectively propoganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom