What is your religion?
Christian
14.3% (15)
14.3% (15)
Islam
1.9% (2)
1.9% (2)
Athiest
51.4% (54)
51.4% (54)
Agnostic
10.5% (11)
10.5% (11)
Buddhist
1% (1)
1% (1)
Judiasm
1.9% (2)
1.9% (2)
Other
17.1% (18)
17.1% (18)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: What is your religion?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

A while back, I made a post complaining about the generally negative view of Christianity on the forums, then learned that many of my fellow escapist were American atheists who were being bashed by asshole conservative Christians. I'd like to get an idea of your religious beliefs.

I consider myself an "agnostic-christian." While I subscribe to the general teachings of Christianity, but I also believe in evolution, support abortion etc. Simultaneously, I accept the possibility of my religion being wrong, others being right or no religion actually existing.

So, what are your views on religion?

I'm atheist, kopimist, pastafarian, Kurzweilist and I think Buddha had some good ideas.

I'm an agnostic theist as well. The entire definition of faith means that there has to be a degree of agnosticism in there somewhere. Everyone doubts their ideology from time to time. It gives us a chance to reflect upon our interpretations of the truth and learn from our mistakes. Even Thomas, the apostle, once doubted the resurrection of Christ and I believe that is a good example that even from the Christian point of view it is good to question your faith from time to time.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist and a Naturalist, i.e. I don't believe in supernatural things in general, not just not in gods. The supernatural has so far failed to hold up whenever it was properly investigated, be that thunder and lightning, floods, fertility, speciation, infections, volcanos or whatever else, so there's a bit of a precedent. Hypotheses need to stand on their own, not rely on a gap of knowledge to persist.

I'm an atheist, but I sometimes tell people I'm a level five laser lotus.

I'm non-religious.
I don't like to identify as an atheist as the fact that I don't believe gods exist makes up only a fraction of my worldview, and people have all these fucking prejudices against atheists and will start telling you what it is you believe and putting words in your mouth the moment you mention you're atheist.

Atheism isn't a religion by the way. It only describes one particular aspect of your worldview.
In the same way that 'theism' isn't a religion.
Even if you were to call 'theism' a religion, calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.

And why do people keep misspelling it 'athiest'?
It's so damn widespread.

I refuse to vote in this thread that has "atheism" as a religion.

Jehovah Witness

I wince every time 'atheism' is offered as a religion. Should be just "none".

Could we please have a month without this poll? Please

Atheist, but a) the proper term for the poll should be "religious views" or something and b) You spelt it wrong in the poll.

captcha: high horse

I considered going off on a rant about how agnostics suck, too. Which could fit either because of me judging them, or because one of the problems with them is that they act like they're above the argument. But I guess the captcha schooled me.

My religion is non-existent......just like so many deities. Fnar fnar fnar.....I'm so witty.

I'm a Pragmatic Agnostic, or according to Wikipedia, an Apatheist apparently.

This is the bit that I usually use to explain my beliefs to someone:

Pragmatic Agnosticism acknowledges that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities. This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

Particularly the bolded part.

I have no religion. The end.

It really doesn't get any more complicated than that for me. If I'm gonna do something I need some logical basis for it; if not, then no dice.

And, may those that believe in that stuff have a good time.

generally i would say now i'm an Apatheist (mostly because i like confusing people or perhaps prompting further conversation sometimes) a word i discovered on these very forums...though not from the guy above...in this thread :P

religion virtually plays no part in my life except externally.

its not entirely true tho as i do have a spiritual side and have long held in high regard what could be called "local folk religion" or as ive been know to call it "shit your gran tells you".

like a lot of non-believers i've read extensively on religion although originally i came to that via the rather strange route of reading adventure stories, lotr and the like, my mums books on the greek myths and then reading "mythology" in the form of some religious books (paradise lost for example).

after all, as monty python once said, old testament bible stories do "...make a cracking film!" :)

later when i reached my mid 20s to 30s and got to those years of self examination etc i read many religious books.

i discovered a great many parallels between that "local folk religion" and Taoism.

if im in a situation where i kinda have to give a religion in conversation ive previously been know to say "Taoist".

i've found this to have the rather odd effect of diffusing/disarming the inquiry much like saying "partick thistle" when asked the rather infamous "celtic or rangers ?" question while on a night out in glasgow...

i guess people find taoism rather inoffensive even if they dont know all that much about it but then again imo much of religion is as much "fandom" as the auld firm rivalry.

we have 3 major teams and loads of others in the lower divisions who all supposedly worship the same god and they manage to hate each other literally to death a great deal of the time.

i don't mind religious people at all. some of them go to honest efforts to make the world a better place. i object when some do the other. that and proselytizing.

addition - i would also probably qualify as a Humanist by most peoples outside definition.

Pagan/wiccan/practicing shaman

DJjaffacake:
I'm a Pragmatic Agnostic, or according to Wikipedia, an Apatheist apparently.

This is the bit that I usually use to explain my beliefs to someone:

Pragmatic Agnosticism acknowledges that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities. This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

Particularly the bolded part.

Isnt that in principle the same as deism? Agnostic deism?

Shock shock, I'm actually an atheist.

What I am not (and what I resent other atheists for being) is a humanist. In fact, humanism irritates me to a degree religion never will, and I'll happily take the side of religion just to reject or oppose the influence of humanism.

Frankly, anyone who insults theism as naive or cowardly while continuing to accept the existence (consciously or unconsciously) of any inherent moral component to human life or stable human subject is, in my humble opinion, a laughable hypocrite.

At least the theists have a coherent rationality, humanism is just a simple failure to follow the logical implications of what atheists actually claim to believe in the first place. Hence, I think it's the more despicable position.

I am a Christian because of my mother but I do believe in forms of evolution and often question how someone like God could have so much power to form the Earth. And if he could do it, then are there other people that should have powers too?? I mean honestly... How could a single person create an object this large? Thats where disbelief comes in on my part.

A wise man once said;

evilthecat:
Shock shock, I'm actually an atheist.

What I am not (and what I resent other atheists for being) is a humanist. In fact, humanism irritates me to a degree religion never will, and I'll happily take the side of religion just to reject or oppose the influence of humanism.

Frankly, anyone who insults theism as naive or cowardly while continuing to accept the existence (consciously or unconsciously) of any inherent moral component to human life or stable human subject is, in my humble opinion, a laughable hypocrite.

At least the theists have a coherent rationality, humanism is just a simple failure to follow the logical implications of what atheists actually claim to believe in the first place. Hence, I think it's the more despicable position.

Atheism is a general term not unlike the term "theist," the belief of which doesn't make total difference and is the way it should be viewed, theist or not; religion is a metaphor for faith. More than that, religion, philosophy, mythology, etc... Are outlets for our faith. Not that it isn't real or that it is, that's your bias, but faith is where we place the value of our soul. Or if you don't believe in a soul and simply in our organic matter then it's the value you place in your life. When you're placed in a life or death situation, dealing with strife or a great loss it's your faith that you look to - Whether your faith is placed inside yourself, a deity or some other; again, with atheists it doesn't mean they don't have faith. Their faith just isin't in some form of deity.

Over the years I've read through the buddhist texts, the bible, researched shamanism, spiritual satanism and dozens more. Even Greek mythology is a religion in itself. The point is that over the centuries we've exsisted as a race, we've created outlets for our strife fear and grief. We've given ourselves hope and the research in belief gives us insight to our past and present psyches.

-Interupting myself; most of the people I've met who are religious are increadibly ignorant and have been rude about the subject and this is the problem we face. That concept of Jah - Jah being defined as a word that symbolizes and embodies the prescence of (a )God. A word that contains and conveys the imposing and forceful nature of God, the ignorance and purity that can be granted from - Along with the wrath and judgement that can come from disbelief in its ignorance and power. A term for worship of the one God(or ruler of Gods among many) and how his/her power controls all, the disobedience of which will lead to the person's abolishment from the precieved grace.
Holy wars, sacrifices and unspecific hate crimes being a bias of that mentality; this is the problem we face with general with ignorance or blind faith. Blind faith is redundant in the sense that faith is generally blind, it's an excuse for and even a form of being ignorant ; Blinding yourself to the world around you. But just because you have faith(theist or not) doesn't mean you need to be ignorant.

This is my general comment on religion and belief, it's not a bad thing at all, I personally find religion, mythology, philosophy, etc... increadibly interesting. But if I tried to touch everything I could about the subject, I could write a book.

For my personal view of religion, I believe in chakras(pin points of the soul, the spirit's symbolism, power and outlets/inlets of energy.) and the power of spirit but I believe in this out of mythologic or religious context - I believe in the power of my self, my soul and acknowledge my soul as a part of my existence. I believe in spirits in the astral plane and that there are powerful entities among these dimensions that create our various realities but I pay no homage to any specific or various gods/supernatural beings. I have no current notion that a spiritual being could have created our world and life. My view of life and answer for life is the philosphy of monad, which really isn't a total philosophy but it pertains to the reality of life and its mocking nature.

I'd also like to apologize for my wall of text but I felt it needed to be said.

Also, my reason for this being my first post is because when I saw the forum page "Religion and Politics" I laughed really hard thinking about all the BS that would be on it and all the starving trolls taking low shots. I'm very impressed with how civil and respectful the posts are. As well as how accepting the people are of other's opinions.

evilthecat:
Shock shock, I'm actually an atheist.

What I am not (and what I resent other atheists for being) is a humanist. In fact, humanism irritates me to a degree religion never will, and I'll happily take the side of religion just to reject or oppose the influence of humanism.

Frankly, anyone who insults theism as naive or cowardly while continuing to accept the existence (consciously or unconsciously) of any inherent moral component to human life or stable human subject is, in my humble opinion, a laughable hypocrite.

At least the theists have a coherent rationality, humanism is just a simple failure to follow the logical implications of what atheists actually claim to believe in the first place. Hence, I think it's the more despicable position.

How do you determine whether they believe the component is inherent? In practice acknowledging that it is not inherent doesn't have to change anything in particular.

Mortai Gravesend:
How do you determine whether they believe the component is inherent?

Generally, by looking for appeals to concepts as transhistorical. Occasionally just because they say so. :P

Mortai Gravesend:
In practice acknowledging that it is not inherent doesn't have to change anything in particular.

In day to day individual terms, maybe not really.

But then, that kind of prioritization of the value of individual experience over any concerns about structural functioning is pretty humanist in and of itself. I mean, people appeal to elements of human experience as transhistorical all the time, it's a common rhetorical device, and it has become so because of the social influence these concepts have acquired.

So no, I would argue that it changes a lot. It sets the foundations of what it's reasonable to believe and can say about reality itself.

adamtm:

DJjaffacake:
I'm a Pragmatic Agnostic, or according to Wikipedia, an Apatheist apparently.

This is the bit that I usually use to explain my beliefs to someone:

Pragmatic Agnosticism acknowledges that thousands of years of debate have neither proven, nor dis-proven, the existence of one or more deities. This view concludes that even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

Particularly the bolded part.

Isnt that in principle the same as deism? Agnostic deism?

Similar, but not the same.

An Agnostic deist acknowledges that they cannot prove the existence of a god or gods, but still believes they exist, but do not intervene in mortal affairs.

A Pragmatic Agnostic accepts that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, but believes it is irrelevant, as any that do exist appear unconcerned with mortal affairs.

I see where you're coming from, they're quite similar, but not the same.

No religion. Which isn't to say I'm an atheist, I'm not. But all religions are complete fiction.

I'm a athiest but I am a athiest that really doesn't care.

Non-religious. Gnostic Atheist in regards to most god-concepts I've read about/heard of/come across (I know for example that Zeus does not live on top of Mount Olympus - we've been there, no gods were found), Agnostic Atheist in regards to a few (including omnipotents like the modern christian God).

Religions for the most part, I see as harmless if vestigial cultural institutions, that do not contribute anything unique to society nor are necessary for a healthy modern civilization, but as they stand do provide a limited array of services which have positive impact, while also upholding some aspects of culture with negative impacts that we really could do without (such as the whole creationism or abortion debates, or Catholic church in relation to condoms and sexual abuse).

What I believe is that the universe is real, that it can be learned about, is internally coherent and my senses give mostly accurate information about it. Most would call me a Naturalist. I do not believe anything 'supernatural' exists. And I also believe that if a god really exists and wishes us to know it, he/she/it/they are superbly poor communicators.

I'm an Atheist but I'm not one to claim religion is evil or has no value. The basic tenants of Christianity sound pretty good. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, love thy neighbour, all that good stuff. It's just the bullshit, the un-moving old-fashioned values and the bigotry that's sprung up around it that I have major problems with.

Plus for all the good ideas in there, believing there's a giant man in the clouds watching and guiding us all is just something so ludicrous as a concept that I could never get behind it.

I used to identity as agnostic before atheists co-opted it as "atheism-lite" so I really don't know what I am a now so I just say I'm a theist and leave it at that.

I'm a negative atheist. I don't completely rule out the small possibility of there actually being one or more deities up there somewhere, but I am really in disbelief that they exist.

I am an agnostic atheist.

As an agnostic I claim a lack of knowledge of god. This means I do no know or claim to know for a fact that god exists or does not exist.

As an atheist I claim a lack of faith in god. This means I do not pray, or hold any belief in a higher power.

evilthecat:

Mortai Gravesend:
How do you determine whether they believe the component is inherent?

Generally, by looking for appeals to concepts as transhistorical. Occasionally just because they say so. :P

Could I ask what "appeals to concepts as transhistorical" means? You've got me curious, but I don't understand that word.

Atheist is a sloppy, non-explanatory term that I prefer not to use. I instead much prefer "Metaphysical naturalist", as it's much more descriptive of the claims I actually make about reality, and not the ones I don't make.

But monad being taken not in a gnostic point of view but looking at the term in a more naturalist context. Taking interest in the philosophy for that one singularity. when I speak it is absolute, when I say something it's exactly the truth of my knowledge and actual(to my perception) fact. Even though what I say or think may not be actual or real, it is what is displayed and presented as reality, hence making it real(to our perception) . This is the universe yawning at us, mocking us. although I feel and see things as limpid, it is only limpid to my mental workings.

Monad is the basic point that creates life, it is root of all things living and stretches farther to our psychology. It is the starting aspect of life and what fabricates our reality. It is in nature the most limpid, simple thing but it serves the greater roll of creating existance. Dimensions, time, all fabric is something.

I'm a Christian, Catholic. While I don't agree with everything that is said such as being against gays, I do have some of the beleifs like life beginning at conception so Im against abortion except in some circumstances. I mainly do what Jesus said rather than what the church says.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked