YOUR religion? page 23

I don’t really know, not that I don’t know what I believe, but I don’t what I would be classified as.

I don’t personally believe there is a god, but I don’t deny the possibility that there could be.

I think everyone should have the right to believe in whatever they want, just so long as it doesn’t harm or take away that freedom from another person.
I think it’s ignorant to believe that someone cannot know good from bad, have no morale compass simply because they don’t believe
there’s a guiding force directing them.
And I don’t believe life has a predetermined meaning to it, meaning shouldn’t be given to your life, YOU should give your life meaning.
Whether that’s making everyone around you happy, becoming a hero, or even becoming the world’s richest man/woman. The wonderful
thing about being human is that it’s our choice how we live our lives.
So why should you get that choice and not someone else?

I grew up in a christian family, we went to church every Sunday, we went to christian camps.
and had christian friends, and i’ll admit when I was little, yes I did believe.
But the older I got, the further I drifted. I saw a lot of good things, met a lot of good people,
I also saw a lot of bad. On both sides of the fence.
But I never saw god in any of it, all I saw were people, people being human.

Humans try to hard to be right, to vindicate themselves, and I think if they put that effort into trying to be happy instead
I think the world we be a lot better off.

and you know what? If I die and I’m wrong and god meets me to send me to hell or what ever religion happened to be right.
and he/she/it wants to punish me for trying to be happy, then so be it, I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.

So God? yeah sure it’s possible.
But do I believe? no, no I don’t.

I will never judge you for what you believe, so don’t judge me.

I belive in.. well.. Myself. I know for sure I can trust myself. I don’t trust imaginary beings, altough some religions seem pretty chill. But it doesn’t float my goat. I sometimes question others believes in different things, not because I belive it’s wrong but because I’m curious to see the reasoning in it.

I’d never force my logic upon others, everyone have their own way to cope with life and I respect that.

Apatheist. Means I don’t really care if there is a God or not.

Here we go.
I grew up in a very Christian family. No sex before marriage, God is great, God is good, blah, blah, blah.
Personally, I believe there is God. I believe that there is a hell, and that we will go there if at the end of our life we do not realize that what we do, in face, does affect how we end up in the end.
I think that there were dinosaurs, so the world did not start 10,000 years ago. I don’t think that life originated from Adam and Eve, and I do not believe that if I say I do not believe in God I will not go to Heaven.
I think revolution is very real. Although I do not think that humans evolved from apes.
I think that Christ was real, and that he was the son of God. He died for us on the cross.
Are we all going to hell? No. I think hell is a place where bad people go to learn the mistakes they made, and actually learn from them. In the end, all go to heaven.

Well, that is it. Label me how you want.

I am a Muslim. o_o

Originally posted by Ethen12:
God is great, God is good, blah, blah, blah.

Isn’t that a little redundant?

I think that there were dinosaurs, so the world did not start 10,000 years ago. I don’t think that life originated from Adam and Eve, and I do not believe that if I say I do not believe in God I will not go to Heaven.

Well at least you aren’t one of those stereotypical “My religion is right, you’re wrong, lalala,” Christians.

I think revolution is very real.

Revolution? Either I draw too many parallels to America, or there’s a secret part of the Bible that stays hidden from certain people. (Unless you mean “revelations,” in which case, nevermind.)

Although I do not think that humans evolved from apes.

That’s because we didn’t, it was actually chimpanzees.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by Ethen12:

Although I do not think that humans evolved from apes.

That’s because we didn’t, it was actually chimpanzees.

As far as I know the general consensus is that today’s apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor that usually is also grouped under apes.

Mormon.

I’m lazy, so I consider myself Agnostic, since it covers me on all grounds. If a god exists, I’m covered. If none does…no harm, no foul. :)

I have this idea similar to the Greeks in that everything has some sort of Power behind it be it Fate, Nature or Death. I also believe in God (err… well Goddess because I think God is a woman mainly because of a friend’s ideals made me change). I think even the dark things within this world need to exist such as Death and Evil. Death makes room for the new life while Evil is in existence to balance out “good” and give “good” a reason to exist.

I am God I am Science

Proud Roman Catholic. I believe in Catholiscm because it was the original Church Jesus Christ himself set up and appointed Peter as the leader.

I’m atheist because i need proof. I haven’t seen god or evidence that he has exisited neither anything related to religion like chistianity, jesus etc. So far science is prevailing in solving lifes mysteries and the stuff that ‘god did’ is becoming smaller.

I’m not suggesting believing in god is wrong im just stating my opinion.

Originally posted by bobyinhell:

I’m atheist because i need proof.

I don’t exactly think that Atheism counts as a religion…

/nitpick

tenco
Bald isn’t a hair COLOR, it’s a hair CUT…
If you get my point… :DDD

bob
I think it’s rather Agnostic…
Atheists “know” there is no G-d – and usually don’t even want to listen to any proofs, much less look for any themselves.

Bald isn’t a hair COLOR, it’s a hair CUT

Rather, it’s just getting all your hair cut off, but for some it isn’t even a choice (old guys, for example). Not that this matters, it’s significantly different from comparing religions.

Atheists “know” there is no G-d – and usually don’t even want to listen to any proofs, much less look for any themselves.

That’s a false generalisation and you know it.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that “turned off” is a TV channel.
Also, rarely an Atheist claims to “know” that there is no God. If you knew anything about the classifications (which are heavily important when criticizing groups) you’d know that there is Active Atheism (denies existence of God) – which is a minority (a stupid one, for that matter) and Passive Atheism (EXACTLY the same as Agnostic Atheism), which is the smart majority.
The latter don’t see any sort of evidence for the existence of any God while looking at statistical analysis and realizing that most religions are probably made-up. What we see is:

• No necessity for Gods existence. Scientists have come up with great and valid POSSIBILITIES for how Abiogensis could be true and the universe could have created itself out of nothing. This doesn’t mean it’s true, but it removes the NECESSITY of there being a God, but not the POSSIBILITY. Which is why we’re Agnostic – we don’t know whether God exists or not.
• We don’t claim, for example, that Hinduism is false. It’s just that there is absolutely no concrete evidence that shows that it IS true, so even if it is, how would we know it?

Cool Analogy: It’s like someone that lived 60 thousand years ago claiming that there is this very small part of the universe of the universe that’s gives things mass and weighs ~125 Giga-electron Volts and has X and Y characteristics, and he calls it the Higgs Boson. He might be completely right (and today we know he is), BUT HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IT BACK THEN?
On the other hand, he could be COMPLETELY wrong, but how would they know anyway? Which is why it’s illogical to believe in that guy’s hypothesis since there’s no proof. Whoever claims that it’s illogical is not claiming he’s wrong, only that since there’s no proof believing it is moronic.

Ahem, so WHERE is the exact difference between Atheism (NO god) and Agnosticism (MAYBE god)?
Cause if we go according to what you just said – it gets jumbled over the top…
I’ll provide my SIMPLE classification – and you can name/edit them according to your standards.
1. Atheism – 100% sure there is no god. Definitely not practicing any religion out of personal choice.
2. Agnosticism – 1-99% unsure maybe there is god, not sure either way. May be practicing a religion out of upbringing habit.
3. Theism – 100% sure there is god. Definitely practicing a religion out of personal choice.
…
Since when BELIEVING must be LOGICAL and PROVEN?
It’s a contradiction in terms.
(So, would you KILL/ROB someone, cause it’s “a RELIGIOUS prohibition not to kill/rob”, and you don’t BELIEVE in it? O_o)
…
The claim that “Universe doesn’t need a creator to exist”, is a bit too bold.
Cause the way I (as a religious Jew) understand “what is” G-d, is EXISTENCE itself.
That’s the main point where all those “researches” are wrong at the very beginning: they’re looking for something EXTERNAL, which may qualify as a Creator.
But G-d ISN’T “external”, and neither is the Universe to Him.
“There’s nothing but G-d”, is a very powerful idea, meaning “we’re as much part of G-d, as He Himself is”!
A very simplified analogy:
You can’t have a working MS Word “outside” your Windows (or another OS, not my point).
Sure, Word has specific files and directories, it can be deleted or copy-pasted, etc.
But it can’t “exist” outside an OS and still work.
For your PC software, its OS is pretty much it’s “god”, cause it encompasses the “Universe” of your data/files/software.
(A very simplified analogy, don’t pick up on it, please.)
I hope you got the point…

Atheism – 100% sure there is no god.

This is wrong. You can have your own interpretations, but us Atheists do not consider ourselves that, and neither does the common definition.

Since when BELIEVING must be LOGICAL and PROVEN?

Since always? It’s not a contradiction, because belief does not necessarily imply faith – which is the one based on zero evidence. Do you believe the sun is hot? Yep, so do it. It might not be – we don’t know ANYTHING with ABSOLUTE certainty. However, it is 99,9999% likely that the sun IS hot – it being cold goes against everything we know.

But G-d ISN’T “external”, and neither is the Universe to Him.

Ok – that’s your interpretation and it’s perfectly. The claim that the universe does not need a creator goes to those that have faith that God is an external and supernatural creator. Remember that everyone has their definition of “God”.
Regardless, it also doesn’t make much sense to call God the universe itself or just a “higher force” – what’s really to debate about this point anyway? Why call it God?~

BB
So, please provide YOUR classification, the similar way to what I did. :D
…
Again, I guess my Russian gets in the way.
Cause for me “belief” is the opposite of “knowledge”, not in practical terms, but in philological.
We know that Sun ACTS hot, we have many data on that.
Question is, do we TRUST that data as being true – this is where we still have to BELIEVE it is so.
(Until we travel to the Sun itself and TOUCH it.)
…
Not “mine” – “mainstream Judaism’s”.
I can find sources for that, but it won’t change anything.
Also, the very split between “natural” and “supernatural” exists only from the POV of the Creation.
For the Creator, EVERYTHING is a part of Him, so there’s no essential difference between “natural” and “supernatural”.
Only WE “see” it.
(And no, G-d is NOT “Nature”, but “natural” is as much “supernatural” as the “true supernatural” is. Sorry for being complicated.)
I’ll look for some sources to explain it better.

Please, READ through before commenting…
Creation from nothing
There’s nothing but G-d
Why we don’t see G-d

1. Atheism – 100% sure there is no god. Definitely not practicing any religion out of personal choice.
2. Agnosticism – 1-99% unsure maybe there is god, not sure either way. May be practicing a religion out of upbringing habit.
3. Theism – 100% sure there is god. Definitely practicing a religion out of personal choice.

Here’s a better classification:

1. Gnostic atheism: Complete disbelief in any gods, and sure of it.
2. Agnostic atheism: Not sure whether a god exists, but doesn’t religiously believe.
3. Agnosticism: Not sure whether a god exists.
4. Agnostic theism: Not sure whether a god exists, but does religiously believe.
5. Gnostic theism: Complete belief in (a) god(s), and sure of it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have a problem with your usage of the concept of “100%”. The above classification skips that part and still makes it clear.

Since when BELIEVING must be LOGICAL and PROVEN?
It’s a contradiction in terms.

Basically, faith is the belief in X without sufficient evidence. Believing in X without using the concept of faith implies you have sufficient evidence.

The claim that “Universe doesn’t need a creator to exist”, is a bit too bold.
Cause the way I (as a religious Jew) understand “what is” G-d, is EXISTENCE itself.
That’s the main point where all those “researches” are wrong at the very beginning: they’re looking for something EXTERNAL, which may qualify as a Creator.
But G-d ISN’T “external”, and neither is the Universe to Him.
“There’s nothing but G-d”, is a very powerful idea, meaning “we’re as much part of G-d, as He Himself is”!

But again, you’re defining something to be and therefore conclude that it is. In this case, existence is proven, the universe is proven, but “God” is a concept you’ve defined to be both. As long as none of God’s features stray from existence and the universe, “God”, essentially, when defined exactly as existence and the universe, exists.

We know that Sun ACTS hot, we have many data on that.
Question is, do we TRUST that data as being true – this is where we still have to BELIEVE it is so.
(Until we travel to the Sun itself and TOUCH it.)

My concern is that you have a bias towards certain types of evidence and ignore other types of evidence. Personal experience is a fine method for you, but science also uses other types of evidence. We can define it to be hot, because it has been proven to be hot (in fact, you’d burn up far before you even come close). Scientifically. Not personally. I think we both agree we haven’t personally verified it.

DR
Hi. :D
Your classification sounds kinda weird.
What is the other option opposing “religiously believing”?
I need a detailed explanation of 2-4, cause it sounds weird…
(What makes them into three options, if all three are “not sure”?)
…
Provide me with a verb for “having faith”.
I say, “believe”.
(Don’t tell me, it’s Russian vs English, AGAIN…)
…
But “existence itself” is the ONLY “feature” we CAN accredit to G-d.
The others are but extensions of “eternal and all-encompassing existence”, PLUS “personal involvement and interest”, which sounds anthropomorphic and thus must mean NOT what WE understand by these words.
“My thoughts are not your thoughts”, is a very good explanation of how we CAN’T “define” G-d.
It’s like defining light to a blind-born.
Yes, we can use photons and waves, or math formulas – but we can’t make him SEE the light ITSELF.
…
Whatever.

Originally posted by somebody613:
(What makes them into three options, if all three are “not sure”?)

They’re varying degrees of “not sure.” It’s really not that hard to figure out.

Nope, DR mentions “religiously dis/believing” as the real difference.
Which is totally not understood by me – so I asked.

No religion. Atheist to the point that I am almsot certain that there are not supernatural beings, but if there are they irrelevant to us and our daily lives.