Are you religious?

[v1cious]

atheist here.

[phoenix]

No god required...or desired.

[bikerscars]

atheist here...

doesn't lessen the awe i have regarding the universe and life

[TeleportThis]

atheist here...

doesn't lessen the awe i have regarding the universe and life

Same here, although my awe is increased without a god.

[Jezebel]

Agnostic here.

[rasoirviolon]

i'm just wondering... i know we all love our privacy here so answers aren't obligatory but has everyone here always felt non-religious?

once someone finds out about my beliefs they think i'm lying. [smiley=uneasy.gif]

[bikerscars]

i'm just wondering... i know we all love our privacy here so answers aren't obligatory but has everyone here always felt non-religious?

yes...

as long as i can remember

when i was younger i did investigate different perspectives on various religions and realized i am most content with not deceiving myself...

for the record-mom worked hard to raise me in the roman catholic tradition...it works for her

[Jezebel]

i'm just wondering... i know we all love our privacy here so answers aren't obligatory but has everyone here always felt non-religious?
I was raised Christian and went to church when I was a kid. I remember being very skeptical even as a child. Initially I remember feeling guilty... like if there really was a God, was he going to be angry that I was questioning his existence? I thought about it a lot though, and I tried to believe. When I was a teenager I came to terms with it, stopped struggling to believe, and stopped going to church. I figured even if there was a God, he made me skeptical and would understand my reasoning. I wouldn't be able to worship a god that would punish me for it anyway.

I'd say that I lean toward atheism in my views toward the evidence. However, religion is one of those things I don't care to debate about these days.


once someone finds out about my beliefs they think i'm lying. [smiley=uneasy.gif]

Why do they think you're lying?

[rasoirviolon]

once someone finds out about my beliefs they think i'm lying. *[smiley=uneasy.gif]

Why do they think you're lying?

Stereotypes of the media I suppose. People tend to have an inaccurate preconceived idea.

[OneBadMother]

I was never raised religious, since my mom lost hers when I was four, and my dad is an atheist. I did look into religions back when I was 12, but having never been indoctrinated into any from an early age it wasn't difficult for me to still not believe in higher powers. :P

If there's one metaphysical belief I do like, it's the idea of reincarnation. Not according to castes or anything, just the idea of the consciousness going on and existing elsewhere in the world. I'm not going to put my money on it, though.

[iamnotspock]

Jewish Agnostic. I enjoy the traditions. The rest doesn't make sense.

[INTJohn]

Religiously anti-religious..........

INTJohn

[Evalind]

I was sent to religious schools until 10th grade, then also attended a religious college for 3 years. In such a sheltered setting I didn't question the existence of a god until the end of those 3 college years. I claim atheism these days, much to the dismay of the parental units.

[wise]

I was not raised in a religious home. I did always have an awareness of God though. I chose to be a Christian on my own, no influence from family, no one "witnessed" to me. I think it's weird the amount of interest atheists seem to have in religion.

[rwyatt365]

I'd say that I am agnostic. I'm not quite at the "there is no god (or gods)" because I don’t think there is a sufficient definition for what constitutes "god". Everything that we, as humans, could conceive of will be by definition limited by our humanity. So, if we cannot know god, how can we say what is god?

My upbringing was strictly Baptist / Christian, but not insistently so. As a matter of fact I don't really remember my parents going to church, just them insisting that we went. As soon as I could, I stopped going. Church was more a fashion show, beauty pageant, substitute pick-up spot than a religious or spiritual experience.

[phoenix]

I was not raised in a religious home. I did always have an awareness of God though. I chose to be a Christian on my own, no influence from family, no one "witnessed" to me. I think it's weird the amount of interest atheists seem to have in religion.

From my INTJ perspective, it's more a curiosity about how people who seem perfectly rational in others areas can entertain such non-rational notions. I'm not saying that all believers are typically rational, or that no atheists are irrational. Just my personal perspective.

Is belief in a deity irrational? I think it is, and at 15 I told my parents I was done with church (Catholic, btw). Organized religion as a social institution appears to have merit. It helps parents pass down morality lessons using parables and examples. It helps provide a social structure for many who might otherwise have no social outlets. It provides opportunities for community service and outreach to elders.

But I can have all that without a requirement that I believe in a deity.

[wise]

I was not raised in a religious home. I did always have an awareness of God though. I chose to be a Christian on my own, no influence from family, no one "witnessed" to me. I think it's weird the amount of interest atheists seem to have in religion.

From my INTJ perspective, it's more a curiosity about how people who seem perfectly rational in others areas can entertain such non-rational notions. I'm not saying that all believers are typically rational, or that no atheists are irrational. Just my personal perspective.

Is belief in a deity irrational? I think it is, and at 15 I told my parents I was done with church (Catholic, btw). Organized religion as a social institution appears to have merit. It helps parents pass down morality lessons using parables and examples. It helps provide a social structure for many who might otherwise have no social outlets. It provides opportunities for community service and outreach to elders.

But I can have all that without a requirement that I believe in a deity.

It's interesting that other atheist/agnostics have a problem with organized religion more so than the idea of a deity, while your problem is more with organized religion. Are there denominations of atheist and agnostics also? :P

[phoenix]

It's interesting that other atheist/agnostics have a problem with organized religion more so than the idea of a deity, while your problem is more with organized religion. Are there denominations of atheist and agnostics also? *:P

Did you mean that my problem is more with a deity?

And I too found it interesting that the next post I read was basically an atheist expounding on the dangers of organized religion.

In my opinion, the danger of religion comes from the absolute certainty in one's own position as the 'right' one. That certainty comes from a belief in the divine inspiration of those positions. Therefore, without deity, there would be no absolutes. Positions could be questioned, and more reasonable positions could be adopted where appropriate.

As for agnostic denominations, I had thought that is essentialy what the Unitarian Universalists are. But as I have not attended a UU church, I'm not certain.

Atheists by definition do not require a religious denomination. But I'm certain that many find community in other ways, from service clubs like Lions and Rotary, youth mentoring like Boy and Girl Scouts, to more self-help-oriented groups like AA if needed. Unfortunately even those groups typically have religious undertones, making it extremely difficult for atheists in our society to find a community social structure where we feel welcomed.

In truth, I think this says more about how significantly atheists are discriminated against than about how we may discriminate against others.

[wise]

It's interesting that other atheist/agnostics have a problem with organized religion more so than the idea of a deity, while your problem is more with organized religion. Are there denominations of atheist and agnostics also? :P

My response to you was based on your statement, "Organized religion as a social institution appears to have merit" which followed the previous statements "Is belief in a deity irrational? I think it is....."

All I meant was this stance appears different than other atheists/agnostics who vehemently hate organized religion but are alright with the idea of a deity (granted they don't require a deity). Of course there are many who despise both.

All in all, it was only meant as a friendly jab. ;D

[phoenix]

My response to you was based on your statement, "Organized religion as a social institution appears to have merit" which followed the previous statements "Is belief in a deity irrational? I think it is....."

All I meant was this stance appears different than other atheists/agnostics who vehemently hate organized religion but are alright with the idea of a deity (granted they don't require a deity). Of course there are many who despise both.

All in all, it was only meant as a friendly jab. *;D

And I took it as such! No worries here. *:thumbsup:

I also felt you deserved more than just a blow-off response. Guess I got too wordy, eh?

[wise]

And I took it as such! No worries here. :thumbsup:

I also felt you deserved more than just a blow-off response. Guess I got too wordy, eh?

No, not too wordy. I was sure I was coming across as intended. All is cool then. Fixed coding

[Evalind]

Are there denominations of atheist and agnostics also? :P

I wouldn't call it a denomination, however many atheists and agnostics find a spiritual home among the Unitarian Universalists.

From: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Q: Do they believe in God?
A: Some do, some don't. Through the years the denomination has welcomed agnostics, atheists and humanists, as well as Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims.

[wise]

I wouldn't call it a denomination, however many atheists and agnostics find a spiritual home among the Unitarian Universalists.


That comment you responded to, while I have no problem to your response, was my attempt at a light hearted joke of sorts. Denomination by nature denotes a division; I was referring to a division existing between the brotherhood of atheists and agnostics. If this muddles it further, then please forgive me and never mind. ;)

[Evalind]

That comment you responded to, while I have no problem to your response, was my attempt at a light hearted joke of sorts. Denomination by nature denotes a division; I was referring to a division existing between the brotherhood of atheists and agnostics. If this muddles it further, then please forgive me and never mind. ;)

Perhaps the quote made things confusing; I was attempting to interject information for anyone who did not realize atheists and agnostics can "go to church" too. I shared that it's not exactly a denomination to "distance" UUs from the various types of Christianity (though in the text quoted from beliefnet they do call it a denomination). It was not directed at any specific individual, and I'm not yet accustomed to speaking to an audience of people who think in patterns similar to my own. (I used "wouldn't call it a" in an attempt to soften the tone. That must not have worked as I hoped.)

[Max T]

My view on this subject is perhaps painfully simplistic to some.
Not theist, not atheist and not agnostic (belief that a presence of god is unknown).
All 3 suppose that you have made a decision.

I am not sufficiently motivated to reach a decision so am quite content with "uncertain".
To live by "Uncertain", I know that providing you help others and become a little wiser each day, and in so doing contribute to making this place a little better... you'll eventually get what you deserve. A perfectly strong moral compass.

"Uncertain" coincidentally hedges my bets that there is the One judging us at death. And if the One is an INTJ and/or truly is the One, I think they'll find it in their heart to approve of my very simple, down-to-earth approach.

[phoenix]

My view on this subject is perhaps painfully simplistic to some.
Not theist, not atheist and not agnostic (belief that a presence of god is unknown).
All 3 suppose that you have made a decision.

I am not sufficiently motivated to reach a decision so am quite content with "uncertain".
To live by "Uncertain", I know that providing you help others and become a little wiser each day, and in so doing contribute to making this place a little better... you'll eventually get what you deserve. A perfectly strong moral compass.

"Uncertain" coincidentally hedges my bets that there is the One judging us at death. * And if the One is an INTJ and/or truly is the One, I think they'll find it in their heart to approve of my very simple, down-to-earth approach.

My word for this is areligious...meaning that religion simply does not enter your intellectual realm. And I identified this way for much of my life. My science education is what finally pushed me to decide that I am atheist.

[intJAY]

The form of the following argument is valid. The premises seem sound. So, if one accepts the premises, the conclusion must follow.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
|- The universe was caused.

The argument form is valid (see To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for help. You will need to take off the existence--E!--to check the proof):
1) (Ax)(E!Bx->Cx)
2) (E!Bu)
|-(Cu)

The premises are sound:
Premise 1 is self-evident
Premise 2 is backed by the classical Big Bang theory

The cause would need to be spaceless (because there was no space sans creation), timeless (because there was no measurable time sans creation), very powerful (the cause, caused the Big Bang), and maybe even personal. Why? An impersonal, timeless cause would yield an impersonal, temporal effect. While a personal, timeless cause could yield a personal, temporal effect.

[wise]

The form of the following argument is valid. The premises seem sound. So, if one accepts the premises, the conclusion must follow.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
|- The universe was caused.

The argument form is valid (see To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for help. You will need to take off the existence--E!--to check the proof):
1) (Ax)(E!Bx->Cx)
2) (E!Bu)
|-(Cu)

The premises are sound:
Premise 1 is self-evident
Premise 2 is backed by the classical Big Bang theory

The cause would need to be spaceless (because there was no space sans creation), timeless (because there was no measurable time sans creation), very powerful (the cause, caused the Big Bang), and maybe even personal. Why? An impersonal, timeless cause would yield an impersonal, temporal effect. While a personal, timeless cause could yield a personal, temporal effect.


Maybe this means I'm not "intelligent", but, huh?? :-?

[Jbmontag]

I was not raised in a religious home. I did always have an awareness of God though. I chose to be a Christian on my own, no influence from family, no one "witnessed" to me. I think it's weird the amount of interest atheists seem to have in religion.


Theism is the assertive, there is a god. As an atheist, I would have to be familiar with the supporting evidence offered, to make any judgment of merit. The same applies to any belief I choose to have. I actually own five bibles, of various sorts, along with a host of other religions holy books.

Over the last few years I've become more anti-religious. I see any possible benefit offered by religion being far out weighed by its negative aspects. This is purely from a political stance.

I have no problem with the belief, believe what you want. When that belief starts to seek legislation to enforce it, then, there is a problem.

[Jbmontag]

TThe cause would need to be spaceless (because there was no space sans creation), timeless (because there was no measurable time sans creation), very powerful (the cause, caused the Big Bang), and maybe even personal. Why? An impersonal, timeless cause would yield an impersonal, temporal effect. While a personal, timeless cause could yield a personal, temporal effect.
intJAY- Could you define "personal" ?

[wise]

I was not raised in a religious home. I did always have an awareness of God though. I chose to be a Christian on my own, no influence from family, no one "witnessed" to me. I think it's weird the amount of interest atheists seem to have in religion.


Theism is the assertive, there is a god. As an atheist, I would have to be familiar with the supporting evidence offered, to make any judgment of merit. The same applies to any belief I choose to have. I actually own five bibles, of various sorts, along with a host of other religions holy books.

Over the last few years I've become more anti-religious. I see any possible benefit offered by religion being far out weighed by its negative aspects. This is purely from a political stance.

I have no problem with the belief, believe what you want. When that belief starts to seek legislation to enforce it, then, there is a problem.

As far as legislation goes, I'm rather sick of politics from any standpoint. There isn't a politician or political system in existence that I trust. My religious beliefs, as I said, were determined independently and I don't force my beliefs on others. I don't feel the need to do so. This is altogether weird for me to be involved in a "religious" thread for this length of time. :)

[jeffersonian]

I'm definitely an atheist.

It's interesting that we've developed a distinction between those who object to organized religion and those who object to a deity. I would have to say I object to both.

I think looking for something to supply you with answers is a sickness, and that's typically what people go to religion and deities for. I spent a great deal of time as a child contemplating whether I thought it was wrong to lie, steal or worship idols. I sorted that out for myself, and I think each person should.

I'm less opposed to people who use religious texts for stimulating questions. That seems healthy.

Religion as a vehicle for morals is ineffective and gives us a false sense of security and progress. People will be much more dedicated to values they develop on their own.

[Jbmontag]

I don't think the belief holds any particular merit either, not much one can do but argue on that. A lot of people thought "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie, as long as I'm not forced to use quotes from it, I'm okay :o

[intJAY]

intJAY- Could you define "personal" ?


A personal cause is sentient and has a free will.

[jeffersonian]

The form of the following argument is valid. *The premises seem sound. *So, if one accepts the premises, the conclusion must follow.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
|- The universe was caused.

The argument form is valid (see To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for help. *You will need to take off the existence--E!--to check the proof):
1) (Ax)(E!Bx->Cx)
2) (E!Bu)
|-(Cu)

The premises are sound:
Premise 1 is self-evident
Premise 2 is backed by the classical Big Bang theory

The cause would need to be spaceless (because there was no space sans creation), timeless (because there was no measurable time sans creation), very powerful (the cause, caused the Big Bang), and maybe even personal. *Why? *An impersonal, timeless cause would yield an impersonal, temporal effect. *While a personal, timeless cause could yield a personal, temporal effect. *


This is flawed.

You admit a weakness when you say there was no "measurable" time before creation. That adjective just saves you from saying there was no time, which is problematic. If it wasn't measurable time, then it's still time and your 'cause' is within time, and therefore not really the cause, is it?

Not to mention that your argument still doesn't escape the classic caveat: if everything has a cause, your cause has to have one, as well. Therefore, you haven't arrived at anything conclusive.

Also, the argument for personal cause is just saying that you can't get something personal out of something impersonal, but that's just what I would suggest happened.

[Jbmontag]

Just checking, that then begs the question. What caused the cause ad infinitum?

[jeffersonian]

Just checking, that then begs the question. What caused the cause ad infinitum?

Precisely my point.

[intJAY]

You admit a weakness when you say there was no "measurable" time before creation. That adjective just saves you from saying there was no time, which is problematic. If it wasn't measurable time, then it's still time and your 'cause' is within time, and therefore not really the cause, is it?

"Measurable cosmic time" is part of the Big Bang talk--in the literature. Time and space were created at the Big Bang. I qualified time as "measurable" to be accurate with the literature. So, I believe you are missing my point. However, you are correct in saying that, sans creation, there was no time. You need to qualify the impersonal pronoun, "it". I believe that you are saying that there was time prior to the Big Bang. This is not a point I am contending. There are not only language problems with saying "prior to time" but there is a scientific problem too. The point you are knocking down is a straw man.

Your second point is also a straw man. Read my argument again. It says, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." The cause of the Big Bang is sufficient enough to be a first cause.

Your third point is fideistic--a statement of faith but you did not provide reasons for your faith statement. Let me explain my point further to clarify: i) The cause of the beginning of the universe couldn’t have been a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for its effect. Since the cause of space and time cannot itself be in space and time, that cause must be timeless. But if that timeless cause were sufficient for its effect, then its effect would be eternal. But the eternity of the universe has been ruled out by premise one of the argument. Therefore, the mere existence of the cause cannot be sufficient for its effect. ii) Rather, a free choice had to be involved, a choice which was not determined by antecedent conditions that were sufficient for that choice. iii) In addition, given the distinction between scientific explanation (in terms of initial conditions and laws of nature) and personal explanation (in terms of the beliefs, powers, and purposes of a person), it might be that explaining the beginning of the universe outstrips in principle the way of scientific explanation. After all, there are no relevant laws of nature or initial (physical) conditions to appeal to. That leaves personal explanation as the most plausible alternative.

[jeffersonian]

"Measurable cosmic time" is part of the Big Bang talk--in the literature. Time and space were created at the Big Bang. I qualified time as "measurable" to be accurate with the literature. So, I believe you are missing my point. However, you are correct in saying that, sans creation, there was no time. You need to qualify the impersonal pronoun, "it". I believe that you are saying that there was time prior to the Big Bang. This is not a point I am contending. There are not only language problems with saying "prior to time" but there is a scientific problem too. The point you are knocking down is a straw man.

Your second point is also a straw man. Read my argument again. It says, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." The cause of the Big Bang is sufficient enough to be a first cause.

Your third point is fideistic--a statement of faith but you did not provide reasons for your faith statement. Let me explain my point further to clarify: i) The cause of the beginning of the universe couldn’t have been a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for its effect. Since the cause of space and time cannot itself be in space and time, that cause must be timeless. But if that timeless cause were sufficient for its effect, then its effect would be eternal. But the eternity of the universe has been ruled out by premise one of the argument. Therefore, the mere existence of the cause cannot be sufficient for its effect. ii) Rather, a free choice had to be involved, a choice which was not determined by antecedent conditions that were sufficient for that choice. iii) In addition, given the distinction between scientific explanation (in terms of initial conditions and laws of nature) and personal explanation (in terms of the beliefs, powers, and purposes of a person), it might be that explaining the beginning of the universe outstrips in principle the way of scientific explanation. After all, there are no relevant laws of nature or initial (physical) conditions to appeal to. That leaves personal explanation as the most plausible alternative.

Talk about a statement of faith: "The cause of the Big Bang is sufficient enough to be a first cause." Despite your best efforts, there just simply isn't anything in your argument that actually proves this. You just want it to be there.

You're still not getting to the point of making a logical NECESSITY for free choice to be involved in the creation other than narrowly defining your system so that you CAN get there. You're reaching with all your might for something that just isn't there.

Anyone wishing to see where INTJay is lifting all of this to quote for us can visit To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Further, your carefully crafted first statement: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is merely a definition that presupposes the outcome of your argument. It translates as, "Anything that has not always been has a cause." It's no wonder you then point to your first cause and basically establish that it's always been. It's the only way to avoid the rational requirement that your cause, too, has a cause. You've simply narrowed the system with your softball definition to make it easier to get where you want to be.

Dishonest philosophy is what that is.

[intJAY]

Jeffersonian is wanting proof. Well, I provided a proof via modus ponens. In formal logic, this is called a proof. Jeffersonian did not deny the validity of the argument. However, what he is saying is that he wants is his criteria met, his way. That is understandable. We all do. However, since this is a philosophy and religion topic, proof is rarely spoken of in the literature. Proof is more of a mathematical category. Rather, in this category, we try to reason to the best answer. If you want a mathematical proof in religion, you are making a categorical mistake.

Jeffersonian is denying the soundness of the argument. He is wanting to call into question premise 1 and the additional argument made about a personal cause. Since he does not comment of premise 2, I will suppose that he accepts it.

I deny that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is presuppositional to the outcome of my argument as he says. On the Big Bang theory, sans creation, we are left with abstract objects. Atheists, Peter Atkins (Physical Chemist) and Quinten Smith (Philosopher) both realize this. Atkins argues that the abstract objects may be numbers. But numbers do not have causal power. If you can provide a cause that is abstract and causal and can produce a temporal, personal effect, then I am open to hearing your ideas. Until then, my reasons for a spaceless, timeless, maximally powerful, personal, agent has the right stuff to do the job. No multiple cause is needed (principle of parsimony). So, I am simply trying to go with the best or most reasonable evidence. If your argument is more persuasive, I certainly want to change my stance.

Seeking truth,

intJAY

P.S. The argument is not from Guthrie. Thank you for the good website though. The argument is from William Lane Craig.

[jeffersonian]

You said it yourself, "If one accepts the premises."

I do not and cannot accept the first premise. From that point, the rest of the argument is pointless to consider. Despite all of your attempts to complicate the issue, you have to admit that, right? If we won't accept your premise, the entire argument fails. I believe that's a principle tenet of modus ponens.

Your first premise builds in an exception for your cause. This premise doesn't address everything that exists, only things that begin to exist. So, it's obvious you place your cause in this "always existed" zone so that it's not affected by any reasoning that follows. How clever but meaningless.

I have to wonder why you've turned from addressing me directly to grandstaging for the forum and addressing me in third person.

I think my point was less that you were using that specific website than to illuminate the fact that you're simply posting other people's ideas here as your own.

Sympathetic closing,

jeffersonian

Jeffersonian did not deny the validity of the argument.

Hmm...you must be grossly misunderstanding me. ;D

[tricstmr]

I polled as Atheist.. but I always have a quibble with people who put atheist/agnostic/theist as part of one continuous spectrum.

As I look at it.. the question of gnosticism/agnosticism is epistemologically different than the question of defining oneself as a theist or atheist.

being agnostic--going from the roots--means that one claims "not to know," and going by classical definitions of knowledge--than knowledge is the state of affairs where one is 100% certain about something.

Now.. on the question of whether there is a deity (or deities) or whatever.. I find claims that people claim NOT to be agnostic to be relatively suspicious.

how do they know--with 100% certainty--that they are right? is it a feeling? is there physical evidence? do they have foolproof 100% logical deductions (hahahahaha...)

What? Such things are part and parcel of the question of being a gnostic/agnostic.

On the other hand--the question of being an "atheist" or a "theist" merely is the question of whether one believes in the existence of a deity/deities/fairies/flyingspaghettimonsters/etc or not and has no specific claim on what level of certainty with which this belief is held. Is one a theist who has doubts? who accepts the possibility that a deity might not exist--but still does believe that it does?

I write all this, because I have always claimed that I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural phenomena--but I don't go around making any claims of certainty to this knowledge. There might be gods out there, I'll admit, but i just don't believe it... (anymore than I believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny)...

anyway.. just a thought..

[Harman]

I believe in myself. What does that make me? :-?

[intJAY]

Jeffersonian did not deny the validity of the argument.

Hmm...you must be grossly misunderstanding me. ;D

No. In sentential, predicate, and modal logics, validity is distinguished from soundness. Let me explain:

Validity has to do with argument form. Modus Ponens is a standard valid form and is the form:

1) a->b
2) a
|- b

An invalid form is:

1) a->b
2) b
|- a
Why is it invalid? Let's plug in. 1) If I have 4 apples, then I have 3 apples. 2) I have 3 apples. Therefore, I have 4 apples. This is why the argument form is said to be invalid.

Instead, you contested the soundness of premise 1. Soundness has to do with the "weight" of the argument--whether you believe the premise has merit. By accepting the soundness of premise 2, you put yourself in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Entailed in accepting premise 2 is the classical Big Bang model. On the classical Big Bang model, time and space were created at the first moment of the Big Bang. There is nothing physical sans creation. That's the model. So, sans creation, we are left with abstract objects. Maybe a better argument for you would be some sort of causal abstract object (ala Atkins) or maybe you could cite a speculative physical theory (string theory) for the caused beginning of the universe. Heck, Hawking does not like the thought of a caused beginning either. So, he uses imaginary numbers to round off the sharp, cone top of time zero of the Big Bang. By accepting premise 2, it seems that you commit yourself to either non-physical/abstract objects, rounding off the sharp edge of the Big Bang, or some alternative quantum theory (which is still physical) unless you can think of another theory.

You did not like the soundness of "begins to exist". You thought that the phrase delimited the scope of causal candidates. Well, it does. But by accepting premise two, it seems that you commit to the Big Bang theory. By committing to the Big Bang theory, sans creation, you may hold that there are abstract objects as causal agents. Maybe you don't like the notion of non-physical or abstract objects. I don't know. Numbers, the laws of math, and the laws of logic are thought to be abstract. If there were no physical, sentient being around, math and logic would work. So, they are seen as abstract. Abstract objects don't have to have multiple causes either. Plato spoke of them as 'forms'. It does not seem that math and logic are man made. We don't speak of Pythagorus developing or constructing his theory like a house being build. We speak of him discovering his theorem like an abstract object being found.

I hope that I did not cause any of my INTJ friends any unnecessary pain in this discussion. If I did, truly, please forgive me. My personality is INTJ ;) (but seriously, I don't want to cause undue pain due to being brash to my INTJ brothers and sisters). I am appreciative of the discussion. As INTJs, we are geared toward science, math, and systems. But I am surprised at the number of atheist or agnostic INTJs. Heck, even Anthony Flew has become a deist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). After becoming skeptical of my skepticism, I opted for, what I believed to be, the most viable answer--an Uncaused, Cause or Prime Mover (check our Aristotle or Aquinas). A Prime Mover seems to fit with the physical theory that I hold--the Big Bang. The argument presented in the discussion is from William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1979 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). INTJs are smart and I look forward to reading and discussing other theories.

[jeffersonian]

I don't see where I accepted the soundness of statement 2 anywhere accept that I didn't attack it. I would actually have to think about it more. I certainly wouldn't try to defend or attack it until I've given it more thought. That's why I left it alone.

Sometimes I do think logic is man made. I'm not entirely comfortable with my epistemology, yet. I'll get back to you in a few years.

No harm, no foul. I guess INTJs can get a little heated when trying to explain to others how to see we're right! ;)

Actually, I appreciate the conversation, as well. I've got some philosophy experience, and it's hard to come by people who know it beyond a textbook summary. And your assertion was the first I've really heard of Kalam. I'm still not convinced, but it's interesting nonetheless.

To be honest, I don't think my atheism has much to do with being an INTJ.

[Jbmontag]

The most viable answer is NOT a prime mover or uncaused cause. The intellectually honest answer is a long series of question marks.

Something that is necessarily timeless and spaceless, as in your perfectly valid and sound argument, has no definition. It cannot be measured in any significant sense understood by our species, and cannot be given any meaning.

Giving real meaning and substantive characteristics to and abstract idea commits the fallacy of hypostatization. Even giving a name, to the as yet defined cause, commits the fallacy. Hell, calling it a cause is a fallacy.

So everybody on your knees, pay homage and tribute to THE GREAT SOMETHING OCCURRED AT A FIXED POINT IN TIME!!! There I go again :thumbsup:

[More Tea]

Spiritual, but not religious. Agnostic with panentheist tendencies. I was strongly Atheist growing up (that went over ever-so-well with my family and the many Christians in the neighborhood, as you may imagine), but nowadays prefer a bit more spiritual fuzziness. E.g., I have no problems with the idea of reincarnation, especially after reading a bit of Ian Stevenson's stuff. Jungian ideas also make up a good deal of my spirituality.

Sure, it doesn't have the logical clarity of Atheism, but personally, I function better emotionally as an Agnostic, so I'll run with it. Likewise, I do not begrudge others what works for them, but only so long as they are not pushing it on me, via evangelism, lobbying, or otherwise.

[jellosubmarine]

The challenging part is that so many disperate peoples have decided they are not alone. I'm not convinced that God was fabricated to explain the unexplainable. Our explanations probably aren't much better than theirs were and I don't know if they stayed up nights wondering why apples fell to the ground. You would think they would be more inclined to view things as stuff that happens and not fabricate such an elaborate story of chariots in the sky or all of us on the back of a turtle. Religion and explanation can all take a hike as far as I am concerned. A creator? Something had to make it all go bang at one time, eh? Wasn't me. I think therefor I am I think.

[PhoenixRising]

My view closely resembles More Tea's in that I am more spiritual than anything. But I chose to put down Thiest. Lots of good opinions in here, but for me I have experienced far too many circumstances in my life than could be explained by "Chance" without some kind of intervention. By the same token I have found that many of the challenges I have faced have been just what was needed for growth, although sometimes not what I wanted. At any rate I do believe in a higher power or "God", however I don't like organized religion as personally I feel that a persons relationship with the diety of their choice should be a one on one thing and not driven by doctrine or any particular religions views of how that relationship should work. LOL, You're just jealous because the Voices in my head don't talk to You!...

[Epicurus]

Agnostic, but pantheism is the only resonable theism and thats probably what Im closest to also; and atheism and agnosticism at the same time...

[toonia]

I find myself questioning the basic assumptions of both theists and atheists. I am an agnostic which is very different from either of the other two positions. My agnosticism is based on observing the feebleness of the human mind and its many failures throughout recorded history. The presumption that we can understand the nature of all things seems like a bit of a leap, when there is not a way to observe or prove that we posses such an ability. Even if we can answer every rational question we can think to ask, what about the questions we do not possess the capacity to ask?

Agnosticism operates in the context of not knowing, of considering probabilities of things. Atheism and theism rely on some absolutes. They create systems with the intention of producing 'facts' and answers. I can see a pragmatic reason for this, but informed speculation serves an important role as well. It is the process of formulating the most meaningful questions.

[the-writer]

I was raised in a Christian home and continue to attend a mainline church.

I'm on the other end I guess from many of you in that the design of the universe cries out to me that there is a Designer and like an INTJ, once I have settled that question, I can move on to something else.

So far, I have not encountered anything to tell me different and have encountered much supporting data.

[Jbmontag]

Agnostic refers to knowledge and has nothing to do with belief.

[thegnat]

atheist here.

i've been agnostic for a long time.

I'm a relatively open - minded atheist now. Some religious attitudes and my science background have pushed me towards atheist.

If somehow evidence proves there is a God, I'll accept it. But there is not now. Therefore I don't believe a God exists. I'm not closed-minded to the possibility though.

If that all makes any sense haha

[Quincunx]

Once an avowed atheist, I came to religion 'kicking and screaming,' somewhat like CS Lewis. Though I am exhaustively rational, I do not percieve a conflict between my beliefs (which differ significantly from those of my atheist parents) and having a logical, even skeptical lifestyle. For me, religion is apologetically defendable, and thus a valid way of seeing life: I concluded that absolute truth does, in some form, exist, and I choose to call that God.

Most logical individuals hear the word 'Christian' and cringe. To be honest, I often react similarly when I hear utterly despicable people claim to have found God. Most Christians don't know that Jesus was a strict vegetarian, that he probably would have called today's Catholic clergy liars and vipers, and that 99% of the Christian population doesn't actually follow Jesus. Jesus commanded us to lead a radical lifestyle that questions everything--even God. Some secular historians claim that he cited the struggles of Job more than nearly anything else, because he saw skepticism, when used as an instrument by which to discover truth, as a positive and necessary part of the world.

I follow that teaching.

[Xenolar]

I am by no means religious, yet I can be quite spiritual. My religious beliefs are, in fact, too twisted to be accurately described in words. However, one could refer to me as a pantheist, yet this is still somewhat of a simplification. I believe in most of the values and morals taught by the church, yet I prefer to interpret the Bible in a metaphorical rather than literal sense. I am not entirely sure as to whether I believe in what is commonly referred to as a "deity" or not. I am somewhat skeptical about a god as described by the Bible. I think of a "god" as a more abstract entity. The way in which Carl Sagan and Baruch Spinoza among others portrayed deities.

I do not percieve a conflict between my beliefs (which differ significantly from those of my atheist parents) and having a logical, even skeptical lifestyle
Please elaborate on this. I am interested in hearing why you do not believe your religious beliefs to conflict with your supposed rational philosophies.

[vulcan]

Atheism is as bad as theism. I don't like taking a fence sitting position, but on this issue, Agnostic is the only logical stance.

[snoogit]

My view on this subject is perhaps painfully simplistic to some.
Not theist, not atheist and not agnostic (belief that a presence of god is unknown).
All 3 suppose that you have made a decision.

I am not sufficiently motivated to reach a decision so am quite content with "uncertain".
To live by "Uncertain", I know that providing you help others and become a little wiser each day, and in so doing contribute to making this place a little better... you'll eventually get what you deserve. A perfectly strong moral compass.

"Uncertain" coincidentally hedges my bets that there is the One judging us at death. And if the One is an INTJ and/or truly is the One, I think they'll find it in their heart to approve of my very simple, down-to-earth approach.

Describes me. I can't be sure there is or is not a God, so I happen to lean on the skeptical side, but I immediately reject a lot of the Intelligent design, Creationist junk as rubbish. Although in terms of Christianity I have to say I'm a lot more interested in the Historical Accuracy, and archaeological aspects of religion. I can't rule out God exists, but I can rule out a lot of the junk thats forced down the throats of most believers. I think its why I immediately reject most religious leaders, but am drawn to those that seem to "make some sense" Religious leaders who realize theres more important things then bashing gays, and abortion get my attention, since so many seem to combine intellect, and reason into their ideology then the radical theologists do.

I tend to think like this: "Its easy to rule out God after the big bang, but what about before it???" We can't rule him out, but we can't just stick him in there and say "God did it" either. Religion is perhaps one of the most perplexing things I think about.

[Max T]

Describes me. I can't be sure there is or is not a God, so I happen to lean on the skeptical side, but I immediately reject a lot of the Intelligent design, Creationist junk as rubbish. Although in terms of Christianity I have to say I'm a lot more interested in the Historical Accuracy, and archaeological aspects of religion. I can't rule out God exists, but I can rule out a lot of the junk thats forced down the throats of most believers. I think its why I immediately reject most religious leaders, but am drawn to those that seem to "make some sense" Religious leaders who realize theres more important things then bashing gays, and abortion get my attention, since so many seem to combine intellect, and reason into their ideology then the radical theologists do.

I tend to think like this: "Its easy to rule out God after the big bang, but what about before it???" We can't rule him out, but we can't just stick him in there and say "God did it" either. Religion is perhaps one of the most perplexing things I think about.
Snoogit- you've certainly considered religion far more than I have. I'll likely share your thoughts in the future...
... especially on your last sentence ("Religion... most perplexing..."). The reason why I've given it such little thought is precisely because of this- religion is so complex that at my stage in life I just don't even want to peer into that bottomless issue. That's a compliment to religion's depth btw, not implying that it's unimportant.

I say previously that "I am not sufficiently motivated to reach a decision"- again, not a criticism. But I sense exactly what you've experienced- that it is hugely complex and so to reach my little decision on the issue will require a lot of effort and motivation.


Being so detached from religion by our 'non-opinion', maybe we are best positioned to suggest a criteria for judging religion?
You mention judging religious leaders by "those that seem to make sense" in our present day. I agree since present day humans are at their most advanced and therefore presumably most 'wise' to judge such big issues as religion. The most 'future-proof' religion, as shown by its applicability to modern times, could therefore be deemed the best.

Perhaps another criteria to judge religions is an offshoot to this- which religion(s) are not only most relevant today, but also have contributed most positively (approx positives minus negatives) to the world since the most accurately recorded time (e.g. since 1600s) onwards. This could easily be written off as too formulaic and difficult to quantify however. But you could aggregate positives and negatives at a very high level: e.g. no. of wars started due to that religion subtracted by no. of followers/charitable contributions.... some religions could be in deep deficit!

[thecraig]

Dictionary.com defines faith as follows:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. *
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. *
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. *
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. *
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. *

I think the reason so many INTJ have issue with religeon is definition #2. *In my opinion of the three listed positions in the poll the agnostic stance requires no proof and therefore no faith is required. *Atheist have faith that there is no God (you can not conclusively prove that a god does not exist). *I am *a Christian. *I acknowledge that this requires faith.

[Chainsaw Dundee]

Im more of a "law of attraction, and ultra-complex infinitely dimensional interconnected quantum-mindfuck"-theist than anything. I don't believe in any specific beings or entities, and I disregard most religions as a joke. A joke that people take way too seriously.

[jeffersonian]

I'm not sure I understand why some of you say that agnosticism is to be favored over atheism as the "logical" choice.

I don't believe in things for which I have no evidence. Why say we can't know if there's a god or not? The same could be said of any knowledge we have. I can't actually know the color of my jacket. I can only base my opinion on what is available to me. I could say that it's impossible for me to know and therefore never decide what color it is, but that's rather silly.

There's nothing to suggest the existence of God, in my opinion, so it would be illogical for me to call myself agnostic.

[AJ]

Agnostic here, but leaning towards atheist.

Anyone who asks me about my views on religion or God, I just respond:

"I believe in a God who one day clapped his hands and caused a big bang."

[curse10]

Staunchly atheist. I find agnosticism to be a bit of a cop out. Either you believe there is a higher being or you don't. I don't think there is an atheist out there who, if confronted with hard facts that there was a god (like Jesus himself apparating into my house), wouldn't change their mind. I think that many people who call themselves agnostic do so to be polite. It's not as offensive to the religious, for some reason.

When I was younger, from my early teens until my early twenties I called myself an agnostic (I started questioning belief in god at the same time I found out dear old Santa . That got a lot less ire from the religious folks. But you mention the word "atheist" and some people are immediately offended. Like my non-belief is an affront to theirs.

Although, I have to say, I enjoy much of what religion has brought to the world. I love Bach and Notre Dame and Giotto. Many beautiful things were made in the name of God (and many atrocities committed- but that's a whole other discussion).

[Epicurus]

Agnostic refers to knowledge and has nothing to do with belief.

Yes, and what you do with that knowledge in form of belief is another thing (atheism, theism...) if you do anything like that with it ofcourse, you can always just know what you know. Atlest you are always more inclined to some of the beliefs tough.

The philosophy of skepticism seems to be confused with agnosticism quite often.

[Epicurus]

I'm not sure I understand why some of you say that agnosticism is to be favored over atheism as the "logical" choice.

I don't believe in things for which I have no evidence. Why say we can't know if there's a god or not? The same could be said of any knowledge we have. I can't actually know the color of my jacket. I can only base my opinion on what is available to me. I could say that it's impossible for me to know and therefore never decide what color it is, but that's rather silly.

There's nothing to suggest the existence of God, in my opinion, so it would be illogical for me to call myself agnostic. The difference between God and the colour of your jacket is that you can't prove or disproove him in the same way. Your jacket does exist so therefore you can proove its colour, God you can't say shit about since it only exists in the believings of people, what we know.

If such a thing only seems to exist in peoples minds you could wonder why even adressing the quiestion of it as you can't say anything about it with facts.

If you reject knowing the colour of your jacket thats not agnosticism, rather skepticism and with pure skeptisicm you don't know anything at all, but sure they are fairly related.

[stuntgp2000]

Hi,

well, I'm a Muslim and I witness to the existence of the only one God, Allah the merciful and all-mighty; and that Muhamed is his prophet.

Although, I was raised in a Islamic society, I myself rediscovered Islam's teachings.

Why ? because being an INTJ ( a system builder) I know after a lot of thoughts, observations and introspections that the whole life in earth and all this universe operate in highly precise system, perfectly designed to serve us, with quality and ultimate harmony and consistent in every detail. This cannot be achieved by any type of evolution except if it was made by a supreme and powerful existence that designed it which is the only one God, Allah.

Then, I proceeded to examine the Qur'an (Islam's holy book) using a rational, logical and skeptical thinking. I was shocked, overwhelmed by the precise descriptions, systematic operations, fair laws, good manners that are stated in the Qur'an.

And please, don't make any rush judgments about what actually happening by some fanatics.

I'm happily living my life with a double blessing, a Muslim + INTJ. This is how I see things, I would encourage everyone to do the same but that's your ultimate choice.

Regards,

Med

[Nightelf]

Agnostic here.

In my opinion, atheism is also a kind of belief, as arguments pro and contra the existence of any god(s) cannot be proven.
Though I was raised in a 'moderately' Christian family, when I grew 15 I decided to reveal whether the viewpoint of Christianity is right or false. So I turned to the Catholic Church (I 'was" the only C. in our family), because I hoped to find undeniable arguments there. (Where if not there?) After years spent with reading-questioning-reading I returned to the starting point. If you believe in the existence of God, one argument gives an other, but without this foundation their arguments collapse. :-/

So I went on with reading and decided to choose the point of agnosticism.

[Henry]

I'm not sure I understand why some of you say that agnosticism is to be favored over atheism as the "logical" choice.

I don't believe in things for which I have no evidence. Why say we can't know if there's a god or not? The same could be said of any knowledge we have. I can't actually know the color of my jacket. I can only base my opinion on what is available to me. I could say that it's impossible for me to know and therefore never decide what color it is, but that's rather silly.

There's nothing to suggest the existence of God, in my opinion, so it would be illogical for me to call myself agnostic.

You're claiming to have knowledge of a negative - that god doesn't exist - and that's not logically possible unless you are all-knowing.

Many people - myself included - would disagree with your last paragraph, if by "God" we mean "the universal power that penetrates everything and transcends thought". *

[oceanicon]

I'm agnostic and I dislike organized religion. perhaps there is some kind of god but no one will ever be able to proove it. and organized religion instrumentalizes the masses and divides our human race with unnecessary and stupid conflicts.

[HeterodoxRobot]

Am I religious?

Sure, I'd say that I am, and have always been, "religiously" concerned/driven/motivated by the realties of nature, as well as having always been philosophically concerned with the nature of Reality.


It is what it is.

[stasis]

I'm agnostic on the essential question of whether or not some god or gods exist. Not only do I have no knowledge of divinity or Design, but I have next to no knowledge about what might constitute the entirety of the physical reality in which I live. Consequently, having no information to work with, I am an atheist in practice by logical default (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Figmentum]

God? What the non-existent hell? Oh my non-existent God! If he's back... damn... I think the boogie man is under my bed again... I thought I banished them both!

[Sey.Naci]

i'm just wondering... i know we all love our privacy here so answers aren't obligatory but has everyone here always felt non-religious?Yes, always. Remember when I was 5-yrs-old adamantly opposing my theist mother's attempts to convert me. Could see no reason to suppose the existence of a diety - or Santa Claus for that matter. Thought she was foolish to keep insisting there was.

[Figmentum]

I love that. Thinking of it just makes me laugh. lol...

[Aoiluna]

I have always been confused on what Ive believed in. I grew up in a catholic church, and then our family stopped going. I then became Christian years later, and I considered myself pretty devout. I was 'saved' but it didn't really do much for me.

[Myrak]

Religion was never really pushed on me, our family only went to church just enough so I could get into the Catholic high school (which I'm still at, one year to go!). Even through my first few years at this school, I never actually believed and internalized anything religious, but by the same token I never questioned the stuff either. Hell, to get into the school, an interview was required. When asked what my religion was, I responded 'Catholic', truly having NO idea what a 'Catholic' was or what it entailed. After about 2 years, something just twigged in my mind about the whole thing and I thought 'Hey, this doesn't make any sense...' and from then on I just couldn't "believe" any more (not like I did in the first place anyway...).

[SMKN LS1]

Devoted Roman Catholic here, but it's taken some time to get there. I went through the typical distancing from the Church in my teens and twenties. But, some serious health problems brought my focus back to faith rather quickly. When my own mortality stared me in the face, trying to rationalize my existence wasn't easy. So, I started to pray, and amazing things happened.

Since then, I've become a closet student of theology and am very impressed with the thinkers in that field. I'm continually amazed at some of the advanced writings of Pope John Paul II; and how incredibly tough the theology is to really comprehend. The chatechism isn't easy to understand, which leads to many people dropping out of the Catholic faith.

I don't consider myself to be "religious," but do allow my faith and morality to help make decisions in life.

[mielikki]

I took the beliefnet quiz on the advice of my Wiccan cousin.

I ended up with Unitarian, Liberal Quaker, Tao and Secular Humanism as the top four. I must say that Tao interested me. I am reading the Tao Te Ching at the moment, and am getting quite a bit out of it. I'm all for anything that will quiet the mind a bit and doesn't involve becoming a zealot. (Or engaging in constant ritual)

[mrswentworth]

I was raised Christian and went to church when I was a kid. I remember being very skeptical even as a child. Initially I remember feeling guilty... like if there really was a God, was he going to be angry that I was questioning his existence? I thought about it a lot though, and I tried to believe. When I was a teenager I came to terms with it, stopped struggling to believe, and stopped going to church. I figured even if there was a God, he made me skeptical and would understand my reasoning. I wouldn't be able to worship a god that would punish me for it anyway.

I'd say that I lean toward atheism in my views toward the evidence. However, religion is one of those things I don't care to debate about these days.



Same here. I went to an anglican school when I was 13. And it lasted 4 years. We had chapel weekly but it did nothing to me. I've always been skeptical. Though I believe prayers do work sometimes. I'm just a confused kid. Can I say I'm 50% atheist? Yea.

[INTeJer]

I do not agree with the contraposition of atheism and agnosticism. I think the poll is ill-defined. The actual contrast is between theism and atheism, that is, belief vs. non-belief. Agnosticism is another issue entirely. If you believe, you are a believer (theist); if you do not believe, you are a non-believer (atheist); if you believe that god does not exist, you are still a believer in the non-existance of god.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not with belief. I consider myself atheist AND agnostic, because I do not believe in any of the gods (atheism), AND because I think that any metaphysical entity like god is, by definition, not-knowable (agnosticism). If it was knowable, it wouldn't be metaphysical.

In my view, atheism is very much linked with skepticism. In fact, while I do not believe in god(s), the foundation of my philosophical stance is a lack of evidence in favour of its existence. If and when solid evidence is presented, I am ready and willing to re-examine my position. Again, this is not, by any means, agnosticism, or weak atheism, or whatever. It's just plain and simple atheism: I do not believe.

Incidentally, most theists are actually 99.99% atheists...they dismiss Zeus and Thor and Shiva and Santa like fairy tales, but for reasons beyond my comprehension they decide that one particular figment of their imagination is actually different, and "exists". Oh, well, perhaps some of the INTJs who are also theists will care to explain.

[Laura_Palmer]

100% Atheist

[Solnath]

Apatheism. I really don't care about religion or spirituality because frankly, I already know the true nature of everything and then some more. Albeit it's indirect knowledge, I have no problem not knowing directly. No need to compensate for lack of power over self by trying to take control of the outside on this front.

[AgentofGaming]

Why ? because being an INTJ ( a system builder) I know after a lot of thoughts, observations and introspections that the whole life in earth and all this universe operate in highly precise system, perfectly designed to serve us, with quality and ultimate harmony and consistent in every detail. This cannot be achieved by any type of evolution except if it was made by a supreme and powerful existence that designed it which is the only one God, Allah.


This can be arguable both ways. How can one say that the universe is perfectly designed for us when it can kill us and make our life constantly inconveniently? It can just as easily argued that the universe is designed against us.
However I doubt any of us would jump into space without a spacesuit, so I tend to think the universe is "as is" (not meant for us or against us) and we are just a lucky lifeform here that has managed to survive and still is struggling to survive.
Anyone who designed the universe would be arguably be harsh, as we have to constantly strive to keep ourselves alive and create our own happiness.

You're claiming to have knowledge of a negative - that god doesn't exist - and that's not logically possible unless you are all-knowing

It's not about having knowledge of the negative.
It's that being atheist we would "believe"* that we shouldn't live by believing what can't be proved.
*possibly a form of faith in itself but it stems from the below reasoning

Not believing is an atheist's logical default because:
if you start believing in what can't be proved,
there are "a lot" of things one can believe that can't be proved,
and without proof they are all equally valid.

Hence why some atheists would make claims of ridiculous things like monsters to be in the same category as belief in a deity.

My conclusion is that life is all based on assumptions.
You can choose one assumption or the other,
it really has no impact if you admit it is an assumption.
When a person claims it's more than an assumption that's when I have issue.

After all everything is relative and there are no absolutes.
Humans create abstractions which are absolute for the sake of simplicity.
The world is complex and chaotic such that we can't possible conceive it.
Therefore we always have to interpret the world in our simple abstractions.
From there everything becomes somewhat subjective.

[Cuivienen]

i'm just wondering... i know we all love our privacy here so answers aren't obligatory but has everyone here always felt non-religious?

once someone finds out about my beliefs they think i'm lying. [smiley=uneasy.gif]

Well, my parents raised me as a Lutheran. I attended a Catholic private school for 9 years, so religion classes were obligatory (don`t know what that is like in the US).
I can remember I always used to wonder if Christianity might be "true", but the more I gradually found out about it the more obvious it was - to me - that many things we`re supposed to "believe" are contradictory/don`t make sense.
Finally, when we dealt with the religious critics (Feuerbach, Marx, Freud,...) I found that they had much better arguments.

I have never been able to believe (in) something which doesn`t make sense, so my "I`m not sure what I believe" - attitude gradually changed to "this can`t possibly be true".

[axiomtangent]

I'm Agnostic. I've come to the conclusion that God (god/gods) is/are just the scientific truths we haven't discovered yet. Meaning that god is more a mechanism of reality than a sentient being according to our understanding. I will concede that I often trip up on the why of it all, meaning existence, but I am, so?

With regard to time; I think there is no such thing, only right now this instant and nothing before or after.... except in our mind/memories where we can review what's happened and concieve what might happen. That's where I hit my mental glass ceiling, I just don't have the capacity to wrap my mind around the whole thing, which is extremely frusterating to me.

I am impressed with the breadth of knowledge and critical reasoning that I'm seeing on this board. Right now I'm going to do what I usually do when I can't work through a mental problem... go beat the crap out of a heavy bag.

[AgentofGaming]

I've thought for a while, do any of you have any long-ranged insight into why it's necessary to believe in deities?
I wondered why I'm a doubter and it came to this:

My basis is
To disprove god exists: no one can prove something doesn't exist unless the complement of the existence comprises of the whole. Obviously we can't know the whole universe. So most likely we will never be able to prove something doesn't exist.

To prove god exists: You can't exactly say just because everything is here and it's so neat that it is god's presence. Trying to prove this won't actually be conclusive, you need a show of his/her/its presence. Anything can arguably be random and supposedly or that life adapts itself to efficiency. Some would think the Universe is ordered, it isn't, it's probably completely chaotic. Then the question is why are the rules followed? Because of humans, we approximate these into rules such that they will be met most of the time. It's the human race and life that brings order to a chaotic universe not necessarily a higher being. This is why I have more faith in humans than higher beings. What have higher beings done that can be scientifically proved? nothing. We, human beings created civilization, we organized ourselves, we lead ourselves, we invented our technology and evolution made the lifeforms optimal. (That's why I don't appreciate it when people say "god did it", no we as humans understood the concepts, we mastered it, we created it, who knows if god put something to be mastered there or if it was completely random)
If you argue there's not much probability, then I ask how many chances were there that life would be formed? The universe is huge beyond our comprehension, there are many chances. Say a 1 in billion chance to win a lottery and 2 billion tickets. You can have 0 wins or you can have 2 billion wins, but on average 2. The scope of the universe is too large for us (and we don't know it all either) to just make a claim probability. The rest is life/evolution adapting to the planet, we struggled to keep ourselves alive, I don't think anyone is feeding the human race now but humans (and our tools).
OK that sounded more humanist of me.

From those I take my stance from these three scenarios.
1) Say god exists and he is sentient, then we need some evidence of his presence, say he appears and:
a) He is a good god, and will judge based on your merits
Then people will:
Atheists: Apologize for doubting.
Cynics: Ask "What took you so long?"
but, giving us free will would he/she/it appreciate the blind devotion of some or will he/she/it be disappointed?
Then everyone lives in utopia, or whatever.
b) He is the god described by the Christians described / does not judge on true virtue / or is evil / etc.
He will condemn atheists for being sceptical, and condemn people who did whatever rules the religion said you can't. If he gave us the power to doubt and didn't want us to that's pretty hypocritical of him/her/it.

Would you really support someone who condemned others for not believing without evidence? Even if they are good people? (reference to D&D wall of faithless) or innocents that were not so lucky to find out?
If he/she/it isn't willing to accept that we didn't blindly devote, he/she/it would be a god that I would consider arbitrary, unfair and possibly hate.

Remark: Wouldn't this make people religious out of fear? to condemn for not believing?

2) The god is non-sentient
So those who made all the religions that worship just wasted their time, at least they did some good in a sense, some did bad but whatever.

3) God does not exist
As I mentioned above it is really impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. Then would generations of people have committed their devotion for nothing? There will also be generations more to come who will devote. Will some part of humanity be forever locked into morals, into worship, into faith, into blind devotion?
I can't help but feel that worship of higher beings is just subjugation of humanity. Some religions have at some times put a cap on science, and freedom and even causes wars, I feel that limits humanity in some ways.
So in conclusion if this god existed and he would condemn, than I would hate him for not letting us have open minds to doubt. If he didn't exist then, I think that we should not let religion rule of our minds and our thoughts.

Whichever it is we must think, we must have doubts. Free will isn't given to us to be drones of religion (that's why I might be a bit overcritical of pro-deity arguments). However whichever you believe it ends up as an assumption that we as people must take, so no I don't hate the religious (only the fanatics who claim they're right). I hate the religion that limits the freedom of others.

and none, can doubt the power the church has over the people (there are churches bigger than most high schools). As well as the ultra conservative stance having an effect on the government.

[Bri]

Agnostic.

[Race]

I used to be very religious. Until my church condemned me for asking to many questions. Then I became agnostic. Then I learned of Darwinism and started reading up on leading theories regarding the Big Bang. Now I am a pround atheist.

[Tarrick]

I used to be very religious. Until my church condemned me for asking to many questions. Then I became agnostic. Then I learned of Darwinism and started reading up on leading theories regarding the Big Bang. Now I am a pround atheist.

They condemned you for asking questions? That's rather retarded. What questions did you ask?

[steph with a capital T]

Atheist. since birth. not even baptized.

I never understood why people were agnostic. Never made sense. Still doesn't.

And personally, I'm not at all focused on religion. I'm surprised at how much religious talk there is in these forums. I never go to church, I don't talk to people who do believe in God, I never directly respond to people mentioning God in casual conversation (and frankly the whole ID-creationism bullshit is getting ridiculous). I have my opinions, but they aren't defiant ones that I'd like to argue. I'm atheist in the sense not of "there is no god, don't you people get it?!" but in the sense that organized faith and its ideas are not a part of my life.

[Younggun88]

I am a deist. That is someone who believes in god but does not believe in divine intervention. basically god created the universe and then let it do its thing.

[musical amanda paige]

I'm 15 and have just begun to sort out what I believe in. I went to private schools which were founded on religion up until my freshman year and I was forced to take religion classes and go to church as part of the curriculum. I always resisted church and religion in general and went through several years of saying "Not." after every prayer, somewhat defiantly. I always felt sort of bad but I knew I really didn't believe in it so it shouldn't make me feel that way. What bothered me most was the thought of disappointing my parents and grandparents and friends and basically everyone around me by not being a Christian. Recently I have come to decide that I am athiest and that it's nothing to be ashamed of. My friends know about it but I have yet to tell my family because of the other issues in my life that make it much too hard to disappoint them by being something they wouldn't approve of. Maybe one day there will be a time where I would feel comfortable letting my family know, but now's not the time.
Wow that got long fast.
To sum up: Athiest who has always known she was even at age 6.

[Antares]

I never understood why people were agnostic. Never made sense. Still doesn't.


I don't think it makes sense either, but they are likely undecided because they don't have enough evidence on either side.

Richard Dawkins defeated the argument for ID by using the Boeing argument against itself. Because it is irreducibly complex, it requires a designer who is equally if not more complex. If so, who created the designer? Surely something/someone like that requires a creator? The whole thing just goes forever and makes entirely no sense. There's this argument that makes absolutely zero sense. "It looks designed, therefore it must be" How about this: Segment EF looks congruent to segment GH. Therefore they are.

I used to be a Christian when I joined a youth group many years ago. After a while, I just stopped going and became an implicit atheist. I never really thought about it until recent years. After my transformation from a F to a T (I used to be VERY F), I became an open atheist. I've had five try to convert me since the youth group, including my cousin and my classmate. I don't think my logic would ever allow me to become a theist again. I'm just too far from it now.

[Pinkie]

I'm more of a deist than anything else. My instinct tells me that there is a god, and yet my rationality tells me that this is crap. The instinct is very strong, so I feel unable to discard it completely, but reason refuses to allow me to admit any attributes of this god.

As I get older I think I'll probably lose the instinct and succumb to full rationality, but for now I'm happy to wait.

[BadMojo]

I don't believe in God according to the bible and any other book. In fact I don't believe God as a being but rather a philosophical ultimate that can't be defined yet still exists.
Somehow this vast universe's been created by some sort of energy out of nothing, and our existence is a reality because of that. Our meagre reality can't possibly have all the answers. Even mathematics has show us that it's possible in theory to create multi dimension bodies that can only be defined and described by mathematics.

I don't believe in good and evil since it's all about perspective. We can question the definition of God. We can question the religious texts. But we can never deny nor conclude that there is a God, what ever God might be.

So I guess I'm agnostic in some way

[Antares]

lol. To me, God is the positive energy that drives us (which isn't really a deity at all.). It's just all the positive things in my life, and he is purely metaphorical. I'm sure if there is a God and he questions why I didn't believe in him, I would say exactly what Russell would: Not enough evidence, God! I'm sure that he'd understand and support my devotion to logic (well, he's omnibenevolent, right?)

[tabasco]

I can't vote. I'm not an atheist or an agnostic in the popular sense of the word. I do have my set of beliefs, but I'm not a theist and no one who knows me will ever call me "religious."

[Oica]

Why is there this resounding misconception that any theistic religion MUST be illogical?
At least my beliefs make sense.

Very rough summary: (I'm just going to use HIM because its too annoying to type his/her over and over again even though I'm wasting time writing all of this here, what foresight.)
God was bored, so he created his own little playground. Over the span of what would be an extreme amount of time to us, he messed with it until he decided he liked it. Then he created things to make the playground more interesting, people, animals, plants, etc. He 'preprogrammed'(couldn't think of a more fitting word) these creations with basic instincts and left space for increased knowledge. Then he sat back and watched. He may decide to help those who acknowledge they were created by this god. He may yet have something to do with us after we die.

Sounds crazy? That is pretty much the basis of christian religions. However, this view is probably 'adjusted' by individual preachers to fit their style.

There was a quote somewhere to the effect of 'Science was not created to deny the existence of a god, but rather to explain what we as humans can observe.' I cannot give credit for the source of this quote. I haven't seen it in quite a while.

Science cannot dictate religion. Religion cannot dictate science.
Science is what we use to describe the universe.
Religion is what we use to describe how the universe ultimately came to be.

[Antares]

Why is there this resounding misconception that any theistic religion MUST be illogical?

I don't know... Maybe science can stand longer under the scrutiny of logic? (That's what makes it 'logical', you see) Or that science is practiced based on logic, observation, questioning, experimenting and educated guesses? And it often clashes with theistic assumptions (which rarely consists of any of the actions mentioned above)?

[Maitri1970]

I'm not religious but I believe there is a driving factor to the universe. It's not an accident and I believe our lives have meaning outside of breathing in and out.

[Oica]

I don't know... Maybe science can stand longer under the scrutiny of logic? (That's what makes it 'logical', you see) Or that science is practiced based on logic, observation, questioning, experimenting and educated guesses? And it often clashes with theistic assumptions (which rarely consists of any of the actions mentioned above)?

Science was created by man to logically explain the universe as they can observe it. Of course its logical.

However, you cant really use something created by something else as a proof that there was no creation of what created it.

[Antares]

However, you cant really use something created by something else as a proof that there was no creation of what created it.

I'm not trying to use science as proof that religion is illogical. I'm using logic. Somehow, their assumptions don't past my assessment as logical.

[errrzarrr]

About God: Agnostic trending to Atheist. I just have doubts, but I'm among those two.

About Religion: No. Not at all. Religion has nothing to do with god, morality, ethics, i dont like religions. Call me areligious or antireligion.

[iMiki]

I'm not religious. I have many doubts about believing in God and vice versa. I don't know if there's a God or not. It's possible. To be safe so that I wouldn't go to hell, I'm trying to best to believe in God though. I guess that makes me semi-theist.

[Mr Galt]

I'm not religious. I have many doubts about believing in God and vice versa. I don't know if there's a God or not. It's possible. To be safe so that I wouldn't go to hell, I'm trying to best to believe in God though. I guess that makes me semi-theist.

Assuming the existence of a god, it would be hard to believe him (please don't yell at me for genderizing god) to be so vindictive as to toss you into hell simply for not believing.

[vkut79]

There's no semi-theist, you either believe it or you don't. Please... don't try to "play it safe", that's pathetic really, not to mention unreasonable, have a little bit more confidence in your convictions.

[Mr Zip]

I go back and forth between atheist and agnostic. I tend to find some comfort in a god, but I think God is unkown, or at least hasnt really revealed anything to us by design. If he expects soemthing from me, he better tell me directly, because I can't make ANY sense of this mess of religions down here, and I have tried.

I believe if theres a God, he's given us everything we need already. Air, a life, and a planet to make a life on. Thats plenty for me to be happier than Hell.

[Antares]

I don't believe in God because if there is one, I expect him to be righteous, which means he won't throw me to hell for using my logic and reasoning. The world can operate without a God, and although I can't prove that he doesn't exist, I don't see the point of trying to find out, just as there's no point in knowing if dragons exist. People told me that I would go to hell should I choose atheism, but to me, belief out of fear of punishment is quite... cowardly. I don't need a deity watching my every move to make sure I'm doing the right thing. My conscience and integrity do the job just fine. I chose disbelief, and therefore I will live with it; and have a blast while I'm at it. What happens after death, no one have any ways of knowing for sure (because no one comes back to tell the tale), so why believe theories and stories? They're just as unqualified as you are.

[Ace1337]

I can't believe in a God that wants to be praised all the time.

[pavman]

I don't know... Maybe science can stand longer under the scrutiny of logic? (That's what makes it 'logical', you see) Or that science is practiced based on logic, observation, questioning, experimenting and educated guesses?

Science is just as much faith as "religion." Case in point: I don't have much "faith" in global warming, sky is falling scientists who aren't meteorologists or directly involved with global temperature and/or weather patterns; in fact, why should I have any ethical trust what-so-ever in their practiced scientific branch if they are trying to directly sway the issue away from the experts on the subject in the scientific realm regarding global warming?? Simply by being a "scientist" doesn't follow that you are ethical and will not massage the data to your theory. In fact, a co-worker told me about his job working for a government lab in the 80s and how they were asked to fudge the numbers so they could keep getting funding. Makes ya really re-think this whole "trust us, we're scientists" mentality.

And it often clashes with theistic assumptions (which rarely consists of any of the actions mentioned above)?
I disagree. The big bang theory, the one that we all love, was concluded to independently by *gasp* a priest. Yep. Go look. Its true.

Amazing how the flourishing of Western Civilization's greatest achievement, freedom to question, was really achieved through Christianity. And yet, everyone thinks that Christianity is in direct, almost diabolically so, opposition with science. I'm not going to posit a theorem as to why I do or do not believe in God, but we must not forget the great contributions that religion and the religious have made to civilization to give us things like... the university system.

[Cytastic]

I was raised Mormon, moved to full-blown atheism, and now I can comfortably say that I'm agnostic. I think there's something out there, but I don't know what it is yet. I do believe a part of you "moves on" after death, your energy, or soul, or something akin to it, but since nobody knows for sure what or where that is, I'm not going to worry about it.

[AgentofGaming]

Amazing how the flourishing of Western Civilization's greatest achievement, freedom to question, was really achieved through Christianity. And yet, everyone thinks that Christianity is in direct, almost diabolically so, opposition with science. I'm not going to posit a theorem as to why I do or do not believe in God, but we must not forget the great contributions that religion and the religious have made to civilization to give us things like... the university system.

I thought those achievements were from defying Church. It's not like the church is today's civil rights defender, it's quite the contrary.

Well it may or may not be direct but those representing Christianity were torturing astronomers for thinking differently. So wouldn't that be opposition?

[Dream Weaver]

Voted Agnostic
I'm just not sure. I have personally seen people use their faith to justify the craziest lunacy. They judge "the other" without merit, objectivity. or even knowledge of the group they're judging, and they are suprised when those people don't fall on their knees saying "Praise Jesus, I've been saved!" Those individuals tried to separate "us" from "them", and that just won't fly with me. They fail to see the interconnectedness of all life, and it's this idealistic view which keeps me from completely rejecting the possibility of a divine being, and if one does exist, I believe that that being would be so much more than the angry vindictive god that most fire and brimstone preachers try to present and better than our best ideal. Maybe I'm more of an Idealist than I thought!

[safetypin00]

Same here, although my awe is increased without a god.

Yep. Like Carl Sagan said:
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

[lordrrr]

I'm wouldn't put in the term "religious", but spiritual is the term I prefer.


Anyway yes I believe in God. I believe there is so much to learn of Him, but I know He exists.

[Antares]

Science is just as much faith as "religion."

Atheism is actually not believing in the faith. Atheists reject what theists have faith in, God. It doesn't take faith to do that. It takes the word 'no'. It always seem funny how the church would try to integrate science into religion and how some theists would claim that the bible isn't literal (it was pretty literal when it was written, but now that people have started to question it, the story was changed). It's like making something up then trying to find proof for it. All through history people have been trying to prove the existence of a deity, or disprove it. So it seems like they believed it before they 'proved' it, and not the other way around. I was actually agnostic when I was trying to gather reasons for both sides, and one side won out.

I find someone, or an organization who kept changing their tunes unbelievable, just as the judge and jury would find it illogical to believe a witness who isn't sure what he saw and going from one conviction to another.

[Homini Lupus]

In my path towards God i've made some conclusions:

1. The hardest for "thinking people" but the most important: you cannot fully demonstrate the existance of God, otherwise it wouldn't be a faith. Faith is a choice. You either make it or you don't. Thinking helps (i totally agree with the idea that, given that in our existance nothing is created, nothing is destroyed but everything transforms, there must be some self created entity wich caused the existance of existance [excuse the language but even language is limited by its own nature of human creation]) but sooner or later you have to make your choice.

2. Seeking God is one of the basic needs of (most) men. Since it can be fulfilled (at least very basically) at low cost, I think believing is a more cost-effective strategy: it fulfills a basic need and gives you a (small?) chance to win a pleasant afterlife.

3. If you were told a certain religion, you better stick to it, because it's in its term you tend to think religious matter (at least if you live in countries where you don't have many choices about religious views). It is better to disagree about some (even important) points abot your religion (and still not getting away) than getting away saying things like "i belive but my own way" and ending up without an external reference. I disagree with many priests and believers about many things, but keep confronting.

4. Science and religion don't clash. They are just different systems. Science is a system to analyze and understand reality (not reality itself). Religion tries to go a step further.
to use a good looking expression: Science tells us how the sky goes, religion how we go to the sky (G. Galilei, free translation)

I think agnosticism makes more sense than atheism. After all, not so many (great?) thinkers felt the need to question themselves about the existance of Santa or the Unicorn or a Teapot from Outer Space. But all this stuff about agnosticism and atheism may be just misleading: we should have had a clear definition when we began this post so we could refer to a common term.

[errrzarrr]

Science and religion dont clash. They are just different systems.

If so, why priests questioned, persecuted, tortured and killed scientist on Inquisition.?
Why religious try to negate every advance science try to do?
Now that science has demonstrated its reliability Why many priests are so worried to prove faith stuff via Science?

Clearly it clashes. Science proves many religions topics are wrong!

[acyckowski]

Scrolling through the responses makes me cringe. Why are so many decisive rationals copping out on this one? Seriously, folks, "I'm waiting for more evidence," and "What works for me works for me, what works for you works for you." Did I end up in the INTP or ESFP forum by mistake?

The question is simple, "Is there a God?"
There are two choices, mutually exclusive, and one is wrong.
Neither answer is provable, and each lead to a paradox:
If "Yes," then everything in the finite physical universe originated from an infinite cause.
If "No," then the physical universe is finite in all dimensions except time.

Either way, folks, the choice you make is a matter of faith, not proof.

If lack of proof makes you uncomfortable, buck up: you can't meaningfully prove that 1 is not 0, yet it's true.

[AliciaS2R]

Deism: The belief that a god or gods exists, but does not intervene within the universe. ...from Wikipedia

That is the closest decription of my beliefs. I do not believe in organized religion, but I do believe there is a power or force in the universe.

I have been to several different churches of various denominations over the years. I always felt out of place, and that just being there was putting on a face to fit in. I think that the church fills a need for some people.

[Homini Lupus]

The priests were often the better scientists of middle ages and early modern age; they often knew the aristotelic system is wrong, but they feared the common people wasnt't ready for such knowledge, so they generally persecuted those who proposed their theories as truth and not as possibilities.

About science proving some religious tennets are wrong errzarr is true; but this is both benefit for Science (wich grows ands allows us to understand better our world) and Religion (wich defines better its limits and grows a better conscience of God's creation)

After all, a new scientific theory proves wrong an old one. This doesn't mean Science is self-destroying.

[Antares]

The priests were often the better scientists of middle ages and early modern age; they often knew the aristotelic system is wrong, but they feared the common people wasnt't ready for such knowledge, so they generally persecuted those who proposed their theories as truth and not as possibilities.

Uh... Can you produce any evidence for that claim?

I disagree. The big bang theory, the one that we all love, was concluded to independently by *gasp* a priest. Yep. Go look. Its true.

Amazing how the flourishing of Western Civilization's greatest achievement, freedom to question, was really achieved through Christianity. And yet, everyone thinks that Christianity is in direct, almost diabolically so, opposition with science. I'm not going to posit a theorem as to why I do or do not believe in God, but we must not forget the great contributions that religion and the religious have made to civilization to give us things like... the university system.

Religion brought about many good things, but it's no reason to believe in it. So a scientific priest coined that term, does that mean he achieved it during meditation or praying? If not, then it's not achieved through Christianity; it's achieved by a Christian, and he would have discovered it whether or not he was a Christian. There was no freedom to question until very recently. Did Christianity encourage questioning? What happened to Galileo? We began questioning everything because some people dared to defy the church. By the way, is Fred Hoyle a priest? Hoyle might have converted, but that doesn't mean he achieved 'Big Bang' through Christianity. In fact, he became one of the theory's strongest critics. There's no evidence that he did not coin the term independently of religion.

After all, a new scientific theory proves wrong an old one. This doesn't mean Science is self-destroying.

If you know anything about how science is done at all, new theories do not prove wrong an old one. Evidence does.

[Homini Lupus]

About my first claim i must admit i haven't strong evidence, since i'm no historian. But i'm quite sure priesthood had a strong foothold in the culture of those times (science may be the wrong term since its method was clearly stated, for what i know by Galilei wich means just before modern times (given 1648 as the beginning of modern times)).

About my last statement, you can put it that way (evidence proving wrong ol theories). But evidence lead to more refined theories wich may substitute or enrich old ones. Some theories (like geocentric theories) are discarded (more or less universally). That's not to say your last statement in the post is wrong. I just don't see how it affects what I said.

[Antares]

It's not that my statement disproves what you say in any way, but I just have a habit of nitpicking ;) In my book, evidence disproves old theories, leads to new theories and so on. I think we've reached an understanding that it's basically the same thing... Maybe I was just being picky again.

[Nausved]

I am a second generation atheist. I don't particularly care if others are religious, so long as they don't pester me about it.

My parents are more militant about their atheism, though. I suspect this might be an upbringing thing, where atheists who were raised in religious homes often see religion as somewhat threatening, whereas atheists who have been sheltered from religion all their lives find it merely peculiar.

[futureperfect5]

Honestly, I think that you missed the boat here.

Many people a "religious" without believing a thing ...

Wasn't it Mussolini who went to church to set an example although being an atheist himself?

Even for myself, I should never hope to be "religious." However, I am devout in my faith which is NOT a belief -- I know that it is true.

Still, it isn't necessarily "god" centric as most people think of it.

[rickfelske]

If there is no god-----there should be

[Aurelia]

Science and religion dont clash. They are just different systems.

If so, why priests questioned, persecuted, tortured and killed scientist on Inquisition.?
Why religious try to negate every advance science try to do?
Now that science has demonstrated its reliability Why many priests are so worried to prove faith stuff via Science?

Clearly it clashes. Science proves many religions topics are wrong!

Religion, especially the Christian faith, has absolute truths. There is a God and heaven. Satan and Hell. There is no negotiating of that. Whereas in science, facts can be disproved with new knowledge. Religion and science are two completely different systems. How can you disprove the existence of God? You can't. No one can. The point is not about whether science clashes with religion, you just can't apply one to the other. Your example about the inquisition has more to do with the abuse of power than the teachings of Christ.

Anyhow, I am both religious and spiritual. Growing up I was exposed to a variety of faiths as my mother's side of the family is Buddhist and my father's side of the family is Catholic. Although I don't consider myself to be either Buddhist or Catholic, I am a born again Christian. I haven't found a church to belong to since moving from Hawaii so for now I watch sermons online from my old church in Honolulu. (What I really enjoy is being able to fast forward through to the sermon and listen to the message from the comfort of my own home).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PRBori]

I believe in God, but I'm not extremely religious. I'm actually extra liberal and tend to find myself in a position where people are always judging me because of my views.

Overall, religion and politics are something I try to stay away from for I have my very own views which are not always or hardly ever shared by those sharing my belief.

[sam988]

I'm agnostic.

[eMachine]

I answered 'Agnostic'... there is not really a name for what I like to believe, but I am definitely neither Theist nor Atheist.

I believe in science... I believe that there is some sort of consciousness in all energy that exists... somehow everything knows how to do what it does. It's difficult for me to explain, and I feel that any personal spiritual perspective ought to be difficult to verbalize to others because it's not meant to be shared with others.

It's like... in the book (and later, the movie) "Contact" by Carl Sagan... it becomes a controversy whether or not his main character ought to be sent to meet with the other life forms because she does not believe in "God" and they asserted that she had no faith... but her faith was as strong as religious faith... she had faith in science, biology, astronomy, physics, the way we understand the world and universe around us. That, imo, is equal to (or better than) a religion. I have faith.

[Beery Swine]

If only I had been as logical about Gods as I was about Santa Claus I would have been an Atheist at 5 years of age.