Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[The Truth and Light]

I'm personally not religious, but I respect people who do follow a religion and I recognize the emotional and cultural importance of religions.

In other words, I don't believe in any particular god, but I don't bash people who do, especially since it's such a closely held, personal belief. I don't want to be disrespectful.

Would that there were more of you.

*shrug*

I've learned that if people aren't harming you, live and let live is really the best way to go.

[The Orson Empire]

God doesn't. That is because God most likely exists outside of this universe. He is not trapped inside His own creation.

Physics demonstrates that there is no external cause of the universe.

You must realize that Humans do not know everything.

[Frisivisia]

I don't find the world to be particularly logical. Or rather, I find the world to run on logical principles in the sense of the motions of reality, but act in an illogical manner, as I perceive it. I understand reality in one sense, but I perceive it in another.

A person. A person with a voice, with opinions, with the ability to think and a thought that said otherwise, if I thought as much?

You seem to be confusing irreligion with a lack of romanticism. That's a rookie mistake.

People in this thread have claimed otherwise.

Who, exactly?

[With Teeth]

Physics demonstrates that there is no external cause of the universe.

You must realize that Humans do not know everything.

Wait, what?

[Conserative Morality]

God doesn't.

You can stop right there. If God doesn't operate under the laws of physics as we understand them today, you are contradicting the current scientific understanding of the universe with a modification based on your bronze or iron age myths, depending on which god or pantheon you believe in. Whether or not said myths are ultimately true is irrelevant: they contradict the worldview of modernity in part, at the very least, if not in whole.

[Frisivisia]

For the record, I'm not throwing insults.

All religion is evil isn't an insult now.

I never said that, but even were I to, it would not.

[The Orson Empire]

According to the Bible, in Heaven.

So heaven is outside of the universe, correct?

Correct.

[Tabret]

Ugh, this thread is being flooded with comments every second.

[Conscentia]

Where is God?

According to the Bible, in Heaven.

That'd be where?

[Blasveck]

1. But what created the creator?

Ok, stop.

I'm an atheist, but this is one of the worst, hackneyed, unsophisticated objections one could ever raise. It's such a bad argument. No one should ever, ever, ever use it again.

How is it a bad argument? The line of reason typically is that the universe was created, therefore, it needs a creator. Just because a God is supposedly outside of space and time does not exclude it from this line of reasoning. How exactly is this question flawed?

[Cadia]

I'm getting a headache just from reading the last 5 pages.

Go to F7 or something, clear your mind. It's probably safer there aswell.

[The Steel Magnolia]

People in this thread have claimed otherwise.

Who, exactly?

I do believe that it is better, because it is so beautiful.
It is beautiful to know that there are more than 230 species of ants in central and south america which have evolved to depend on certain types of fungus to survive and it to depend on them, and to be able to explain why rather than shrug and say "I don't know, god did it."
It is beautiful to learn, rather than to accept what a bunch of people say and never think about it again.

[The Steel Magnolia]

All religion is evil isn't an insult now.

I never said that, but even were I to, it would not.

Do elaborate.

[The Orson Empire]

God doesn't.

You can stop right there. If God doesn't operate under the laws of physics as we understand them today, you are contradicting the current scientific understanding of the universe with a modification based on your bronze or iron age myths, depending on which god or pantheon you believe in. Whether or not said myths are ultimately true is irrelevant: they contradict the worldview of modernity in part, at the very least, if not in whole.

I don't care. I'm going to believe in my religion.

[Frisivisia]

So heaven is outside of the universe, correct?

Correct.

Is it outside of existence?

[Conscentia]

So heaven is outside of the universe, correct?

Correct.

That assertion is based on what?

[With Teeth]

Ok, stop.

I'm an atheist, but this is one of the worst, hackneyed, unsophisticated objections one could ever raise. It's such a bad argument. No one should ever, ever, ever use it again.

How is it a bad argument? The line of reason typically is that the universe was created, therefore, it needs a creator. Just because a God is supposedly outside of space and time does not exclude it from this line of reasoning. How exactly is this question flawed?

You do realize that something which exists timelessly does not begin to exist?

[The Truth and Light]

I'm personally not religious, but I respect people who do follow a religion and I recognize the emotional and cultural importance of religions.

In other words, I don't believe in any particular god, but I don't bash people who do, especially since it's such a closely held, personal belief. I don't want to be disrespectful.

I believe that poor people are the cause of all suffering. This is a deeply-held personal belief. Don't you be disrespectful.

Intellectual honesty, what is it?

[Frisivisia]

I never said that, but even were I to, it would not.

Do elaborate.

No need.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Physics demonstrates that there is no external cause of the universe.

You must realize that Humans do not know everything.

Exactly, so isn't the most rational option to make conclusions based on the evidence at hand? And if new evidence comes along, to change them?

[The Orson Empire]

Correct.

Is it outside of existence?

It's outside of this universe, in another dimension, most likely.

[Conserative Morality]

People in this thread have claimed otherwise.

And? Are those people you? Are those people me? No? Then what does that have to do with this conversation? Just as the beliefs of one theist are not the beliefs of another theist, why assume that the beliefs of one or several atheists are the beliefs of another atheist?

[Frisivisia]

I believe that poor people are the cause of all suffering. This is a deeply-held personal belief. Don't you be disrespectful.

Intellectual honesty, what is it?

Unsure.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Intellectual honesty, what is it?

[Threlizdun]

There is no extensive evidence to the contrary. There is merely an absence of evidence to the affirmative, hence the null hypothesis. It's not about knowledge, get this in your head.

It is up to religion to support its claims in something that somehow defies all that we have found to be true through science. If religion is true, then all we know of physics, cosmology, astronomy, biology, mathematics, and essetentially every academic field must be abandoned. Such world-shattering beliefs must as a principle be rejected until there is evidence for them. There is no evidence for them, whereas we have evidence for how a universe could exist without them, and basic probability to show why they almost certainly don't exist.

So?

I mean that sincerely, so what? Some people may not like alternative methods. Who are you to say that they should use those?

So the only positive things religion offers can be found through alternative methods, once that do not require blind faith, rejection of science, submission to authority figures and strict standards, and horrendous moral theories. The secular alternatives are superior in every concievable manner. To not use them is foolish.