Religion and belief

Yes, there is. Religion is a specific and at least somewhat organised collection of beliefs. So belief is an absolutely essential part of religion, but religion is not an essential part of belief. For example, someone might believe that microwaves are made by elven artificer wizards and heat food with magic. That's a belief, but it might or might not be part of a religion.

They dont have faith in it though. If you showed them how it really worked they would happily accept it. If they had faith in wizards you couldn't shake their belief and you would have a microwave wizard religion. i suppose belief is temporary but faith is permanent. So that would be the distinction.

Religion = solidified beleifs.

The longer they have been solidified the more legit the religion seems.
 
Which brings me to a tangential question...why should religion be treated differently from other beliefs?

For example, if someone believed that Twilight was the most important series of books ever written, believed the books were a true accounting of events and devoted a considerable part of their life to those beliefs, they would not get automatic respect of their beliefs and they would not be able to force people to pretend to respect them. Why not? Their Twilight beliefs may be just as important to them as a theist's religious beliefs.

Because it can cause emotion harm to someone to ridicule their faith? Whereas ridiculing a simple belief might dent someones ego a little bit but it's not emotionally hurtful.

If someone was raised from infancy instilled with a faith in Twilight (and lived perfectly happily with this faith), wouldn't it be cruel to ridicule them?
 
Ive been Baptised so think 'officially' I am supposed to be Christian, but I have never been to Church or believed anything so am an atheist.

I believe science and facts so personally believe in evolution - That we all came from the sea and either grew wings and turned into birds or arms & legs and started to walk on land

I will happily go along with someone elses beliefs but do get pretty argumentative if they don't have any proper facts to back up what they are saying. E.g. A a friend saying we were made out of clay but then having no explanation for the Jurassic period and dinosaurs other than 'they were put on earth by god to test man'

This is what I believe...


 
Last edited:
Well you'll notice generally their views arent respected...By those who arent in agreement with them.

I haven't seen as much of this tbh. People who believe in a particular religion always seem to be on the defensive because of comments which include words like 'magic', 'fairy', 'brainwashed' etc.

However, back on topic, how do we define what's rational and why?
 
When you were younger and you believed in father Christmas, Did you feel better and happier? because magic was still real?

I used to go to church, believed in God as a child. Again, I felt happier as I felt there was a spirit, soul and afterlife.

Not sure why, but now I have no idea. I believe God does not exist. But I wish he did, and I want to be proven wrong, I just dont think I ever will be.

But I do miss the parts of my life where magic existed to me.

Awww, after reading that I want to give you a big hug, man!
 
What makes atheism more rational than agnosticism?

Theism is about belief in a God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe a God exists.

Gnosticism is about whether you claim knowledge that your position is correct. I can't ever know if my position is correct so I'm agnostic.

Overall, I'm an agnostic atheist. Equally, you can have gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists.
 
However, back on topic, how do we define what's rational and why?

I would say that a rational belief is one that is backed up by evidence. If belief is down to faith, then that's belief in spite of evidence which I would say is irrational.
 
Theism is about belief in a God. I'm an atheist because I don't believe a God exists.

Gnosticism is about whether you claim knowledge that your position is correct. I can't ever know if my position is correct so I'm agnostic.

Overall, I'm an agnostic atheist. Equally, you can have gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists.

Gnosticism is an early Christian Theological Movement generally regarded as heresy by mainstream Christianity rather than a particular philosophical position in the same vein as Agnosticism/Atheism/Theism et al.
 
Last edited:

God has been debated into nothing but a silly myth like Santa and the Easter Bunny now that we are largely smart enough to understand science, facts and don't blindly believe authority.
 
Sadly the majority of people starting religious threads on any discussion forum have a specific agenda. Either they want to promote religion and get everyone to join in with cheering about how great it is, or they want to have a pop at religion and get everyone to join with them in condemning it.

Either way it boils down to insecurity in belief one way or the other and some sort of view that unless lots of people ratify what the poster thinks its somehow invalid.

Others are simply posting for a row as nothing gets people going like a good old God/s smackabout.

Sometimes there is room for a serious debate but mostly it's like watching that American wrestling stuff; all show, all pants outside trousers, all fake groans.
 
Isn't there a distinction between religion and belief?

One may inform the other but I'd usually separate them in that religions are (almost) always based on a belief system but you may have beliefs without them fitting within a religious context.

Why is one or the other negative?
Why is one of the other positive?

Not a position I hold so can't help you too much there, they can both be positive or negative in their own right.

What makes atheism more rational than agnosticism?

It isn't. Agnosticism in relation to the existence of a god (any god) is the more rational position since it isn't taking a definitive viewpoint on a question that is presently (and may be for all time) unanswerable. However it might be perfectly rational to be atheist about particular religious beliefs.

Gnosticism is an early Christian Theological Movement generally regarded as heresy by mainstream Christianity rather than a particular philosophical position in the same way as Agnosticism/Atheism/Theism et al.

To take a bit of a tangent I quite like the idea of ignosticism but I don't fancy the lengthy debates that would follow about whether a meaningful definition of god exists or the problems inherent in trying to explain to people what it is.
 
So why should atheists and agnostics be respected for their views? In any discussion there should be some consideration given to all views.

But why should views of approved religions be given so much more consideration? e.g. automatic respect enforced by rules (e.g. these forums) and by law in many places (including the UK).

Your reply isn't to what I wrote in my post.
 
Because it can cause emotion harm to someone to ridicule their faith? Whereas ridiculing a simple belief might dent someones ego a little bit but it's not emotionally hurtful.

There's no difference between the two examples. Neither have any evidence or reasoning behind them. Neither has any objective relevance or importance. They are both just faith, things important only to believers and whoever those believers have power over. I even explicitly stated that each set of beliefs could be equally important to their respective believers.

You are attaching respect and importance to some collections of beliefs and not others solely on the basis of which collections are approved religions and which aren't - which illustrates my point nicely.
 
Back
Top Bottom