Are you religious?

Moniker · Post by **Moniker** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:26 pm

Most of the folks around here, or at least the vocal ones, seem to tend towards agnostic/atheistic systems of belief. Was curious about the actual makeup, which might be easier with an anonymous poll. Let me know if the choices are inadequately or incorrectly described.

For my part, I consider myself an atheist, although skepticism is more satisfying intellectually. Skepticism is emotionally untenable for me (just so damn exhausting), so I make a leap of faith and declare for materialism. Most of my family is religiously affiliated - they go to church and believe in the tenets of Roman Catholicism for the most part, but with exceptions.

CIT · Post by **CIT** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:34 pm

EDIT: Pretty much the same goes for atheism, imo.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:01 pm

As in most polls, I don't like the way some of the choices read. (edit: reread, actually like most except the skepticism choice)

I voted for skepticism because it is the operational system that defines my lack of belief in anything; but one could be a skeptical agnostic or skeptical atheist. Surprisingly, there are even skeptical Christians, though its a pretty tough road to travel.

This becomes more difficult when you consider that skepticism is more likely to lead to materialism, where here materialism has been linked to atheism, implying that the differences between them are probably minor or irrelevant. At least, not significant enough for this poll.

For the record, what 'skepticism' should say, if it belongs on this poll, is giving priority to evidence and those world views supported by said evidence. Belief is not a part of skepticism because all paradigms are accepted tentatively on a sliding scale relative to the amount of evidence which supports it. It is not believe in what is not, nor is it a wobbly what-might-or-might-not-be. It is instead a strict methodology for processing information and is the foundation of modern society (starting in the renaissance).

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:04 pm

I started out agnostic, was tending towards atheism*, now I'm agnostic again.

I share CMoon's problem in that I do have some firm beliefs - it's just "proving" the foundations of those beliefs to somebody's unreasonably strict skeptical standards that I do not care for. Incidentally, I consider myself a skeptic most of the time. Sometimes a cynic (in the fashion of Diogenes)...though according to Martha Nussbaum, Aristotle pre-refuted them, so booyah, Aristotle is the bomb!

(* Based on somebody or other's "well agnosticism is just atheism for LAMERZ" argument I guess!)

Moniker · Post by **Moniker** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:31 pm

CMoon wrote:As in most polls, I don't like the way some of the choices read. (edit: reread, actually like most except the skepticism choice)

I voted for skepticism because it is the operational system that defines my lack of belief in anything; but one could be a skeptical agnostic or skeptical atheist. Surprisingly, there are even skeptical Christians, though its a pretty tough road to travel.
...
For the record, what 'skepticism' should say, if it belongs on this poll, is giving priority to evidence and those world views supported by said evidence. Belief is not a part of skepticism because all paradigms are accepted tentatively on a sliding scale relative to the amount of evidence which supports it. It is not believe in what is not, nor is it a wobbly what-might-or-might-not-be. It is instead a strict methodology for processing information and is the foundation of modern society (starting in the renaissance).

I was working from my admittedly cursory knowledge of classical skepticism, wherein the nature of things is unknowable because the senses are fundamentally untrustworthy. Therefore any evidence one my present is inadmissible. This would be different from a sort of empiricism where beliefs are moot because the only true object of investigation is knowledge. For the purposes of this poll, I would lump empiricism together with agnosticism.

So given that, would a different label be appropriate? My aim was to have a progression from strict belief down to non-belief, although I realize it isn't quite that simple.

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:33 pm

atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.

Zeron · Post by **Zeron** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:38 pm

kernow wrote:atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.

I think it's just liberal american atheists people here just don't give a shit if you are religious or not.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:51 pm

Moniker wrote: So given that, would a different label be appropriate? My aim was to have a progression from strict belief down to non-belief, although I realize it isn't quite that simple.

I don't know if it needs to be changed, but rather I don't know if skepticism necessarily belongs on the list because it doesn't, by nature, have anything to do with religion.

I do like most of the choices of the poll, but I guess it should range from strict adherence to an orthodox set of beliefs to rejection of all supernatural phenomena/causation (atheists). Most skeptics would probably fall under Agnostic on such a list simply because there is still so much about the universe which is well beyond anything we can know (an idea I think you were getting at in your last post.)

Vamos · Post by **Vamos** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:52 pm

kernow wrote:atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.

Ive never in my life had to walk through my town listening to an atheist bellowing at everyone , however we do regularly have to tolerate 2 religious nutbags.

xbl0x180 · Post by **xbl0x180** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:53 pm

No, I'm not superstitious

evil_ash_xero · Post by **evil_ash_xero** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:54 pm

Wow, glad to see some fellow atheists on here. I live in Christianville, so it's good to see.

xbl0x180 · Post by **xbl0x180** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Zeron wrote:
kernow wrote:atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.

I think it's just liberal american atheists people here just don't give a shit if you are religious or not.

I think that's mostly because religious thugs are constantly trying to take away people's right to their pursuit of happiness. Check out the latest U.S. political debacle over contraception for further reference

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:21 pm

Vamos wrote:
kernow wrote:atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.
Ive never in my life had to walk through my town listening to an atheist bellowing at everyone , however we do regularly have to tolerate 2 religious nutbags.

When they come to my door I like to discuss with them about planets and space and how dinosaurs didn't believe in a god and that it's a human creation. Then when I get bored I just ask them if they believe in evolution and it's always a no, so I politely tell them I can't entertain an intelligent discussion anymore and close the door.

Quite often they've said 'oh it's this guy, I know you'

hzt · Post by **hzt** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:28 pm

I'm a Scientologist.

I'm on a deep cover mission to infiltrate Casino arcade and lure the regulars into the Scientology temple next door so the head priest can convert them with his mind powers.

Don't tell them.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:37 pm

Most people who say they believe in God are really just people who are open-minded to the possibility that there is something beyond the entities posited by our natural sciences. A genuine *belief* in God must surely be grounded in evidence, but there is no evidence that God exists. (I am assuming that the ancient testimony recorded in religious texts is no more credible than its denial.)

While I think there is no rational basis for theism, I don't have any problem with people who want to devote themselves to religion. As long as they leave the rest of us alone!

evil_ash_xero · Post by **evil_ash_xero** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:37 pm

kernow wrote:atheists are far more annoying than deeply religious people.

At least Atheists aren't prone to blowing up in public(literally, and figuratively). If you get my meaning.

jonny5 · Post by **jonny5** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:58 pm

Atheist, but to each their own; just don't preach at me, or I will share my views, which might offend.

Blackbird · Post by **Blackbird** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:01 am

xbl0x180 wrote:I think that's mostly because religious thugs are constantly trying to take away people's right to their pursuit of happiness. Check out the latest U.S. political debacle over contraception for further reference

That's just cherrypicking a bad example. There are many religious organizations that do a great deal of good. The good folk at my local church donated food to my family when we could barely afford groceries to eat. Some people do believe in the -actual- tenets of their religion, like humility, compassion, and generosity, rather than going around trying to repress people with their beliefs.

Moniker · Post by **Moniker** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:06 am

I'm sort of surprised there aren't more deists or independent Christians among us. That's how about half of my RL friends self-identify.

xbl0x180 · Post by **xbl0x180** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:12 am

Blackbird wrote:
xbl0x180 wrote:I think that's mostly because religious thugs are constantly trying to take away people's right to their pursuit of happiness. Check out the latest U.S. political debacle over contraception for further reference
That's just cherrypicking a bad example. There are many religious organizations that do a great deal of good. The good folk at my local church donated food to my family when we could barely afford groceries to eat. Some people do believe in the -actual- tenets of their religion, like humility, compassion, and generosity, rather than going around trying to repress people with their beliefs.

Religious organisations don't have a monopoly on good deeds. Everyone has the capacity of being good/charitable regardless of whether they're superstitious or not. I'm not "cherry picking" at all. These are recent news items pertaining to religious frauds.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/koper-15 ... -suit.html

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cath ... hurch.html

Jonathan Ingram · Post by **Jonathan Ingram** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:06 am

I voted atheist, but since my political views are on the far left, I`m not just an atheist - I`m a militant atheist.

Blackbird · Post by **Blackbird** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:27 am

xbl0x180 wrote:Religious organisations don't have a monopoly on good deeds. Everyone has the capacity of being good/charitable regardless of whether they're superstitious or not. I'm not "cherry picking" at all. These are recent news items pertaining to religious frauds.

And there are plenty of atheist thugs that commit fraud as well. What's your point? I'm just pointing out that it's unfair to generalize every religious person as somehow trying to take away everyone's happiness. Your examples primarily include people in positions of power, and as you well know, governments and institutions do not always reflect the actual attitudes and desires of their people.

xbl0x180 · Post by **xbl0x180** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:49 am

Blackbird wrote:
xbl0x180 wrote:Religious organisations don't have a monopoly on good deeds. Everyone has the capacity of being good/charitable regardless of whether they're superstitious or not. I'm not "cherry picking" at all. These are recent news items pertaining to religious frauds.
And there are plenty of atheist thugs that commit fraud as well. What's your point? I'm just pointing out that it's unfair to generalize every religious person as somehow trying to take away everyone's happiness. Your examples primarily include people in positions of power, and as you well know, governments and institutions do not always reflect the actual attitudes and desires of their people.

I was replying to someone who stated American liberals tend to be obnoxious, as opposed to those in other parts of the world who mind their own. I then wrote that we tend to see loud and obnoxious liberal atheists as a result of seeing religious thugs trying to push legislation preventing people their freedom or stemming from renown cases of religious fraud and injustice.

That you can point out atheists who do the same does not make the crimes committed in the name of God any less bad. You know the old saying, "In order for evil to triumph, it takes a lot of good people to do nothing." People in positions of power in the clergy [and their friends] get away with their crimes because others around them did, and continue to do, nothing.

drauch · Post by **drauch** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:03 am

No choice for Solipsism?

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:08 am

hzt wrote:I'm a Scientologist.

I'm on a deep cover mission to infiltrate Casino arcade and lure the regulars into the Scientology temple next door so the head priest can convert them with his mind powers.

Don't tell them.

I know where all my free Scientology literature is coming from when I go to London!

maxlords · Post by **maxlords** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:58 am

I would have to say agnostic but I didn't like the description of agnostic in the poll. I'd say agnostics more simply say "I don't know...show me some proof." I believe atheism is just as arrogant as being devoutly religious....you're still claiming that you either know or have absolute faith in your belief.

IMO, agnostics don't do that...they simply claim to be open to all possibilities. That being said I am MORE skeptical of religion than I am of atheism, but I'm still open completely to either option.

And I grew up in conservative Christian-land too.

Blackbird · Post by **Blackbird** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:01 am

xbl0x180 wrote:That you can point out atheists who do the same does not make the crimes committed in the name of God any less bad. You know the old saying, "In order for evil to triumph, it takes a lot of good people to do nothing." People in positions of power in the clergy [and their friends] get away with their crimes because others around them did, and continue to do, nothing.

These crimes are not committed in the name of god. Those that commit them are not true followers of the faith, but instead those that use false belief as a facade to take advantage of the weak. The Christian Bible specifically forbids theft, rape, and most any other crime you could care to attribute to the clergy. Anyone who commits these crimes is willfully ignoring the tenets of their faith. Actual believers should and do shun these people.

Furthermore, they are not "getting away" with their crimes. At least, not without repurcussion. That is why you see their names plastered all over the news - because good people loathe them, and have reported them to the appropriate authorities so that they can be lawfully punished.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:02 am

Blackbird wrote:Furthermore, they are not "getting away" with their crimes. At least, not without repurcussion. That is why you see their names plastered all over the news - because good people loathe them, and have reported them to the appropriate authorities so that they can be lawfully punished.

Is the goal of justice punishment, or rehabilitation?

Blackbird · Post by **Blackbird** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:07 am

That's not really something you can have a pat answer for. Every crime has it's own story and every case is different. Individual circumstances must be taken into account by the judge, jury, and the people actually related to the case.

Vyxx · Post by **Vyxx** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:16 am

Agnostic here. Don't really want to say much more as I'm sure I will offend.

shmups.system11.org