Personality Cafe banner

What is your religious affiliation?

  • Christianity

    Votes: 47 29.9%
  • Islam

    Votes: 5 3.2%
  • Hinduism

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Buddhism

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • Sikhism

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Judaism

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • I'm agnostic

    Votes: 43 27.4%
  • I'm atheist

    Votes: 27 17.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 28 17.8%

  • Total voters
    157
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 70 of 70 Posts

·
Wizard
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Atheist

The mere thought of spending every sunday in church or obeying others simply because once upon a time a psychopath wrote the book of bullsh*t to control people. I know... I know.. it's your life you can live it the way you want:tongue: But just remember someone told you to believe whatever it is you believe. You had no choice in the matter.

Ok Christians! Start flaming right about....Now!:proud:
Failtroll is fail. If you're going to insult religion in a drive by post as flamebait, you'll have to put quite a bit more elbow grease into it. The bar's been set pretty high by some of the locals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I'm Christian...not some sort of denomination...just christian. I don't think I need to write some long tangent to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
Really?

Atheist

The mere thought of spending every sunday in church or obeying others simply because once upon a time a psychopath wrote the book of bullsh*t to control people. I know... I know.. it's your life you can live it the way you want:tongue: But just remember someone told you to believe whatever it is you believe. You had no choice in the matter.

Ok Christians! Start flaming right about....Now!:proud:
Really? I'm not even pissed...I'm more looking at the historical points you missed. First of all, It wasn't ONE person who wrote the bible. There are many people who wrote pieces of the bible, therefore, it has no author. Also, the book isn't to control people, it's a guide...nothing more. The only ones trying to control people is those who push their religion...*cough*condemingevangelists/priests*cough* And onto my last point, the bible has been modified for many's personal gain (past popes, cardinals, kings, ect).

You amaze me...Learn some 9th grade world history for once...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucretius and Stars

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,588 Posts
I just realized that I hadn't actually posted my religion, just that I thought I had. Whoops.

Since none of the other Eastern religious practitioners have stepped up to the plate, I'll do so.

I'm a practicing Buddhist (usually, when I'm not being very pessimistic) of the Nichiren Daishonin type. I was raised non-denominational and non-practicing Christian but started exploring many of the other world religions by the time I reached middle school. I spent a bit of time researching Wiccan, Celtic, Christian, Hindu, Native American, and Mother-Goddess/general New Age religions before I found this form of Buddhism in basic training of all places.

The thing I love the most about it is that the general principles are that everyone has a spiritual path that is right for them, it's just a matter of finding it and following it. Beliefs and practices outside what is written in the Sutras and the Gosho are allowed and in some places even encouraged because it leads to more interesting insights and dialogue. :happy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chilln

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Basically, I'm a Neo-Jungian Panentheist who attends a Unitarian Universalist church. And, yes, that *is* the simplest descriptor I can give you. :wink:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
Basically, I'm a Neo-Jungian Panentheist who attends a Unitarian Universalist church. And, yes, that *is* the simplest descriptor I can give you. :wink:
Forgive me, but what does "Neo-Jungian" imply?



By the way, though I'm still "agnostic" on the subject, I would now consider myself a 'tame' Cosmic Humanist panendeist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Forgive me, but what does "Neo-Jungian" imply?

By the way, though I'm still "agnostic" on the subject, I would now consider myself a 'tame' Cosmic Humanist panendeist.
I use it to indicate that I'm not on board with the racist and sexist aspects found in some of Jung's original works. But then, I'd like to imagine that most modern Jungians don't agree with that stuff anyways; the qualifier is probably unnecessary, come to think of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I am no fan of labels, but I think "atheist" best describes me. There are many writings that influenced my choice of label, but among the more notable is Paul Tobin's "Atheism and Agnosticism." I would say some of the best essays I have read in defense of agnosticism come from Col. Robert Ingersoll and Prof. Steve Dutch. I have also read plenty of Christian apology, including all of C.S. Lewis' major works, and two of Lee Strobel's "case" books. What I am getting at is that I feel that a theological position, no matter how confident, should not insulate itself. Indeed, a theological position should be able to stand criticism, and being able to do so makes for earned and informed confidence, which is what I want.

More about my atheism. I do not believe in the afterlife, unsurprisingly, but not necessarily out of dislike of the concept; rather, I do not believe there is evidence for it. As to how I would break such a belief to my child (if I ever have one), I think an acquaintance who describes himself as an "agnostic atheist" put it best in a hypothetical conversation with his possible future son: "No one knows. I doubt anything happens. But if you live this life right, then once should be good enough."

Now my thoughts on Pascal's Wager. My concern about whether there are actually two choices possible in the wager aside, I do not think it is the right way to decide a belief. Instead, I think a belief [in God]
— to borrow from Thomas Jefferson — should be chosen because reason lead you to it, not because of blindfolded fear. Belief, or non-belief, is chosen because you think it is real, not because you fear the possibility that not believing in it might deprive you of the chance to have a super-special-awesome prize in this life or the next, or because it is your "safest bet." As Paul Atreides asked in Frank Herbert's novel, Children of Dune, "Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk?"

When all is said and done, I think there is nothing wrong with being sure (or not!) about your religious beliefs so long as you live well and ethically. What we should always watch out for is falling into beliefs that are so inflexible that they allow us to overlook what we would usually cringe at doing (e.g., causing harm to others, or going along with petty schemes against others because we have gone so long painting them as literal Others not even resembling a human with feelings).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
Now my thoughts on Pascal's Wager. My concern about whether there are actually two choices possible in the wager aside, I do not think it is the right way to decide a belief. Instead, I think a belief [in God] — to borrow from Thomas Jefferson — should be chosen because reason lead you to it, not because of blindfolded fear. Belief, or non-belief, is chosen because you think it is real, not because you fear the possibility that not believing in it might deprive you of the chance to have a super-special-awesome prize in this life or the next, or because it is your "safest bet." As Paul Atreides asked in Frank Herbert's novel, Children of Dune, "Is your religion real when it costs you nothing and carries no risk?"
Yeah, Pascal's Wager is a poor argument. It fails to recognize that there are also multiple religions which claim a single path of salvation. So which one do you wager? It's just Russian Roulette.
 
61 - 70 of 70 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top