Religion and beliefs

[Xelbair]

Well, I'm pretty interested in religion and beliefs of Gotwooters.
So what do you belive in?
I'm personally an agnostic, i take in account all possibilities, that god exists, or that he does not, and I'm cool with it. Its not like i don't care if he exists, but i take in account that it might not exist.

Please for god/supreme being/anything sacred for you(underline the right one) don't try to convince people to your faith and start a flame-faith war.

[DB_Hunter]

I think those who have been around here a while know my beliefs, but for those that are new I'm Muslim.

[animus]

I'm an Athiest, though I used to be an Agnostic.

About the poll, I found it funny you put in Shinto and not something as huge as Buddhism.

[KrayZ33]

Believing in a deity but not sure about whether it's the christian god or something else (or even more than 1 god) is Agnosticism right?

I voted for that..even though I'm officially katholic.

I don't want to believe that everything was created by chance and since I really don't want to admit that everything ends for me, when I die.. there must be something like an afterlife, or reincarnation

[Ryllharu]

Agnostic.

I was atheist for a while (some time in primary school), but came to the conclusion later on (during college) that atheism can be just as bad as any of the variants of Christianity in the US. It is still the firm belief that something does or does not exist. When as humans, we cannot possibly know. Maybe a God figure is an alien, perhaps a galactic binary computer, a immense singular spiritual being, an "oversoul" of all life, the force that initiated the Big Bang, or even a personification of nature.

That said, while I am agnostic, I'm also a polytheist. If the possiblity of God exists, then there is also the possibility that many deities exist.

I can't prove anything of this nature one way or another. *shrug*

I only pray to whatever embodiment of Tyche/Fortuna/Lady Luck/Lakshmi/etc. may exist. A capricious source of "benevolent chaos" is as good as any to pray to, whether what comes is good fortune or ill.

[Xelbair]

I'm an Athiest, though I used to be an Agnostic.

About the poll, I found it funny you put in Shinto and not something as huge as Buddhism.
Damnit, i knew i forgot something. Sorry guys, i will fix it as soon as possible(if possible).

[Buffalobiian]

I once thought I'm Christian, because in primary school we had religion lessons every Tuesday. Then I thought I was Buddhist because my mum brought my brother and I along to a temple every Saturday, and made me pray with her a good dozen times. Later on in high school, I considered myself an Athiest, because, if you can't prove it exists, then it doesn't. Teenage logic.

Now at uni, I'd be best described as an Agnostic. More open-minded, I've accepted the possibility that God(s) can exist, and the different ways to show that faith, amongst other things. Whether or not such beings exist doesn't seem to foreseeably impact on me, so I'm not in pursuit of a truth neither.

[shinta|hikari]

Agnostic, for all the reasons Ryll already stated.

I was never an Atheist though. I started out with a mix of Buddhism and Catholicism, as well as a bit of folk superstitions, then I became a "born-again" Christian. I became Agnostic after I spent a year in Japan on an exchange program.

No, it is not the fault of Japanese culture.

[Death BOO Z]

voted.
despite the fact my personal beliefs about god's whereabouts are closer to atheism (nisht, gournisht, zitto, nada), I hardly refer to myself as such, and my identify is based more on my culture than my disbelief of god.

[The Heretic Azazel]

I was raised Catholic until I reached the age of............enlightenment.

Then I was agnostic in high school because like some of you I didn't want to think there was no afterlife, or maybe even afraid that if I shunned God he would shun me back.

Then I realized that if there is a God, he would be pretty fuckin arrogant to not let me into Heaven just because I don't believe, no one deserves to be that cocky, not even a fictional character. Basically religion fucking disgusts me and horrible, horrible people represent every faith. My exception would probably be for Buddhism's nonviolent followers, who look to themselves before they cast blame, and how they try to build themselves up instead of cutting others down.

I'm a happy atheist now. It's not so bad when you think this is the only world in which you'll exist, it just takes a little adjusting.

[Buffalobiian]

My exception would probably be for Buddhism's nonviolent followers, who look to themselves before they cast blame, and how they try to build themselves up instead of cutting others down.

Oh no, there are no exceptions. Someone close to me has had very painful experiences with these "Nonviolent Buddhists". Their actions may have been nonviolent, but their intent, mouths and actions were no less malicious. Understandably, this is only regarding the community we've crossed paths with.

Still, I stand by that there are no exceptions.

[Idealistic]

Religion.... What's that?

My beliefs? Oh my god, my post #666 was about religion.

[The Heretic Azazel]

When I mentioned the nonviolent followers of Buddhism, I was speaking of the ones who were nonviolent, not that they were all like that.There are absolutely no exceptions, but I'm pretty much talking about the monks' way of life or those who more strictly adhere to that kind of 'turn the other cheek' attitude. Seems like less of the "my god's dick is bigger than your god's dick" mentality. There are no religions lacking crazy overzealous people. On the contrary I think if you gathered up enough of them they would be recognized as a religion on that basis alone.

[Xelbair]

Well, i was raised as christian, at the middle school(grades from 7 to 9, primary school is 1-6 here, and high school is 10-12(so 6 years primary, 3 middle, 3 high)) i was deist, and now I'm agnostic.
I don't have anything against other religions, until they start being annoying and forcing you to convince to their faith, because our is the best etc. Most people think that religion makes people do good, well result is the same, but which one is better: Someone helping you out of fear of divine punishment, or because he wants to?
Buddhist may be found cruel by someone, because thanks to their belief in karma they wont help anyone poor/starving/troubled, because they think that's punishment for past life/lives, but they are expecting the same from others.
It's kind hard to live in 95% catholic country, where 5% are made of Jehovah wittiness and Jews, and most people see no difference between agnosticism and atheism. Where being baptized is enforced by society and parents. We theoretically have free-religion but just dare to be different... its especially visible in primary school. For agnostic its not so hard, you can tell just that you believe that god might exist, but its very hard for atheists and Jews, it's sad but true that most of people here are antisemitic(but media forbid us to even call them polish version of Jew, and make us call them "Followers of Judaism"), and 33% of my country's people would make Jew-jokes at concentration camps(those left by Nazi Germany).

[Buffalobiian]

Buddhist may be found cruel by someone, because thanks to their belief in karma they wont help anyone poor/starving/troubled, because they think that's punishment for past life/lives, but they are expecting the same from others.

I thought that was the case for Hinduism, but not Buddhist. Then again, there's so many schools of Buddhism, the existence of an extremist school of thought should not be surprising. As much as they believe in Karma, they also believe in helping people break out of the karma cycle. According to them, our souls cycle through 6 levels of beings (hell ghosts/humans/animals/gods etc), and are constantly locked in such a cylce of life and death. Where we end up if affected by previous lives' actions.

Only through enlightenment can we be free of these bonds and not suffer the pains of reincarnation (the omnipresent being called Buddha).

/exhausts Buddhism knowledge

[Abdula]

*shakes head* Agnostic, what a croc.

I guess of the choices there it would be the best fit but I voted Christianity. I can accept someone who has faith, even if I completely disagree with their religion. There is just something admirable about a person who believes in something and lives their life a certain way because of that belief. I can even accept Athiests, not the I just make fun of anyone who believes in anything atheists, or the "I think I'm an atheist" atheists but I definitely have to acknowledge anyone who thinks this pathetic world is all there is to life.

Agnostics on the other hand, well I'll just quote The Great Zapp Brannigan


I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me:p:D

Of course, I'm just generalizing.

[XanBcoo]

My mom tried to use that same argument on me when we were talking about Agnostics. Why do you admire so much those who believe (or disbelieve) in something so unshakably for which there is literally no proof? Should those who have doubts about the legitimacy of religion automatically commit themselves to an Atheistic worldview? Or should they just give some "God" the benefit of the doubt and become Christian, despite the problems they have with the doctrine? I think Atheism is a pretty realistic approach to the universe.

My point of view is similar to Ryllharu's. I was brought up Baptist, became interested in Catholicism, but then I was finally put off by the arrogance of a system of beliefs which claimed knowledge of the universe (through pretty unreliable means) as a way to easily explain it. It doesn't seem right to hold the rest of the world up to standards that many people have simply been indoctrinated with. I'm Agnostic because I know we can't prove either side one way or the other, but I remain open-minded.


There is just something admirable about a person who believes in something and lives their life a certain way because of that belief.
On the other hand, there is just something off-putting about a person who believes in something and lives their life another way despite that belief: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Also, I think everyone should have a look at these videos from The Atheism Tapes. It was a program created by this British intellectual, Jonathon Miller, containing interviews with a number of theologians, intellectuals, and philosophers. These videos are the interviews in their entirety and are extremely interesting. Miller is an Atheist, so they tend to lean towards that worldview, but I think they are worth watching anyway. Each one is pretty golden: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+atheist+tapes&emb=0&aq=f#q=the%20atheism%20tapes&emb=0

Edit: Hah, there's a quote from the Denys Turner interview which makes the same point Ryllharu was trying to get across:

I find the likes of a card-carrying Atheist like Richard Dawkins to be really just an inverted image of a certain kind of rather narrowed-down theism. There's a fundamentalism about Dawkins' atheism which matches, as in the reversing of a mirror image, that which he's rejected.

[Psyke]

I thought of myself as a free thinker, for lack of a better term perhaps. After doing some research online, I find that I fall under the Agnostic category as well. Have to admit I didn't know what it meant intially though. :o

[DB_Hunter]

I thought we were not meant to be trying to preach about what we believe in this thread (not aimed at you Psyke, you just happen to be the previous poster)?

[XanBcoo]

I thought we were not meant to be trying to preach about what we believe in this thread (not aimed at you Psyke, you just happen to be the previous poster)?
You misread. Xelbair asked that we not start flame wars by trying to convince others of our faith or otherwise forcing our beliefs on the unwilling. There's nothing wrong with arguing your position, and I would prefer that everyone do so.

[animus]

Oh come on, despite what the OP says in his post do you really think a poll about this topic will simply just be a poll? There's honestly no point to it unless you want to have a discussion.

And, preaching is a type of discussion. It's like a poll about Democrats/Republicans, there's bound to be discussion and pushing of ideals/defending your side.

[Kraco]

Christian. Though I'd be lying if I said I really believed in God. It's a cultural thing for me, and with the mellow church in Finland, I have no plans of distancing myself from it.

[Xelbair]

Oh come on, despite what the OP says in his post do you really think a poll about this topic will simply just be a poll? There's honestly no point to it unless you want to have a discussion.

And, preaching is a type of discussion. It's like a poll about Democrats/Republicans, there's bound to be discussion and pushing of ideals/defending your side.

I just didn't want to /b/-like flame-war to start. Fora(Latin plural from "forum" is "fora" right?) are made for discussion.

[Ryllharu]

Edit: Hah, there's a quote from the Denys Turner interview which makes the same point Ryllharu was trying to get across:
"I find the likes of a card-carrying Atheist like Richard Dawkins to be really just an inverted image of a certain kind of rather narrowed-down theism. There's a fundamentalism about Dawkins' atheism which matches, as in the reversing of a mirror image, that which he's rejected." - Turner
Someone forwarded me this message sometime in 2005 (I kept good notes, so I know the years at least), which was after I had slowly switched to agnoticism. It is much along the same point that you quoted.

"The opposite of the religous fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
-Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

This is not true for many atheists, hence Hoffer's use of "fanatical," but I have found a large number of self-proclaimed atheists to be just as fervently insistent that there isn't a God as much as certain sects of Christianity are that there is one. Just like the Turner quote, a mirror image of each other, each desperately attempting to convert the other and those who lie in the middle.

My version of Agnosticism is the kind that finds it inherently impossible to prove or disprove which deities there are. There may be one, there may be thousands. It isn't that I don't want to choose one or the other, I just don't bother because there's no way I can prove it.

Wikipedia informs me that I am a follower of Agnostic Theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist) or Spiritual Agnosticism. Didn't know there was a name for it...

It really isn't that much different from one of the core beliefs of Catholicism in that God Himself is unknowable, and if we were to be able to directly communicate with him, our minds would never be able to comprehend it (and possibly die). Thus, Saints and Angels exist to act as go-betweens for God and humanity. I am aware that I am either exaggerating or playing the concept up (due to ignorance rather than intention), but the concept is at least similar.

[Xelbair]

Personally I'm rather(according to Wikipedia) Strong Agnostic/Agnostic theist, i take all possibilities into account, but i wish for something supernatural to be there, or for some supernatural laws(for example magic) to exist in our world.

[KitKat]

I often find myself somewhat reluctant to contribute to these kinds of discussions because there is sometimes a very anti-Christian sentiment present in these types of discussions in online communities. However, I thought it would be good to share a balanced view for those who have only ever seen the legalistic side of a tradition-bound church that has lost track of the spirit and intentions of Christianity.

First, I'd like to say that I really dislike the word 'religion' in the first place (yes, this is definitely one of my pet peeves). Religion calls to mind all the meaningless rituals that institutions force onto people. "Here's a list of things to do that will increase your chances of getting into heaven", "If only I can do X, I'll be a better person", and so on and so forth. You might say, "Hey, that sounds like Christianity!" and many churches, sadly, operate like that. If you know some of the historical records of Jesus though, you'll know that his biggest enemies were the religious officials of his time. He broke a lot of their silly little rules. Who did Jesus hang out with? The outcasts of society: the prostitutes, the thieves, the diseased and the sick, the Samaritans (an ethnic group that the Jews of the time despised), and his disciples were a bunch of uneducated fishermen. Starting to sound a little less religious, isn't it?


What this thread is about, is truth. What do you believe to be absolutely true? This is a hard question to deal with for our society, because we like to be nice and say that everyone can be right. But really, everyone can't be right. To be atheistic is to say that you believe nothing is true. In this view, humans are their own measure of truth, and we can change it as we see fit. With no higher being governing our actions, we have no accountability or responsibility for what we do. There's no meaning or purpose to any of it. Right and wrong have no meaning, because they can be changed according to human whims. Sure, let's screw up the environment, it's not going to affect me once I'm dead. Who cares if people are dying in Africa from treatable diseases, it's not like it's my problem. Society can try to enforce certain expectations, but if you're an atheist then their view of right and wrong have no more or less validity than yours. Who is a human to impose their views on another human?

Agnostic is a step in a different direction. To an agnostic, there is some sort of truth they can see, but they're not sure of where it is from. There are some things that all cultures agree on. Murder is bad. Helping others is good. Hitler was a bad person. Mother Theresa was a good person. When someone treats us unfairly, we want justice, because we feel like we have been wronged, and that something must happen to make it right. There must be something that determines these standards of good and bad, something higher than ourselves, an unwavering standard that people can be measured against. The agnostic, seeing many options, essentially gives up on the enterprise, resigns themselves to not knowing, and blindly hopes that it will all work out. I have some friends who told me they viewed religion as a giant lottery: only one is a winner, so just pick one and hope that you luck out, but choose wrong and you're screwed. I think this is a bit of a fallacy because in such a case, you'd still be agnostic. You wouldn't really believe in the truth of the religion you ascribed to, and thus would still be agnostic because you haven't been convinced.

I apologize for the preamble, but I wanted to let you know where I was coming from. Now, let's talk about Christianity. And in doing so, I want you to leave behind all the negative stereotypes and poor Christian role-models you've encountered in the past. Let's talk about being Christian as being someone who follows Jesus, nothing more, nothing less. I believe in an absolute truth. I believe in a standard of right and wrong. I believe in justice, but also in mercy and compassion. I believe in a God who established these things, and embodies these things. Never would I presume to pass judgement on another person, because frankly, I have no right to do that and Jesus explicitly demonstrated that we shouldn't. The state of a person's soul is between them and God. What Christians are responsible for is to speak the truth, and to reflect that truth in their lives (the latter often missing for many that profess to be Christian). What other people do with that truth is up to them, whether they choose to accept it or reject it. I also believe that the truth is testable and knowable. Even if you're reading this and you reject what I say as truth, I would encourage you not to give up but to keep searching for truth, because the more you question and ask, the more likely you will find answers.

I'm going to skip the basic tenets of Christianity, unless you'd like me to talk about that. I'll assume most of you are familiar with the whole idea of "Jesus is God and took the punishment for our sins thus fulfilling Justice but allowing us to be forgiven and restore our relationship with God".

So what does this look like in my life? Well, first off, I'm not perfect. Though I follow a perfect God, I'm an imperfect person and I mess up a lot. But I know that I will be forgiven, and I recognize when I've messed up, and always come back to God. So does this give me license to do whatever I want? Absolutely not. Doing that would mean that I don't care about the sacrifice that Jesus made to grant me forgiveness. It would be like....if I was a heroin addict and my friend sold their house so that I could afford a rehab program, but I didn't go and spent their money on more heroin because I knew that they'd sell more of their stuff later to give me the money for the program. What kind of crappy friend would I be then? A bit of an ad hoc analogy, but you get the idea. It's not about rules, it's about relationship. It's not about forcing myself to do things I don't want to do, it's about becoming someone who sees life a little bit more each day from God's perspective, and getting to know God better. So, because of the forgiveness and love that God has given me, those are the things that I want to extend to other people. Because every person matters, I want to spend my life in a way that helps other people, no matter who they are, where they are at, or what their deal is. I'm trusting God to put me where and when I need to be.

Right now, I'm in training to work overseas with Wycliffe Bible Translators doing literacy and language development with people groups who have no written language, or have only recently made the transition to having a written language. I originally thought that I'd do this for maybe 2-3 years, but now I'm pretty certain that I want to make this my career. It's a life of poverty in harsh conditions. There's a pretty high chance that I will be placed in a country that is actively hostile to Christianity, where I could be arrested, beaten or even killed for what I believe. But I will go because it is so worth it. I know that doing this, working towards a purpose, letting God direct the path of my life, I will be happier that I ever could be working at a 9-5 job and denying this pull on my life. The thing is that God knows each person so perfectly, and he doesn't lead people to careers that make them miserable, but ones that complement their abilities and interests. For me, that happens to be linguistics, and an interest in working with other cultures.

I hope that didn't come across as preachy or anything. There's kindof a lot packed into there, so I don't blame you if you just skipped over it. I want to be completely honest and open with all of you, because it's an important thing to think about. By now, some of you probably think I'm a raving lunatic, and that's ok. Some of you might be curious or confused about something I've said. If you just want to be argumentative, please don't reply, I really dislike arguments. If you want to engage in some meaningful dialogue though, I'm more than willing to listen and respond to any questions (even in PM if you don't want to bore the community with obscure theological issues in this thread). I don't guarantee that I'll have all the answers, but I'll try my best.

[DB_Hunter]

Something for you newer forum members to chew over (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php?t=14354)

This thread is from Feb 2007. A sample of my views can be found in here, as well as those of others. Note that the title of the thread was not created by me.

Needless to say that I will not be getting involved in such a time consuming debate here anytime soon.

[The Heretic Azazel]

Well don't be mad about it...you just made it so easy to be attacked. I thought you wanted the attention. Pedophilia will soon be legalized because of the gays? Lawlz.

[DB_Hunter]

No one's mad, but its a shame that even now you don't get my point.

[Assassin]

A shame indeed, but lets leave it at that.

In regards to kitkat's post, it was very eloquent. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you said about atheists and agnostics, as well as your views on christianity and Jesus. Its great that you've found a career that really makes you happy, and i hope you have a great (and safe) experience.

As for me, since i dont particularly like having to explain my views and beliefs on an online forum, i'll just say this:

Im muslim. Im not a religious person, but i do believe in religion. And i believe what i believe, for a reason.

[animus]

Something for you newer forum members to chew over (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php?t=14354)

This thread is from Feb 2007. A sample of my views can be found in here, as well as those of others. Note that the title of the thread was not created by me.

Needless to say that I will not be getting involved in such a time consuming debate here anytime soon.

It's great that you linked a thread that has little if at all anything to do with this thread, and then go to say you're not gonna debate your short-sighted opinions that don't have anything to do with this thread.

[DB_Hunter]

If you follow it through you will see it has everything to do with this thread. Secondly there is no need to debate it further, because that is a self contained thread which has opinions from various people and it went on for some time. It would be a waste of my time to repeat what I have already said in there.

Try not to let your itch to have a go at me because you don't agree with what I say make you type before you think.

[animus]

This thread is about theism, your thread is about the condoning of "societal issues" and how you try to defend your own opinion.

And you're right, you don't need to talk about your overzealous disgust for homosexuals in this thread, and please don't. Regardless, I don't have an itch to go at you, you're just wrong in the fact that you think this thread was a good place to post a link to your thread. Because if people wanted to post about those topics, they should've posted in your thread.

[DB_Hunter]

This thread is not about 'theism', its about 'Religion and beliefs'. Which why I posted a sample of my beliefs. It isn't really too difficult a concept to grasp.

[Ryllharu]

It is in fact entirely about theism, and only theism.

In the context of Xelbair's original post (and poll) the "beliefs" part of the thread title means your particular chosen faith or lack thereof. Not all faith/belief systems can fall under the term "religion." The stances addressed in the other thread pertain to moral or societal beliefs, rather than faith based ones. While one's moral and societal beliefs can be a large part of the tenets of one's religion, the topic of the other thread belongs there and not here.

Xelbair also intended this to be informational, rather than degenerating into a flamewar. Bringing in those issue that have little or nothing to do with a discussion on the variety of faiths (and not the set of moral and societal rules associated with them, that was what your thread was about). Xelbair explicity asked that this be excluded, along with attempting to persuade/convert others.

[DB_Hunter]

OK let me spell it out further. Islam forbids homosexuality. I am a Muslim. In that thread I was explaning this particular point. I did do it in a back to front manner, explaining the effects and then linking it to my viewpoint (i.e. Islam) at the end. The link therefore to that thread was valid.

[animus]

OK let me spell it out further. Islam forbids homosexuality. I am a Muslim. In that thread I was explaning this particular point. I did do it in a back to front manner, explaining the effects and then linking it to my viewpoint (i.e. Islam) at the end. The link therefore to that thread was valid.

Now you're just nitpicking and playing it up that you're right. Read the OP, you would know that your thread has no place in this one. If say I posted a thread that had my opinions about how much I think every single person who believes in any sect of religion or god or a supreme being, is a dumb ass because that's what a fanatical atheist would do it would be wrong. Not only would the thread be detrimental in the fact that it is flamebait, it is a blind-sided attempt to convince others, and it's just not on topic.

[complich8]

I'm sort of a Taoist, in that I believe everything is connected, and that all things flow from and will return to the same universal nature. I'm also a fan of the Three Jewels of the Tao (compassion, moderation and humility) as guides which are both useful and attainable. I don't believe in a personal or supernatural God. I also don't believe in anything supernatural, be it miracles, angels, psychic powers, anything like that. I think all that stuff is bullshit. Really I'm an atheist who uses the basic premises of Taoism as a pocket reference card.

My background starts in a Lutheran tradition. Since my break with that tradition, I've wandered through numerous others under the Christian umbrella, then outside of it, before finally ending up where I am now. I believe in cherry-picking the good and discarding the bad, which makes me pretty much the diametric opposite of a fundamentalist.


If you just want to be argumentative, please don't reply, I really dislike arguments. If you want to engage in some meaningful dialogue though, I'm more than willing to listen and respond to any questions
I'm going not going to argue the Christianity points or your choice of career or anything else like that with you, because I think that as long as you can do objectively good things (like teaching people to read and/or raising their standard of living) that's very admirable, and I say more power to ya.

That said, I've got to take issue with some of the stuff you said here, not the least of which is the attempt to preclude argument for argument's sake. You're basically saying "this is what I believe, and I'm willing to entertain questions about it, but not challenges to it" -- which sort of comes across as intellectually dishonest.

And here's some more stuff I have a problem with:

To be atheistic is to say that you believe nothing is true. In this view, humans are their own measure of truth, and we can change it as we see fit. With no higher being governing our actions, we have no accountability or responsibility for what we do.
This is a gross mischaracterization. The statement "I don't believe in god" (or rather, "I believe that the God hypothesis is false") doesn't reject truth, it rejects the specific concept of god. You're saying here that all atheists are relativists, but I'd say the vast majority recognize that there is, in fact, an objective reality in which we live and from which basic principles arise.

God and truth are distinct concepts, and you're conflating the two to construct a straw man for atheism. Truth doesn't depend on God, it depends on an objective reality. To put it another way, you can start at a different place than God and still arrive at objective truth, and starting at God doesn't necessarily get you there.

And as far as accountability goes, society is more likely to hold you accountable than God is. If the Calvinist concept that we're all wretched sinners is to be believed, then our only hope for salvation is that God doesn't hold us accountable for the things for which we should be held accountable. It's ok to kill people, to cheat, to lie, to steal, as long as you truly repent of your sins before you die.

The atheist perspective is that this is all there is. If you kill people, you run the risk of having a shorter, less fulfilling life (in prison, or on death row, and with a guilty conscience). If you drive aggressively, you run the risk of a shorter, less fulfilling life (because of the car accidents). If you're mean to people, you alienate them and they leave your life, leading to less happiness because of social isolation. Society, psychology and biology carry numerous mechanisms to hold you accountable for your actions, none of which depend on God.



[Agnostics believe] there must be something that determines these standards of good and bad, something higher than ourselves, an unwavering standard that people can be measured against. The agnostic, seeing many options, essentially gives up on the enterprise, resigns themselves to not knowing, and blindly hopes that it will all work out.
This is also a mischaracterization. Agnostics believe that there's no way of knowing whether there is or isn't something supernatural from within nature. They're not just conceding the point that there's a God and just not sure which one. They're saying there's no way of knowing whether such a thing even exists.

If you believe there's no way of knowing the supernatural, then you're presented with three options: blind and unfounded faith, the rejection of that blind faith, or tabling the question indefinitely. Faith is the realm of any religion -- the belief that you're right to the exclusion of other principles. The outright rejection of faith as a value is atheism, and the rejection of the question indefinitely based on insufficient information is agnosticism.


I have some friends who told me they viewed religion as a giant lottery: only one is a winner, so just pick one and hope that you luck out, but choose wrong and you're screwed. I think this is a bit of a fallacy because in such a case, you'd still be agnostic. You wouldn't really believe in the truth of the religion you ascribed to, and thus would still be agnostic because you haven't been convinced.
When you make a choice according to Pascal's Wager (as your friends are suggesting), you still have to actually adopt the belief. You can't fake your faith on Judgment day, you've got to commit to it.

[DB_Hunter]

Now you're just nitpicking and playing it up that you're right. Read the OP, you would know that your thread has no place in this one. If say I posted a thread that had my opinions about how much I think every single person who believes in any sect of religion or god or a supreme being, is a dumb ass because that's what a fanatical atheist would do it would be wrong. Not only would the thread be detrimental in the fact that it is flamebait, it is a blind-sided attempt to convince others, and it's just not on topic.

Dude the whether or not you think this is nitpicking (which I find to be an incredulous assertion) the fact remains that its part of my belief. Now whether you want to discuss the theology/philosophy of beliefs as opposed to the effects of your beliefs on society is a decision each forum poster should make.

[KitKat]

That said, I've got to take issue with some of the stuff you said here, not the least of which is the attempt to preclude argument for argument's sake. You're basically saying "this is what I believe, and I'm willing to entertain questions about it, but not challenges to it" -- which sort of comes across as intellectually dishonest.

Well, the fact of the matter is that I'm not a very skilled debater, and I find arguments to be quite emotionally stressful. What I was trying to say is that I've had my share of conversations where the only thing the other person cared about was 'winning' or proving me wrong, and would throw any and every argument at me to achieve this end whether or not they believed what they were arguing. I'm also not keen on responses where the person argues on topic, but words it in a way to demean and humiliate their opponent. This is what I'm trying to avoid. I'm not precluding challenges to my position. Perhaps that wasn't very clear. What I intended was that I'd prefer only people responding from their personal convictions and beliefs, with the intent to come to a better understanding of each other and of ourselves.

It's very possible that I'm mistaken in some of the things I've said, and I have a great respect for your opinions compy, since you put a great deal of thought into your personal philosophy. I couldn't do otherwise than give you a thoughtful response to those points where you take me to task, though I do so with a bit of trepidation since my normal approach to philosophical matters is to wander off and find a real tactile problem that I can solve, which probably ill equips me to be conversing here.

First, let's make a distinction I should have made before, and separate out moral truth from the giant conglomeration of everything that can fall under the umbrella of 'truth'. If moral truth doesn't come from some sort of supernatural entity, then where does it come from? Does it just exist, similarly to gravity, invisible, but exerting a measurable force on human society? Or is it an emergent property of human systems, as you've implied in your paragraph about accountability?

If morality is an emergent property of human systems, then it is no longer an absolute truth. Right and wrong find their definition in the society which enforces them, and are not common across all of humanity. In certain middle eastern countries, it is expected that a woman caught having sex outside of marriage should be killed. For this society, that is the morally right thing to do. In our society, that would be morally wrong. Isn't this just relativism again, but at the societal level instead of the individual level? Is there a truth which determines who is right and who is wrong? Personally, I find that the only way to account for an absolute measure of moral truth is a force above the level of humanity, some external agent which gives us a standard to compare with. This is why I equated a belief in a god of some sort with a belief in moral truth, because I just don't see any other options that give us a black and white distinction of right and wrong common to all of humanity.


This is also a mischaracterization. Agnostics believe that there's no way of knowing whether there is or isn't something supernatural from within nature. They're not just conceding the point that there's a God and just not sure which one. They're saying there's no way of knowing whether such a thing even exists.

You're right, I did mischaracterize agnosticism. I was describing the beliefs of many agnostics I know, who do believe that there is something supernatural, which is not true agnosticism. I apologize for this.


When you make a choice according to Pascal's Wager (as your friends are suggesting), you still have to actually adopt the belief. You can't fake your faith on Judgment day, you've got to commit to it.

You'd think this would be so, but I've seen far too many Christians who think they're "safe" because they do the Christiany things, and belong to a church and are "good people", but don't really have any faith to speak of. God is more of a supernatural vending machine to them, to be prayed to when they're in trouble, and otherwise ignored as they go about their lives, and then to issue them a free pass into heaven when they die.

[The Heretic Azazel]

So, there are no satanists around? I find them quite fascinating... they usually are the quiet ones, though.