The First STW Religion Poll

Spiritual, but not religious. I am interested in some of the ideas and philosophies from Buddhism and Taoism, but cannot stand the religious parts of either.

I’d say 4 or a 5, if I have to chose.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people and amassing money and power.

I’ve met lovely Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc. The sad thing is modern religions are typically so far removed from the original ideas of the founders it is laughable. Rather than uniting people they tend to divide.

Religion to me is just like Chinese whispers, by the time it reaches the end of the line, it is completely different from what those at the beginning were whispering.

Damn, I based my opinion of gay marriage on plate tectonics.

The earth moved for you?

3.

but only because when i ejaculate i use the jesus h christ, other holy words, **** in HELL a lot and find it odd as it’s the only time I ever
use them!

OK, so… Given it is accepted that the Bible is the work of a large number of contributors, who say it is the word of God?

Well this debate is interesting, but it has quite clearly been done quite a lot over the centuries. I’m sure SaxonRider, if he survived his hockey match, will be able to provide more background, but this is basically what caused the Reformation. As I understand it, originally the Pope decided what Western Christianity was all about, and was the ultimate referee. So there was only one version in the West. Then Mr Luther asked why we needed a middle man, and we should all be able to talk to God ourselves, read the bible for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

A lot of people agreed, and they thought God would be ok with this, so that’s why we have protestants. So that answers the question I think – yes, you can pick and choose, but (again as I understand it) you have to be able to give a good account of yourself in the end. The ultimate test is did you do good? If you pick and choose parts of the bible to suit your own selfish ends, then that’s bad, mkay, so you’re in trouble. If you can justify whatever you did, then you should be ok.

I find this fascinating, because these kind of protestant ideas are quite closely aligned with the way secular society conducts itself in this country all over the place – especially on this thread.

Organised religion IMO is just a means of controlling people

the rest money & power are side-effects. However, people being people means that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

So I couldn’t vote as I have a similar PoV as Kudos100 – in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.
Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don’t suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief – the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

mogrim – Member

Additionally all discussion (on here) basically assumes an Abrahamic (Judaism, Christian, Islam) view of God.

I don’t suppose anyone would complain if you added a bit of information about other types of religious belief – the blood drinking wrathful deities of Buddhism, for example, or elephant-headed Ganesh from Hinduism. They certainly sound more entertaining than talking shrubbery.

There is nothing wrong with deities striking down on the wicked ones. The deities are NOT evil but merely doing their jobs. We have no problem with ALL of them even the guardian of the underworld (not the movie). You the wicked ones? In that case have fear … very very fearful. 😛

If I may digress for a moment…

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

I think we’ve moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism.

For anyone with teenagers, I’d …(anything)…, which is less likely to make your kid into an insufferable prick than reading something by Dawkins or Hitchins.

AMEN! 😆

I only got here from a comment on another thread. Not certain, but I feel that my soul hasn’t been at all cleansed by reading AT(^)S

Put me down as doubting there’s a god or a higher purpose, accepting that anyone’s allowed to believe in any gods they like, disapproving of “the management” of any religion and having no time whatsoever for proselytisers toward either side in this debate (see Dawkins^). People as “clever” as that should know better than to be so bloody condescending.

We’re a tribal bunch by nature and if it wasn’t religion it’d just be something else to align with IMO

mogrim – Member

WTF are you talking about?

I think we’ve moved on from Abrahamic religions to Buddhism. [/quote]
I am responding to mogrim …

I am responding on behalf of ALL religions with deities so whoever or whatever faith you are.

in all these polls there is an implied suggestion that you can only be spiritual/religious if you subscribe to an organised faith that is one of the big 5 religions otherwise you must be an atheist.

Which is an interesting point in itself. Can one be a spiritual atheist? I can’t immediately think of a compelling reason why not.

In fact if you think about it, it’s arguably a more plausible explanation for “god.” The theists have troubles, so they sit and pray, and feel better. They go away feeling that god has listened, that he / she / it has helped. But really, they’ve had “someone to talk to” which we all know can be beneficial (and whilst some of us choose to talk to a spouse or a mate down the pub rather than an invisible friend, the outcome is broadly the same), and at the same time they’ve given themselves a talking to and perhaps thrashed out a problem in the process.

So here we have a “god” which is, depending on your point of view, either an internal spiritual strength outside of external factors, or a pretty effective demonstration of the placebo effect. In essence you’ve pulled your socks up, you’ve got something to believe which might actually prove beneficial for no other reason than because you believe it. And then of course we’ve got positive reinforcement, your prayers are answered, your faith strengthened.

It’s kinda the same principle as homeopathy. It’s simple to say “homeopathy doesn’t work” but that’s fallacious; rather, homeopathy doesn’t work beyond placebo. And as placebos go it can be rather effective.

So whether you’re praying to god, indulging in a spot of Buddhist meditation, hugging a tree, yogic flying, having your chakra realigned, or going for a bike ride to clear your thoughts, ultimately we’re all doing the same thing in all but name.

Funny things, people.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

Can one be a spiritual atheist?

Surely paganism is that?

I think your post generally though Cougar is one of the more common explanations for the existence of different religions. As in, they are all manifestations of the same thing – whatever that is.

Foxmulderitis?

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am a fan of neither.

The you’ve fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn’t be further apart.

I find there can be just as much dogma in atheism, as in organised religion, which is part of the reason I am not a fan of either.

An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That’s all.

There’s no dogma.

Atheism is questioning everything.

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.

The God Delusion
God Is Not Great

Plus massive presence on social media.

All excellent.

An atheist is someone without the belief in the existence of a deity. That’s all.

There’s no dogma.

Isn’t it strange how this needs constantly repeating, sometimes again and again to the same people…

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Indeed. Even in god.

All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.

The you’ve fundamentally misunderstood one of those two terms.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn’t be further apart.

Perhaps dogma is the wrong word, although I suppose it depends of what definition of dogma is being used.

I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don’t bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.

The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.

That’s not atheists, that’s people generally.

I think some “dogma” exists. This only because of what I read in an article when that atheist worship organisation started, the one linked on one of the threads. The journalist asked what the attitude of the local church was – if I recall correctly – they said quizzical interest. They then went onto say they had received criticism from fellow atheists who said they were doing it all wrong!

An atheist could believe in astrology and guardian angels.

Indeed. Even in god.

All you have to do is produce evidence. To date, nada.[/quote]

Once you believe in a god, you cease to be an atheist.

Atheism is questioning everything.

I know a number of atheists who are black and white in their thinking, intolerant of other peoples views, arrogant and actually don’t bother to question everything. What does this remind me of? Religious extremism.

The definition of atheism and what actually passes as atheism can be quite different.

Atheism the not believing in the existence of god, no more no less. Questioning everything or intolerance or arrogance or posting on this kind of thread are optional.

Without whom (IMHO) this culturally popular debate would not be happening.

Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!

Dogma for atheists would appear to be the insistence that religion only exists as a means to explain the existence of the universe, in opposition to science.

Once you believe inthere’s evidence a god, you cease to be an atheist atheism becomes redundant.

Richard was once asked – “What if you died and met god?”

He replied – “Well I’m sure we could sit down and have a nice interesting conversation about where the god fits into our understanding of a quantum universe, and then I could just move on to the next thing of interest…”

Rather than “Oooh god, you are so big, we’re really impressed down here” or anything of that nature.

Dogma is belief without question. Atheism is questioning everything. The two couldn’t be further apart.

In my understanding, what you’re describing there is agnosticism – atheism is the staunch belief that there is no god and is not inquiring. Simply saying “prove it” is being an arse rather than being inquisitive

You may say that’s semantics but then the whole of this thread is pretty much based on exactly that

Hahaha.. it was going on long before Dawkins was born!

Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks for stating the obvious.

My point is that the sudden explosion of the argument into the mass culture is arguably traceable back to “The God Delusion” as the trigger for the sudden widespread interest/participation in the argument, as opposed to it’s previous fringe status.

Don’t quite understand what the “hahaha” is about. Perhaps you’re attempting condescension.

Simply saying “prove it” is being an arse rather than being inquisitive

Saying “what is your evidence” is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.

It’s just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

atheism is the staunch belief that there is no god and is not inquiring

There’s nothing staunch about it.

It is simply the absence of belief; it says nothing about the strength of the lack of belief, or the effort going into changing that belief.

miketually, as I said, I believe you are describing agnosticism and that atheism is the belief that there is no god

scaredypants, it is semantics, and many words have two similar meanings:

atheist

Noun

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist

agnostic

Noun

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Going back for a moment to ‘atheism’ – Merriam-Webster also give the archaic definition:

Definition of atheism
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Although theist vs atheist discourse and debate is inherently fraught with many problems – I do find that not having singular, agreed-upon definitions to be one of the most needless stumbling blocks. Humans eh?!

That’s my point – though, which of those implies an inquiring approach, particularly when further down its page is the following:

“This word was actually invented by a specific person and then successfully entered the language. It was coined by the Victorian biologist Thomas Huxley (1825–95) to describe his own beliefs: he did not believe in God but did not think one could say for sure that God did not exist”

?

Saying “what is your evidence” is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect

So what if the person says “I believe there is a being etc etc”? How do you respond then?

That’s my point – though, which of those implies an inquiring approach…

Not sure that the current dictionary definition of ‘atheism’ is (or indeed should be) so narrow that it concern itself with how either 1. Non-belief or 2. Disbelief is arrived at by any given atheist? Surely that varies from individual to individual? An atheist could be characteristically enquiring or, on the other hand, completely not. The only defining commonality of atheism is the not believing in deities thing.

Likewise, the archaic terms ‘ungodly’ and ‘wicked’ are not now such useful (or honest?) descriptors in a secular society.

I’m an agnostic/atheistic Humanist (cumbersome, yet accurate) and like to think I have a (often ridiculously) enquiring mind. In fact up until 30+ (as a self-described ‘Pagan’) I believed in many curious things which further enquiry lead me to doubt and ultimately discard. I find the Universe/existence massively mysterious and wonderous, and seem not to shut the door on ongoing enquiry, even if it means I have to reconsider my currently held beliefs about what is and what is not human invention.

So what if the person says “I believe there is a being etc etc”? How do you respond then?

Is the answer give it a special position in society and then teach it to all children whilst insisting that anyone who objects is intolerant and militant?

Saying “what is your evidence” is a perfectly reasonable response to the suggestion that there is a super-intelligent but invisible being that created everything and continues to control everything, that we cannot detect.

It’s just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

THIS

Is the answer give it a special position in society and then teach it to all children whilst insisting that anyone who objects is intolerant and militant?

WTF are you on about?

You think I’m saying anyone who is atheist is intolerant and militant?

It’s just asking a simple question, not (as far as I can tell) being an arse.

There’s nothing wrong with that question. However insinuating someone is stupid because they don’t have any evidence, that’s not nice.