The highly clichéd religion thread

[Tyler]

Yup. Here we go. I guess the closest term that fits me is agnostic, I'm not really sure what I believe in. I don't believe in any kind of god or goddess, but I don't deny the possibility that they may exist. I don't like any of the explanations that any religion or scientist can give me about how the universe came to be or how life started. I would like to try different types of "magick", suck as sigil magick and chaos magick, but there is this nag in the back of my mind that says that they won't work even if I try them. I've given thought to the whole "God is in everything and everybody" idea, pantheism I think (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm not sure. Same goes about the thought that "God" is really just Nature and that it is unbiased and not judgmental. I can't find any belief or set of beliefs that really sit well with me. I'm really not sure what the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, but feel free to say what you want, just please keep trolling/insulting to a minimum.

[no-Name]

Why do you believe what you believe?

[Tyler]

Why do you believe what you believe? That's the thing. I really don't believe in anything. I've just given thought to different ideas.

[Maria92]

Thinking is good. You must find a set of beliefs that work for you. Do some research into world religions, look up alternative schools of thought, and mull them over. Do you like what you see? Keep it. No? Ditch it. Always be willing to keep an open mind and adjust your school of thought. No matter what you go with, keep this. Also remember that there isn't anything out there that says you have to have a solid set of beliefs. Analyze what you know, what you don't know, what makes sense to you, and if you like, try to piece together your own, unique set of beliefs.

[DuB]

"Agnosticism" is atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is not a deity, it's anything other than the belief that there is a deity--including "I don't know." You either explicitly believe in a deity (theism), or you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a third option, it's at best a type of atheism.

[Xei]

Why you not subscribe to scientific viewpoints? If you have a genuine desire to know the truth rather than some superficially comforting concepts (I've never personally understood how self-delusion works), then it's probably a good idea to listen to what the scientists say. All science means is 'if evidence and rational thought leads us to believe it's true, let's take it as true'. I'm guessing by creation of the universe you mean the Big Bang (which is purely a product of unshakeable observed facts about the universe) and by creation of life you mean evolution (which is again extremely well established empirically) or abiogenesis (where we don't really have any fundamental gaps in understanding how it could have happened).

[Xaqaria]

"Agnosticism" is atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is not a deity, it's anything other than the belief that there is a deity--including "I don't know." You either explicitly believe in a deity (theism), or you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a third option, it's at best a type of atheism. Always playing the recruiter, Dub. Why you not subscribe to scientific viewpoints? If you have a genuine desire to know the truth rather than some superficially comforting concepts (I've never personally understood how self-delusion works), then it's probably a good idea to listen to what the scientists say. All science means is 'if evidence and rational thought leads us to believe it's true, let's take it as true'. I'm guessing by creation of the universe you mean the Big Bang (which is purely a product of unshakeable observed facts about the universe) and by creation of life you mean evolution (which is again extremely well established empirically) or abiogenesis (where we don't really have any fundamental gaps in understanding how it could have happened). I don't get it. You say you don't know how self delusion works and then delude yourself. No fact is unshakable. Your confidence in things you have not directly studied/witnessed yourself is a form of self delusion. It is the kind of confidence that hampers exploration more than helps. Fable, don't feel as though you need to change because everyone else wants you to make up your mind. It is my belief that your position is the best one to be in to really gain insight about the world around you. You are in the perfect position to attempt to learn about the world as it is revealed to you, as opposed to how it is presented through other people and their world views.

[Xei]

Your confidence in things you have not directly studied/witnessed yourself is a form of self delusion. Amazing. Try that one in the courtroom.

[Xaqaria]

Amazing. Try that one in the courtroom. which is purely a product of unshakeable observed facts about the universe. Try this one in a court room. It sounds like part of the opening statements of one of those ambulance chaser lawyers that tries to convince the jury he must be right before he even presents any facts. Hopefully if you do ever make it into a position of legitimate scientific research, you hold yourself to higher standards of rigor than what are sought in the legal system. When trying to figure out how the whole of the universe actually works, beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough.

[Xei]

I'm a mathematician. I know a thing or two abour rigour. Unfortunately there's no such thing as 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the material world. It is not possible to prove that, for example, whenever an object is dropped in a vacuum, it will fall with constant acceleration. However, given that in millions of experiments the result has been to verify my hypothesis and in zero experiments has my hypothesis been nullified (it would only take one demonstratable result), the most rational thing to do is to hypothesise that in general objects do indeed fall with constant acceleration in vacuums, as there is a lot of evidence for it and no evidence against it. That's how science works. You can never prove a hypothesis, but you'd be an idiot to believe a contradictory one.

[Xaqaria]

I'm a mathematician. I know a thing or two abour rigour. Unfortunately there's no such thing as 'beyond reasonable doubt' in the material world. It is not possible to prove that, for example, whenever an object is dropped in a vacuum, it will fall with constant acceleration. However, given that in millions of experiments the result has been to verify my hypothesis and in zero experiments has my hypothesis been nullified (it would only take one demonstratable result), the most rational thing to do is to hypothesise that in general objects do indeed fall with constant acceleration in vacuums, as there is a lot of evidence for it and no evidence against it. That's how science works. You can never prove a hypothesis, but you'd be an idiot to believe a contradictory one. I didn't argue against any of that, except for maybe the part where you call me an idiot. (just kidding, I'm sure you mean the general you ) We are no where near (as a species) as sure of the big bang and abiogenesis, however, as we are of constant acceleration in a vacuum, and your labeling of "unshakable facts" betrays your bias. Edit: don't take this as a snide comment, but I didn't realize you graduated already Xei. What sort of things are you using your degree for?

[O'nus]

Yup. Here we go. I guess the closest term that fits me is agnostic, I'm not really sure what I believe in. In the strict sense, Agnostics are those who believe it is impossible to ever know. I don't believe in any kind of god or goddess, but I don't deny the possibility that they may exist. I believe the exact same thing, except I am an Atheist. Atheism does not explicitly mean that you believe it is impossible for God to exist. I don't like any of the explanations that any religion or scientist can give me about how the universe came to be or how life started. Evolution..? No one ought to claim anything they do not know yet. Abiogenesis is still being studied. I would like to try different types of "magick", suck as sigil magick and chaos magick, but there is this nag in the back of my mind that says that they won't work even if I try them. See James Randi. I've given thought to the whole "God is in everything and everybody" idea, pantheism I think (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm not sure. Same goes about the thought that "God" is really just Nature and that it is unbiased and not judgmental. This is generally what I believe.. ..and I am an Atheist. I can't find any belief or set of beliefs that really sit well with me. I'm really not sure what the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, but feel free to say what you want, just please keep trolling/insulting to a minimum. It's always good to ask questions. It's always good to seek to be proven wrong - because that is the act of learning. It's always good to ask for discussion. This is what I believe. What do you think...? ~

[Xei]

I didn't argue against any of that, except for maybe the part where you call me an idiot. (just kidding, I'm sure you mean the general you ) We are no where near (as a species) as sure of the big bang and abiogenesis, however, as we are of constant acceleration in a vacuum, and your labeling of "unshakable facts" betrays your bias. The Big Bang is pretty iron cast. Galaxies are flying away from each other (empirically sound). Wind the tape backwards and what do you have? A singularity. Big Bang theory is often mistaken for a lot of things that it isn't; the above is all that it is. An observation followed by the basic application of human thought. You're right that abiogenesis cannot be observed directly, but science encompasses rational thinking as well as observation. We've observed and understand all the basic components required for abiogenesis (for example we've observed that the 'building blocks' of life self assemble in primeval conditions by recreating those conditions; we've observed that some of these building blocks self assemble into basic cell walls, etcetera), so there's no reason that life shouldn't have arisen by abiogenesis, and as there has never been any observation of any other mechanism by which it could have happened, along with the observation that it did indeed happen, rational thought leads us to conclude that abiogenesis occurred. Edit: don't take this as a snide comment, but I didn't realize you graduated already Xei. What sort of things are you using your degree for? You don't become a mathematician on graduation. I'm currently studying analysis which is almost the very definition of rigour. There are various extremely obvious things which you have to prove, like... say you draw a line on a piece of graph paper without taking the pencil off. We're not allowed to assume (i.e. we're required to prove) that if the line ends up higher at one end than the other, then you have covered every vertical height inbetween somewhere along the line. My aim in life is to go into theoretical neuroscience so after my degree I'm likely doing a PhD in neuroscience. I'm in education for the long run. :x

[Xaqaria]

The Big Bang is pretty iron cast. Galaxies are flying away from each other (empirically sound). Wind the tape backwards and what do you have? A singularity. Big Bang theory is often mistaken for a lot of things that it isn't; the above is all that it is. An observation followed by the basic application of human thought. You're right that abiogenesis cannot be observed directly, but science encompasses rational thinking as well as observation. We've observed and understand all the basic components required for abiogenesis (for example we've observed that the 'building blocks' of life self assemble in primeval conditions by recreating those conditions; we've observed that some of these building blocks self assemble into basic cell walls, etcetera), so there's no reason that life shouldn't have arisen by abiogenesis, and as there has never been any observation of any other mechanism by which it could have happened, along with the observation that it did indeed happen, rational thought leads us to conclude that abiogenesis occurred. You don't become a mathematician on graduation. The problem I have with assuming big bang theory is true is that it assumes that the universe is the same everywhere. Even if it is only our locale that is expanding, it would still effect the light from distant galaxies in such a way that they would appear to be moving away from us. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, we may know that this is a possible form of life creation but it is far from the only observed possibility. I would say genetic engineering is just as much evidence that the formation of life on this planet could have been directed by an outside influence as amino acids forming in a test tube (or whatever apparatus was used) is evidence for life springing up from ocean vents. You don't become a mathematician on graduation. In that case, I'm a physicist

[Indecent Exposure]

I can't find any belief or set of beliefs that really sit well with me. I'm really not sure what the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, but feel free to say what you want, just please keep trolling/insulting to a minimum. Surely you need not search for a "set of beliefs". Go through life taking from it what you will and in your own time come to your own conclusions. That's why religion is so absurd, in a room of 50 you'd be hard pressed to find 5 people who agree with each other regarding ghosts, yet we have a billion people who all agree on the origins of the universe, morality, and much more.

[Abra]

"Agnosticism" is atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is not a deity, it's anything other than the belief that there is a deity--including "I don't know." You either explicitly believe in a deity (theism), or you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a third option, it's at best a type of atheism. I always find myself thinking this, but noone else ever said it before.

[DuB]

Always playing the recruiter, Dub. I always find myself thinking this, but noone else ever said it before. Recruiter is an interesting characterization considering how rarely I stick my nose in the religion forum. As long as this thread is intended as a place to dump our more or less random thoughts on the subject, I thought I would call attention to a slight semantic annoyance that has always irked me a bit, in the same way that it might slightly annoy you to hear someone consistently misuse any term at all. It's all there in the words, really: theism, atheism. First, the two terms are exhaustive. Second, the prefix 'a-', as you know, denotes not, without, or lacking. It does not denote anything like against or opposed (as in 'contra-' or 'anti-'). In other words, unless you explicitly identify as theist, you are by definition a-theist. Simple.

[Taosaur]

I always find myself thinking this, but noone else ever said it before. Lol, someone hasn't been reading R/S much. Both atheists and theists (when they poke their heads above ground in here) pretty regularly try to annex agnosticism for their side, which I find absurd. If someone feels they're best described as "agnostic" at the moment, they probably have their reasons. If we're going to play the etymology and semantics game, the prefix "a-" is generally used for a stronger dissociation than "un-" and a less oppositional stance than "anti-," so an "a-theist" should properly be someone with a worldview that has no relation to theism or to which theism is irrelevant. Those who emulate Dawkins, defining their ideological priorities and positions in direct opposition to the most conservative Christian denominations, can hardly lay claim to that title.

[DuB]

I call etymology/semantics game foul.

[O'nus]

Lol, someone hasn't been reading R/S much. Both atheists and theists (when they poke their heads above ground in here) pretty regularly try to annex agnosticism for their side, which I find absurd. If someone feels they're best described as "agnostic" at the moment, they probably have their reasons. We can also say that the gnostic is etymologically related to knowledge. Juxtaposed with "a-" making it "without knowledge". Which side makes claims of knowledge? Atheists or Theists? We ought to define claiming knowledge. We ought to define it as "declaring a knowledge in something". Does this mean with or without evidence? Is it relevant? Not in this case. In this case, all that is relevant is claiming knowledge. Theists claim to know about God and his characteristics. Atheists do not claim to know about God nor about the origins of the universe. Atheists cannot claim to know anything for certain, only beyond scientifically proven doubt. That is the best claim of knowledge they can assert. What now..? If we're going to play the etymology and semantics game, the prefix "a-" is generally used for a stronger dissociation than "un-" and a less oppositional stance than "anti-," so an "a-theist" should properly be someone with a worldview that has no relation to theism or to which theism is irrelevant. Those who emulate Dawkins, defining their ideological priorities and positions in direct opposition to the most conservative Christian denominations, can hardly lay claim to that title. Can hardly lay claim to which title..? I don't quite get what you are saying at the end. ~

[Taosaur]

Can hardly lay claim to which title..? I don't quite get what you are saying at the end. I'm saying that a great many of those who identify positively as atheists are not atheists at all in the sense I was describing. Their ideology is intimately related to (one might say derived from) a specific theistic lineage, and might best be described as "antitheism." Atheism in the Dawkins vein is a child of the Church of England and cousin of American Protestantism. I call etymology/semantics game foul. What now..? Now I would say abandon the semantic argument and accept that these terms are defined contextually in modern usage. While I may say that those who positively assert atheism are not atheists at all, semantically, "atheist" is nevertheless the term that has adhered to their ideology. Perhaps that usage has shifted more people toward agnosticism who might otherwise fit into a more broadly defined atheism, but the positive or hard atheists who have largely co-opted the term do not claim to be "without knowledge." Their position rests largely upon having enough knowledge to refute specific claims of their parent branch of theism.

[Stygian]

Yup. Here we go. I guess the closest term that fits me is agnostic, I'm not really sure what I believe in. <B>I don't believe in any kind of god or goddess, but I don't deny the possibility that they may exist.</B> I don't like any of the explanations that any religion or scientist can give me about how the universe came to be or how life started. I would like to try different types of "magick", suck as sigil magick and chaos magick, but there is this nag in the back of my mind that says that they won't work even if I try them. I've given thought to the whole "God is in everything and everybody" idea, pantheism I think (correct me if I'm wrong) and I'm not sure. Same goes about the thought that "God" is really just Nature and that it is unbiased and not judgmental. I can't find any belief or set of beliefs that really sit well with me. I'm really not sure what the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, but feel free to say what you want, just please keep trolling/insulting to a minimum. You are a weak atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

[Indecent Exposure]

I'm saying that a great many of those who identify positively as atheists are not atheists at all in the sense I was describing. Their ideology is intimately related to (one might say derived from) a specific theistic lineage, and might best be described as "antitheism." Atheism in the Dawkins vein is a child of the Church of England and cousin of American Protestantism. Now I would say abandon the semantic argument and accept that these terms are defined contextually in modern usage. While I may say that those who positively assert atheism are not atheists at all, semantically, "atheist" is nevertheless the term that has adhered to their ideology. Perhaps that usage has shifted more people toward agnosticism who might otherwise fit into a more broadly defined atheism, but the positive or hard atheists who have largely co-opted the term do not claim to be "without knowledge." Their position rests largely upon having enough knowledge to refute specific claims of their parent branch of theism. I don't think your making much sense. Let me try and summarize your suggestion that most atheists aren't atheists. Atheism means a lack of belief, however, a great deal of "atheists" are not only non believers, but they are directly opposed to theism, thus not atheists? I may have completely misinterpreted your argument, however, if I've got it correct that really doesn't make sense. Since you can be both an atheist and an anti theist. The two can exist in perfect harmony. I am an atheist because I profess no belief in a deity, I am an anti theist because I am directly opposed to theism.

[O'nus]

I'm saying that a great many of those who identify positively as atheists are not atheists at all in the sense I was describing. Their ideology is intimately related to (one might say derived from) a specific theistic lineage, and might best be described as "antitheism." Atheism in the Dawkins vein is a child of the Church of England and cousin of American Protestantism. Sorry, what? You are saying that "Dawkin's Atheists" are actually Protestant? Perhaps you could explain how? I do not see any dictations or holy scripture from Dawkins.. or any Atheism for that matter. It seems you are simply not allowing the idea of Atheism, that is inclined to still potentially believe in a God, to exist without being called a "Theist in disguise"?? Now I would say abandon the semantic argument and accept that these terms are defined contextually in modern usage. While I may say that those who positively assert atheism are not atheists at all, semantically, "atheist" is nevertheless the term that has adhered to their ideology. Perhaps that usage has shifted more people toward agnosticism who might otherwise fit into a more broadly defined atheism, but the positive or hard atheists who have largely co-opted the term do not claim to be "without knowledge." Their position rests largely upon having enough knowledge to refute specific claims of their parent branch of theism. Oh, well firstly, I am not really going to argue that Agnostics are "actually" Atheist or Theist at all. Agnostics are Agnostics. Though, I would say that they often seem to be leaning towards Atheism (in my experience). This, however, is just personal experience with Agnostics. A mass majority of the time it is someone who is just vicariously choosing a label to get by without offending anyone and yet holding an apparent ideology (while simultaneously admitting to have none). A proposed "safe ground" which I do not think is really safe at all. Furthermore, as an Atheist, I do not have any information that I claim refutes God - it is that there is no information to prove God. I think it is incredibly disingenuous to say that naturalists (ie. Atheists, Scientists, etc.) make presumptions that their information refutes others. In opposition, the Theists make presumptions that require evidence. Evolution has evidence. Science is a system of evidence. This is what the mass majority, if not all, Atheists rely upon. It is the idea that you believe something because there is reason and evidence. Otherwise, it is only potentially true or not true at all. ~

[juroara]

its threads like this that confuse me I always thought agnosticism was one cannot know if there is or is not a God. That even if there is a God, such a God is beyond human comprehension. Meaning two things, that neither religion or our human science could describe this God, and because we could not describe or know this God beyond comprehension, we ultimately don't even know if this God even exists?