Religious people. (are you?)

[Agadar]

poll added

You'll want to change the definition of 'Agnostic' just a bit; Agnostics are neither Atheists, nor Theists; both an Atheist and a Theist have beliefs. A true Agnostic has no beliefs at all; it's a third category all together.

No. Wrong wrong wrong. You have four main categories: Gnostic Theist ('God exists!'), Gnostic Atheist ('God does not exist!'), Agnostic Theist ('God exists, but we will never know for sure') and finally Agnostic Atheist ('God does not exist, but we will never know for sure').

I'm agnostic as I am fed up of these argument about whether god exists, and feels there are more important things to argue with.

In that case you're an apatheist.

[Holy Paradise]

I've got to say this poll is pretty limiting. Some people do believe in a God or subscribe to a certain religion, but are more traditionalist or liberal about it than others.

[Ascara]

Believing in one religion or another was never an option for me. There are things in each religion that I find some logic in and things I completely disagree with.

I believe in the existence of the soul, of some form of karma, the recycling of the body mind and soul to become building blocks for new life(= no afterlife)

I do NOT believe in divine law or judgement, and I certainly DON'T believe that some big holy dude is watching me while I fa.. Ummm... take part in questionable activities.

As for God... for me it's mode of a symbol, an idea, or a level of consciousness that a human can reach. Thus my religion is somewhat of a mixed breed.

Well, religious path encourages freedom, progress, finding balance in everything, and being open to everything in this world without personal judgement.

I think I'll start a cult....

[Wikkiwallana]

Raised Baptist, now consider myself a non-denominational protestant. I do understand that the Bible is full of metaphor and allegory, and we have no originals, only copies of copies of copies done by hand for thousands of years, so errors are highly likely in various places.

[Unchecked Expansion]

No. Wrong wrong wrong. You have four main categories: Gnostic Theist ('God exists!'), Gnostic Atheist ('God does not exist!'), Agnostic Theist ('God exists, but we will never know for sure') and finally Agnostic Atheist ('God does not exist, but we will never know for sure').

Where are people who honestly don't know either way? There way or may not be a God, and we can't know either way?

[Treznor]

No. Wrong wrong wrong. You have four main categories: Gnostic Theist ('God exists!'), Gnostic Atheist ('God does not exist!'), Agnostic Theist ('God exists, but we will never know for sure') and finally Agnostic Atheist ('God does not exist, but we will never know for sure').

Where are people who honestly don't know either way? There way or may not be a God, and we can't know either way?

My progression went like this:

There is a God, and I know what He wants of me because it's in the Bible!

...

There is a God, but I'm not quite sure what I've been told about the Bible is entirely accurate.

...

There is a God, but I don't believe what I've been told about him.

...

There might be a God, but I'm less convinced the more I really think it through.

...

There might be a God, but given the persistent lack of consistent or verifiable evidence, probably not.

[Ausgebombt]

Germanic/Norse Pagan. Asatru.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I've never been particularly religious. Not even when I actively went to Church, listened to Mass, did Confession, and had my First Communion and Confirmation. I always told myself that there may or may not be a God. If there is, cool. If there isn't, cool too. I believe in people. That some can be kind while others can be total asses. But I don't ascribe this to a godly influence.

[Mandalyrria]

Atheist!
Are Atheists supposed to be more lonely or depressed than Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or etc?
Misery is not the sovereign claim of any one religion, or any lack of religion.
What is interesting to me is when religious types think atheists have no "moral compass" - to me this is like a Christian saying he would go around killing people if only it wasn't one of those darned commandments...
To me, I do what makes me feel good, and I don't do what makes me feel bad. My own experience guides me. I don't need to kill someone to know I would feel bad about it, and so I do not kill. I am kind to people, because that makes me feel good, and it makes people be nice to me, which also makes me feel good.
Why do I have to be told by a book what makes me feel good or bad? Don't I have a mind of my own? Can't I make these decisions for myself?
Religion is unnecessary to me. Is it really necessary for everyone else? Do people really derive so much comfort out of "not being alone"? I don't get it! And I'm perfectly happy : )

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm presently Non-denominational Christian, though I tend to border on the agnostic at times, I still believe, I just sometimes have trouble compromising that with my philosophies, also this poll is not quite accurate, you should include another, as there are many people who don't believe in God persay but are religious ie Buddhists, likewise others who aren't religious but believe in some form of spirit ie Neo-paganism and new age spirituality

[Vaalbarian States]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

So it's impossible to think there is an equal chance of there not being and there being a god?

[Vaalbaria (Ancient)]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

So it's impossible to think there is an equal chance of there not being and there being a god?

It's possible. You just can't call yourself an agnostic for holding that belief.

[Callisdrun]

Lately, I've been reading many threads involving people and religion.
I would like to know how many people are religious (any religion), how many people are atheists, and how many people are agnostic.
If you provide a small explanation as to why you are or aren't religious, it would be appreciated.

Your poll sucks.

Just because I am religious does not mean I believe in one omnipotent being who "created everything."

[Callisdrun]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

So it's impossible to think there is an equal chance of there not being and there being a god?

It's possible. You just can't call yourself an agnostic for holding that belief.

Why not?

Who died and made you arbiter of the English language?

The dictionary says...

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

[Vaalbarian States]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

So it's impossible to think there is an equal chance of there not being and there being a god?

It's possible. You just can't call yourself an agnostic for holding that belief.

Why not?

Who died and made you arbiter of the English language?

The dictionary says...

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

The dictionary is not a good source of information when it comes to philosophical topics.

[Pokemanzz]

My mom's Agnostic, my dad's more Atheist, so I guess my beliefs are somewhere around there. I've never really cared much about religion.

[Pokemanzz]

Atheist!
Are Atheists supposed to be more lonely or depressed than Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or etc?
Misery is not the sovereign claim of any one religion, or any lack of religion.
What is interesting to me is when religious types think atheists have no "moral compass" - to me this is like a Christian saying he would go around killing people if only it wasn't one of those darned commandments...
To me, I do what makes me feel good, and I don't do what makes me feel bad. My own experience guides me. I don't need to kill someone to know I would feel bad about it, and so I do not kill. I am kind to people, because that makes me feel good, and it makes people be nice to me, which also makes me feel good.
Why do I have to be told by a book what makes me feel good or bad? Don't I have a mind of my own? Can't I make these decisions for myself?
Religion is unnecessary to me. Is it really necessary for everyone else? Do people really derive so much comfort out of "not being alone"? I don't get it! And I'm perfectly happy : )

I couldn't agree with you more. : )

[Arkinesia]

But if they did that where would they get their justification for hating homosexuals?

Couple of fine points to make…

Jesus is God's son and was God's representative on Earth, also his sacrifice. Hence I think Jesus has the right to talk…

Also I do not hate homosexuals, and I am deeply troubled by those who do. It is uncalled for according to Paul, who writes that the only wrong in homosexuality is homosexual activity. Much like any heterosexual lust, homosexuality is genetic (typically) and should be treated as such—a natural, subconscious reaction. There is no wrong in lust as long as it is not intentional.

Couple of fine points to make in response: a lot of people here don't believe in Jesus, or God, or that Jesus was God's representative on Earth. Consequently, we don't recognize his authority. Also, I challenge you to find any passage in the Bible where Jesus is alleged to have made a concrete statement regarding homosexuality. Yes, he talked about a man leaving his parents to join with a woman to be one flesh, but that was it. No condemnation of homosexuality whatsoever until the ultra-reactionary Paul came around. Last but not least, what's wrong with lust? Why must it be differentiated from any other human drive? And why in the world would you worship a god who gives us these drives and then tells us not to enjoy them?

Except that Jesus already had a 3,000-year background of Jewish law to build on.

Paul did not write exclusively to Jews. Most of his writings were directed to Gentiles (i.e. Romans). Hence, Paul had to write to a different audience, with a different cultural background, a different historical background, a different set of laws. Jesus was well aware that Jews had already condemned homosexuality—he didn't need to pound that into anyone's skulls.

The reason for the forbidding of intentional lust is because it is distracting from doing God's work on Earth, which is not only to reach others for him, but also to spread his love through kindness and compassion. It is not differentiated from other human drives. Focusing on eating, focusing on worries, etc. is also considered sinful.

Being overly simplistic with things just makes you look stupid. Cutting corners is not advisable in debates.

[Treznor]

But if they did that where would they get their justification for hating homosexuals?

Couple of fine points to make…

Jesus is God's son and was God's representative on Earth, also his sacrifice. Hence I think Jesus has the right to talk…

Also I do not hate homosexuals, and I am deeply troubled by those who do. It is uncalled for according to Paul, who writes that the only wrong in homosexuality is homosexual activity. Much like any heterosexual lust, homosexuality is genetic (typically) and should be treated as such—a natural, subconscious reaction. There is no wrong in lust as long as it is not intentional.

Couple of fine points to make in response: a lot of people here don't believe in Jesus, or God, or that Jesus was God's representative on Earth. Consequently, we don't recognize his authority. Also, I challenge you to find any passage in the Bible where Jesus is alleged to have made a concrete statement regarding homosexuality. Yes, he talked about a man leaving his parents to join with a woman to be one flesh, but that was it. No condemnation of homosexuality whatsoever until the ultra-reactionary Paul came around. Last but not least, what's wrong with lust? Why must it be differentiated from any other human drive? And why in the world would you worship a god who gives us these drives and then tells us not to enjoy them?

Except that Jesus already had a 3,000-year background of Jewish law to build on.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Paul did not write exclusively to Jews. Most of his writings were directed to Gentiles (i.e. Romans). Hence, Paul had to write to a different audience, with a different cultural background, a different historical background, a different set of laws. Jesus was well aware that Jews had already condemned homosexuality—he didn't need to pound that into anyone's skulls.

Christian dogma generally agrees that Jesus came to fulfill the old laws and establish new rules. If he truly were God's representative, you'd think he'd make a point to lay out those rules explicitly, lest we stumble over omissions and interpretations. But even Biblical scholars agree that there's a striking difference between the message that Jesus allegedly brought and what Paul gave. Maybe, as you say, it's because they were addressing different audiences but again, as God's representative Jesus should have known this and taken care to address future audiences in his message. Curious that he didn't, yes?

The reason for the forbidding of intentional lust is because it is distracting from doing God's work on Earth, which is not only to reach others for him, but also to spread his love through kindness and compassion. It is not differentiated from other human drives. Focusing on eating, focusing on worries, etc. is also considered sinful.

So anything that distracts from the glory of God is sinful. And people wonder why we consider Pascal's Wager to be inherently flawed. Even if Pascal's premise of a binary choice is correct, you're wasting an awful lot of time and energy that could be used to improve yourself and the world around you by focusing on praising an imaginary friend in the sky.

Being overly simplistic with things just makes you look stupid. Cutting corners is not advisable in debates.

How am I being overly simplistic? God created us, then told us to behave in ways contrary to the way he made us. Please explain how this is incorrect.

[Scario]

Atheist, for anything else is illogical given contemporary knowledge.

LIKE HOW A BANG FROM NO WHERE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE HAPPENED FOR NO REASON AND MADE THE UNIVERSE?!
You twittererlerlerler!

[Unchecked Expansion]

Atheist, for anything else is illogical given contemporary knowledge.

LIKE HOW A BANG FROM NO WHERE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE HAPPENED FOR NO REASON AND MADE THE UNIVERSE?!
You twittererlerlerler!

There are logical scientific explanations for universal origin.
Admittedly most of them are only at the stage of 'with what we know, the maths would work if it started like this'. But sometimes acknowledging we don't know something is perfectly logical

[Scario]

Atheist, for anything else is illogical given contemporary knowledge.

LIKE HOW A BANG FROM NO WHERE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE HAPPENED FOR NO REASON AND MADE THE UNIVERSE?!
You twittererlerlerler!

There are logical scientific explanations for universal origin.
Admittedly most of them are only at the stage of 'with what we know, the maths would work if it started like this'. But sometimes acknowledging we don't know something is perfectly logical

OOC: Guess when YOUR favorite show is back on air?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Atheist, for anything else is illogical given contemporary knowledge.

LIKE HOW A BANG FROM NO WHERE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE HAPPENED FOR NO REASON AND MADE THE UNIVERSE?!
You twittererlerlerler!

There are logical scientific explanations for universal origin.
Admittedly most of them are only at the stage of 'with what we know, the maths would work if it started like this'. But sometimes acknowledging we don't know something is perfectly logical

OOC: Guess when YOUR favorite show is back on air?

I don't have one

[Callisdrun]

Wow. Each of those options are very flawed. A theist doesn't have to believe in a single deity, nor one that created everything. An atheist doesn't have to believe only in science or believe only in what can be proven. Agnosticism isn't even a religious option. It's a modifier for theism and atheism. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. You cannot, however, be an agnostic.

So it's impossible to think there is an equal chance of there not being and there being a god?

It's possible. You just can't call yourself an agnostic for holding that belief.

Why not?

Who died and made you arbiter of the English language?

The dictionary says...

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

The dictionary is not a good source of information when it comes to philosophical topics.

So words mean whatever you subjectively want them to mean?

I doubt that if I declare you to be various choice things, the mods will listen to my pleas that in this case said terms refer to a philosophical expert, not their dictionary definitions.