| What's your religion type? |
|
What's your religion type?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by noignorance  United States |
|
About
Fun loving, question asking, curiosity inducing guy.
Live life.
There's probably no God, now shut up and have fun.
The above pretty much sums up my life.
This is the hardest part, the end.
|
6 Points
|
Null-theist. I find the whole question to be meaningless and unnecessary.
I believe the term is Apatheist, but whatever floats your boat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
No, you don't.
Yes, I do. Anyone with the sense to pound sound can figure out that supernaturalism is without informational content--meaningless; and anyone with access to any county library can find out what, and whose, purposed, religion serves--demonstrating why it is unnecessary, and even harmful.
You wouldn't say that if you weren't an atheist. If you were religious it would be the most meaningful thing in the world (if you took your faith seriously and became a fundamentalist, that is).
I really doesn't MATTER what I would say if were not an atheist. I would be wrong. You can pretend voices are speaking to you out of the white noise; you can beleive it and make your decisions based on that belief. You are still wrong. You are accepting as meaningful something that is not. And the white noise is still without informational content, and meaningless, regardless of your belief.
So you ARE an atheist then. Thought so.
Only in the sense that I don't believe in a god or gods. It isn't a religion for me, like it is for all too many non-believers. Which is why I say 'null-theist.' Meaningless. Irrelevant. The null set.
That's atheism all right. No idea what you mean by non-belief being a religion though. Seems like a strange use of the word "religion".
Here is my view on the topic: nobody has a clue how we got here, and of course I mean people in general. Each culture produced ideas as to how the universe was created. Most recently and also in the past, people have concluded that there is no God or gods. I counted atheism as a religion only because I found it hard to work the fact that it was not a religion into the poll. However, in this way, atheism can be viewed almost as a religion; it is as much of a guess of creation as a god creating the Earth.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"nobody has a clue how we got here"
You might want to read a science book.
Perhaps I'm not cut out for arguing online. I sort of thought people could accept that words cause discrepancies in my intent. Not to mention how condescending people can be, as if they are better than others. Of course, I hesitated to post this comment. And on the topic of religion, even! There are lots of factors here! Feel free to point out any and all mistakes in my thinking instead of just letting it go or looking past words to see true meaning. I know you want to argue online. What fun this is!
And this isn't meant to be condescending either. I mean, just live life to the fullest.
Religion is from roots meaning "to bind together again."
Which the new militant atheism does. Not to mention, there seems to be a creed developing kinda like this: We are so opposed to the intolerance of the theists we refuse to tolerate theism any more.
There really is no moral high ground in becoming what you despise.
That's complete bullshit and you should know better. Becoming what we despise? When did "militant" atheists (whatever that means) start burning people at the stake, declaring war against each other, declaring that some texts are "holy" and infallible...
You're right, I don't tolerate intolerance. But that's only a paradox to a child. Being tolerant isn't tolerating everything, that's apathy. I've never heard a spokesman for atheists suggest that religion should be oppressed in any way.
You haven't? I suggest you look at some of the prior conversations on the subject on this website.
I see little difference between god-based faith or economic-system-based faith or race-based faith or any other kind of propagandist mind control. Roman Catholic, laissez-faire trickle-down neo-liberal capitalist, or KKK member, it's all pretty much bullshit believed in based no evidence at all to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. They are ALL systems of oppression. But I see no point in becoming as intolerant as adherents to any of those systems, either, or espousing an oppression based on not believing.
The real issue is not WHICH propaganda system or systems are being perpetrated; the real issue is to teach people to think instead of blindly adhering.
I'm pretty sure the evolution controversy in this country beautifully illustrates why calling names isn't effective, but education is. Only upon rationally presented education has every judge to hear such a case decided that creationism is not science. Simply calling creationists deluded hasn't done a damn thing.
I said "a spokesman for atheists", not random lunatics on the internet. And we're not talking about economy-based or faith-based anything, we're talking about atheism.
Now, I ask you again, in a more precise way: When did any significant group of atheists ever commit atrocities like those committed in the name of religion or totalitarian ideologies, in the name of atheism?
'Spokesperson"? Is atheism become so organized that it has official spokespeople? A dogma and creed for them to speak? Once you have that kind of organization, the killings are all but inevitable.
Communist purges. Atheism was a non-negotiable plank in the Communist party, so any purges done in the Party's name were, in part, done in the name of atheism.
Regardless of what these 'spokespeople' are saying, the kinds of comments their followers have made on this very site support my contention.
Of course it's organised. Most countries have one or several atheist orgasnizations. The claim that being organised automatically leads to killing is just ridiculous.
Atheism was supported by communism. So was anti-racism and a whole lot of other ideas. That doesn't mean that the atrocities committed by communists were done in the name of atheism and anti-racism. They were done in the name of communism.
Seems to me like you want to pin something on atheism for some reason, and you go to great lengths to do it. What is it you really have against not believing in gods?
What i really have a problem wiht is mis and dis information. Not all religions have holy wars, commit murders in God's name, or are otherwise bad citizens. had any Amish terrorists in the news lately? How about Spiritualist medium pogroms? No BaHa'i massacres? Right.
Religion become murderous when it is coupled with secular/political power, and it doesn't matter if your 'religion' is god-based, economics-based, or in group/out group based.
The problem is not with the specific beliefs, but with the system of thought that leads to such concentrations and abuses of power. And if atheism wants to organize and become a power monger, then it too is a problem.
No one said any of those things about Baha'i or the Amish, that only happened in your fantasies.
And you're actually saying you have a problem with ANYONE who want to organise?
I don't think you're really this paranoid, that would be completely ridiculous. I don't understand why you keep trying to smear non-religious people, but it doesn't seem like I'll get that answer now. I'm done here.
You are the one that took exception to my statement that I find religion meaningless and unnecessary.
Meaning is imputed, not innate. NOTHING is INNATELY meaningful; it has meaning only insofar as a human being imputes meaning to it.
I find religion, except insofar as it is co-opted for abuse by political power, to be meaningless. Devoid of content, or information, in the sense that Shannon meant. Speaking only for myself. Which is the ONLY person I can speak for.
ALL concatenations of power have the potential for abuse; at a relatively low level, certainly by the time 2500 persons are associated, it is a certainty. This is not an opinion, it is a facet of human nature, easily borne out by simple observation of the world around one. And by elegant psychological studies. Like the Stanford experiment with imprisonment.
Perhaps the abuses will be petty annoyances; perhaps they will destroy lives. Regardless, it is a fact of human nature, and therefore exercises of power should be hedged about with as many checks, balances, and safeguards as are possible.
Another fact of human nature is the tendency to jump on the bandwagon, to become what, in function, is a 'true believer.' This is what motivates others to support the abuses of power demonstrated by the Stanford experiment. True believers are insanely dangerous, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR BELIEF.
It is the not the actual belief itself which is the problem, but the approach to it. One of THE hallmarks is that all reasoning powers are put into the service of supporting the belief, not reasoning from facts. Very elegant little studies have shown that this behavior can be provoked with astonishing ease, and over the most trivial of things. Like colors. Red. Blue. As long as two groups are differently labeled.
Now, I have never heard or read Dawkins or Harris (to name two examples)indulge in this kind of thinking. Nor have I ever heard THEM claim to be spokespeople for atheists as a whole.
But I have heard self-proclaimed atheists attribute leadership (not inspiration, LEADERSHIP) to these two, among others. And I HAVE heard self-proclaimed atheists indulge in we-they thinking that has no end point except polarization and conflict.
SIGH! That is human nature. Which you may think of as a smear, if you please--after all, YOU get attribute the meaning you like to anything.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyTake a look at "Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life" if you can still find it. It certainly did a lot to shape my ideas that information content is a key attribute of anything useful.
Atheism is not a "religion type" though. Before you ask, I'll stop going on about that when people get it right.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Replyagree
Agreed.
Promethean, of course it isn't a religion type. I'm ashamed to have seemed ignorant that way, especially being an atheist myself.
:)
Agnost - but atheist comes close
How can it "come close"? Unless you actively believe in a god, you're an atheist.
An agnostic doesn't believe in religion. Most agnostics are not anti-theistic. Theoretically, Atheists can believe in a religion, but can not believe in God(s). An Atheist could believe that human precursors were planted by beings from another galaxy but agnostics just believe that worshiping those aliens is wrong.
I guess the difference is not my disbelief in a god, but the fact that I say "I cannot 100% prove that there is no god so therefore I won't dismiss the option completely" - though I see many indications that would make the nonexistance of a god very likely. As far as I know atheists say there is no god.
I cannot 100% prove that there is no god, but since there is no evidence for it I'm going to make the fair assumption that there is no god, which makes me an agnostic-atheist (The terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutally exclusive).
Interesting article:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic
Saying Hinduism is polytheistic is a bit... misleading. All the different "gods" are just different forms and representations of the one ultimate reality/God/Brahman. In a sense it's just as polytheistic as the Trinity in Christianity. But then again most hindus probably don't really think about it...
Wow, all these comments prove to be very informational. One can learn a lot from just reading all of these.