Thread: Extended Discussion 2009 Religious Affiliation Census

I have no affiliation; an atheist.

EDIT: The poll isn't working!

If you get the poll working, be sure to stick Naturalistic Pantheism in there so I can vote

Polls work for me

Whut polls?

Poll added at request.

I am a Deist; I dont really know what I need to specify. If you want to know about Deism read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason.

animist

Apathetic. None of these "fundamental questions about life" really matter to me anymore. If there even is objective truth I've submitted to the fact that its beyond us and far greater than myself. I used to think about these things all the time, but I've found it just distracts me from more productive activities I could be doing in this short window of time we have here.

100% unsure about everything I perceive, and 100% uninterested either way.

Originally Posted by Speesh

Apathetic. None of these "fundamental questions about life" really matter to me anymore. If there even is objective truth I've submitted to the fact that its beyond us and far greater than myself. I used to think about these things all the time, but I've found it just distracts me from more productive activities I could be doing in this short window of time we have here.

100% unsure about everything I perceive, and 100% uninterested either way.

What a boring, unsatisfactory life you must lead, not caring about anything and being completely unsure about everything.

Jehovah's Witness, though I am currently disfellowshipped (not a recognized member of the congregation until I straighten my life out).

Atheist. I believe in God about like I believe in the Great Pumpkin. Technically, though, I think there is a higher likelihood that the Great Pumpkin exists than there is that God exists.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

What a boring, unsatisfactory life you must lead, not caring about anything and being completely unsure about everything.

Hehe, that's an awful lot of bold assumptions you're making about my personal life based on the 5 sentences I typed. On the contrary, I forget about that elusive higher nature of reality and indulge myself in the tangible one in front of me. The way I see it, whatever happens to us is going to happen, there's really no point sitting here trying to predict what it is. Just because I don't care about why we exist doesn't mean I don't care about life itself!

I'm an atheist. But I acknowledge that there's still is a small chance that a god may exists.

Originally Posted by Speesh

Hehe, that's an awful lot of bold assumptions you're making about my personal life based on the 5 sentences I typed. On the contrary, I forget about that elusive higher nature of reality and indulge myself in the tangible one in front of me. The way I see it, whatever happens to us is going to happen, there's really no point sitting here trying to predict what it is. Just because I don't care about why we exist doesn't mean I don't care about life itself!

I was just kidding

But the way you worded that made it sound like you go through life like a scared child in the woods or something.

Christian, agnostic. I don't reject the idea that God (or any other deity) may not exist.

But the fact that so many reject the mere possibility of such an existence, solely based on the fact that there is "no proof" of it, is just fucking stupid, and makes for a great display of how many people claim they're supporters of science, but in reality contradict all the main principles of science. Real scientists don't even touch upon the subject of religion; they're brave enough to say "I don't know" regarding subjects they don't understand, because they realize it's impossible to truly disprove anything. Instead of wasting all their time arguing against religion and attacking the religious - as atheists do nonstop - they spend their time looking for alternate explanations. They have no bias because real science doesn't allow for bias. Real scientists...are unfathomably wiser and more intelligent than the ignorant, self-proclaimed supporters of (pseudo)logic that can be found by the dozen within the ranks of atheists. No offense, but you know you see us in exactly the same way, so I'm not inclined to feel sorry for any offense I may cause.

To me, there are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: A) There is no explanation, the universe always been there, or B) something had to create it.

I refuse to support A on the grounds that I believe everything has a beginning; everything will come to an end; everything will begin anew. The things that happen within the universe are all about cycles. Why shouldn't the universe itself be cyclical?

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

If anyone wants to rip me a new asshole for my beliefs, that's fine...I'd like twelve of 'em, personally. Yay, I've got a Charlie Brown ghost ass!

The idea of a god creating the universe is as viable as the idea that the sun is held together by the will of the great pumkin, and not gravity. your points are ridiculous and show you ahve no understanding of science at all.

If there is no proof for something, it cannot be discussed really. The big bang theory is an observation. It's called red shift. You, sir, are the ignorant one here

Anyone who accepts religion but questions god is just as deluded as the next guy. I suppose you also dislike people who don't believe in the tooth fairy or santa clause just because there isn't any proof?

Again, you are the only person here who's logic is flawed. Noone disproved god. They said that the idea is unprovable, baseless and therefore wrong and not even worth discussing.

Was your first impression when you saw a mountain "Wow that must have been created"?

Thanks Roxxor. I didn't want to have to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

But the fact that so many reject the mere possibility of such an existence, solely based on the fact that there is "no proof" of it, is just fucking stupid,

Is that the sole reason most people reject the idea of god? I'd say it runs a little deeper than that in many cases. Would you agree that there is not a monster made of spaghetti who controls the universe? There's no evidence for that, either, and I'd venture to guess that you hold the existence of that monster about as likely as most atheists hold the typical notion of god. That being so, where do you see the difference between your regard of the spaghetti monster and an atheist's regard for god?

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Real scientists don't even touch upon the subject of religion; they're brave enough to say "I don't know" regarding subjects they don't understand, because they realize it's impossible to truly disprove anything.

Saying you don't know when you don't is fine. That's just honesty. But being unable to commit to a belief because it's "wrong" is not bravery. In the case where someone thinks they do know, what do you call this? Your comments here seem to imply that it is necessarily arrogance in this case. Do you accept that denying the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other conceivable thing, circumstance or situation) is also arrogance on the grounds that it cannot truly be disproven? If not, what is the difference?

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Instead of wasting all their time arguing against religion and attacking the religious - as atheists do nonstop - they spend their time looking for alternate explanations.

I submit that what you call "arguing against religion and attacking the religious" in many cases is an offering of an alternate explanation (and in the context of an argument, an invitation for one as well). Explanations aren't any good if people don't believe them or can't understand them. Attempting to facilitate the exchange of these ideas is not a bad thing. That the exchange is often hard-headed and vitriolic is not at all to the point.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

To me, there are only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: A) There is no explanation, the universe always been there, or B) something had to create it.

I refuse to support A on the grounds that I believe everything has a beginning; everything will come to an end; everything will begin anew. The things that happen within the universe are all about cycles. Why shouldn't the universe itself be cyclical?

Is a part necessarily representative of the whole it's contained within? Clocks indicate the time, but gears and batteries by themselves don't do much of anything. If the parts of a clock cannot individually tell time, then a whole clock should not be able to tell time by that reasoning. But what is the universe other than the collection of things within it? Shouldn't that be like saying that if a ball is round, then a pile of balls must also be round? It seems to me that a group of things does not inherently have the form or function of the things it is comprised of on a level other than the level of the individual thing. The universe seems much the same way. Things work vastly differently on a scale of millions of lightyears than they do on the scale of fractions of a millimetre. If it was even at every magnification, it would appear and function more or less the same at every level of zoom.

For that matter, is the idea that "things that happen within the universe are all about cycles" even true? Do you really mean all things or just some things?

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

Duhhhhhhhhhh...

Sorry but this is the standard response you'll be getting now for trying to speak authoritatively on a subject you clearly have no clue about.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

...And I didn't even list the Big Bang theory since, frankly, it's really not even worth discussing, it's so groundless. It doesn't have so much as a particle of the supporting evidence that evolution has.

What about the Cosmic Microwave Background?

And red shift.

Like I said, he's just making shit up as he goes along.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

If anyone wants to rip me a new asshole for my beliefs, that's fine...I'd like twelve of 'em, personally. Yay, I've got a Charlie Brown ghost ass!

That's 5 new assholes. Can we get 7 more?

The option most representative of my beliefs was atheism, though that's not what I believe at all.