Strong atheist. Not only I believe there are no Gods, I think religions are bad for humanity and society as a whole.
Reformed Christian. I was raised in a Christian family, and always believed in the basic concepts of God, heaven, hell, etc. But I mistakenly thought Christianity was about trying to be “good enough” for God until my mid teens. Around this time I realised that I couldn’t be perfect, which was super distressing for a time. But then I read Ephesians 2:8-9 which says:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
This was a big relief, as it meant that I didn’t need to rely on trying to be good enough for God. I just needed to accept God’s free gift of salvation. That’s the moment I would say I became a Christian.
Since then, I’ve had times where I’ve questioned it all, but I always come back to the resurrection of Jesus. I find the non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection account to be so implausible that it makes more sense to accept that it’s a historical fact. And if the resurrection’s true, then it makes sense to believe the rest of it as well.
I have had bad experiences with Christianity personally such that it has left a permanent bad taste in my mouth, but it makes me happy to see people like you, who have found genuine solace in some of its teachings.
This seems like faulty logic to me. What other things in your life do you affirmatively believe “by default” just because their counter-arguments seem implausible to you? Doesn’t it make more sense to not hold belief in something until you have evidence supporting that belief?
It’s not so much that I believe it ‘by default’. Rather, when I’ve examined the historical case for the resurrection, the arguments that it really happened seem stronger than the arguments that it was a hoax, or a mass hallucination, or that he fainted etc.
I’m sorry if this comes off as rude or blunt, but here goes:
I am not aware of any evidence that resurrection is possible, or indeed that anything that could be called “supernatural” is real. Don’t you need to establish that before you can claim that arguments for a flipping resurrection seem strong? What am I missing here?
I’m mostly atheist, bluntly, if a god, in whatever form you believe in one, exists, then either they don’t care about humans at all, or will not help humans for any reason. To that end, my opinion is that whether or not a god exists, it doesn’t matter, so I will proceed as though there is no God and make the best choices I can regardless.
I got to this point by making an objective examination of the available religions, which, almost all of them say that their God is the one true God, and all others are false; which obviously cannot be true. If all religions say that all other religions follow false gods then the majority of people/religions believe your God is a false one, which logically leads me to the conclusion that none of the gods exist, or at the very least it is impossible to know which is actually correct.
With no physical evidence for or against any religion, there’s no tiebreaker… Therefore it is impossible to know, and without a way to isolate which may be correct, and effectively zero comment from God itself, then there is no correct decision, so I won’t subscribe to any belief system that has no basis, beyond essentially a book of stories, to exist.
If God did exist, with all the false religion that exists (assuming one religion is correct), it would be logical to provide some way for humans to determine which one to follow beyond blind faith in a book of stores; this causes me to believe that if a god exists, they don’t care what you believe, aka, there is no “correct” or “true” religion in God’s eyes. But it’s equally possible that no God exists at all.
All of this circles around the fact that, knowing whether God exists, and/or knowing what God wants you to believe, is impossible to know at best.
Therefore, QED, religion is inconsequential, belief in God is irrelevant, and believing in such things is, at best, superstition.
So instead, I behave the same or similar to an atheist. I’m more agnostic, but bluntly, I’d rather proceed in the same way as if I had no belief than allowing for the toxic mind virus of religion to be given any quarter. Frankly, religion has done, and continues to do so much evil in the world, that at this point humanity would do well to abolish religion. Societal progress and science especially has been set back years or decades, several times because of the influence from religion and it’s followers; and society continues to be negatively impacted by religious zealots. IMO, it has no place in modern society, and hasn’t had a place in society that serves any practical purpose for hundreds of years.
Religion is only holding us back at this point.
Wouldn’t exactly say “Religion has done, and continues to do, so much evil in the world” because that’s like saying if you leave your gun unsupervised, it (the gun itself) is going to go on a killing spree. The problem is people using religion as a cover to do attrocius things. It’s always been people; some of us kinda suck, frankly. Religion itself isn’t a problem, when one understands that no one religion has remained unaltered from whatever original message it started with (which, I’m not gonna pretend was perfect or anything, unless it was firmly “people ought to be kind and love one another regardless of their differences”, but just saying, there wasn’t originally a concept of Hell as a place of suffering and damnation in any of the Abrahamic Religions, not even Judaism as far as I remember–that came from outside beliefs and got added in later by people who NEEDED it to be that way for whatever reason).
Devout SubGenius. Caught a devival as a young lad, was too busy focusing on a girl I was there with to really listen, but kept thinking about it as years went by. Couldn’t remember squat, not even “Bob’s” name, saw his face from time to time in passing but could never catch up to ask “what the hell is that?” Then one day I found Hour of Slack episode one on youtube, “this is the thing!” I thought, as I found the book used, bought it, found the website, and immediatly got ordained while listening to episode two.
The rest is history. PRA’BOB!
The Rupture has come and gone, yet we are all still here. Where’s your Bob now?
There are many theories, pink one. One such theory is that the rupture did happen, the apocalypse is just slower than we imagined. Another is that “Bob” wrote the year upside down on the napkin, it is actually in 8661. Another is that it simply isn’t 1998 yet, and The Conspiracy has been fucking with the calendar for a long time. There is some evidence to substantiate all of these, so they all may as well be true.
I’m a fan of the Slow Apocalypse theory. It would explain so much…
It really does!
NULL
Agnostic.
Was raised Christian, but I started becoming aware of how hypocritical my church was around my middle school years. Did some reading, talked to lots of people. Refused to keep attending church by 8th grade.
Then, I didn’t think about it for a while. Probably not until college. Started looking into other religions, but they all kind of had the same sort of overarching issues I had with Christianity. Even atheism, I found to be a religious-like belief.
I was really happy to discover agnosticism. I felt like it really spoke to me. I really don’t like the idea that we’re meaningless and nothing, even in the face of how small we are in comparison to the universe around us. I also don’t like the idea that there’s a magic all-consuming being out there who made us as we are who we someday have to answer to.
I like science and saying we truly don’t know. I find comfort in the fact that we haven’t learned our origins yet (as in, all of creation, not just humans). I like the optimism agnostics have, as it’s a natural state for me to be in.
I like the way you put it. Also born and raised Christian. I considered myself an agnostic at 21 (now late 30s), but I’m an atheist for all intents and purposes. Atheist of the cool kind though, not like those anti-religion edgelords. I think religion has a place in society and works for some people, I respect that, it’s just not for me anymore.
100% agree with every word in your comment
Born and raised Muslim, but I think I’m somewhere between that and agnostic now? As a kid I was raised to be extremely religious, then leaned heavily towards hard atheism as a teenager/young adult, but nowadays I just don’t find myself thinking about religion or the presence of a higher being. I don’t necessarily believe that it doesn’t exist, but I don’t necessarily believe it does either, if that makes sense.
It gets a little more complicated since my family and community is Arab, and our particular form of Arabic culture is very closely intertwined with the religion, it oftentimes feels like you can’t have one without the other. It gets hard to pick and choose which parts of Islam I want to participate in (especially considering there’s a lot in Islam that I don’t agree with) and still consider myself a “good” Arab. Hell, at that point can I really even call myself a Muslim? Who knows. But in my eyes religiousness is a spectrum, and I move up and down that spectrum a lot, and I think I’m okay with that.
Agnostic, raised Anglican but started questioning it in my late teens, briefly flirted with other religions and then just decided I was happier being agnostic. Still believe there might be something out there, but I’ve no idea what role that something plays in our lives.
I have no religion. I have no real spiritual belief. The little bit of “supernatural” I ““believe in”” is conjecture beyond the bounds of the universe, and are more like “ya I think this is my best answer for things” or “what if?” rather than an actual belief.
Within the bounds of the universe, I generally subscribe to scientific consensus, I’m not nearly smart enough to really argue against people who’ve spent their careers building upon the theories of those before them.
Strong agnostic, weak theist.
I think God’s existence is ultimately unknowable, and those who claim to know one way or another are using wishful thinking to plug the gaps. But I was raised Catholic and still nominally believe in some sort of deity, though it wavers day to day.
Curious how other untestable belief sit for you, always interesting to know!
I mean things like aliens, fairies, etc where the answers are equally unknowable
Aliens? Probably. We know planets are common and there’s nothing to suggest that life could only evolve once. I’m skeptical of claims that any are actively visiting Earth, though.
Fairies, pixies, unicorns, djinn, etc.? No way. Gods at least have some ontological arguments in their favor: for example, is it more parsimonious to describe a universe that started existing out of nothing or a deity that exists outside of the universe’s constraints? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, but at least both are considerable.
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Please point to a scientific hypothesis or theory that claims that the universe “started existing out of nothing.”
I don’t think we need to get a semantic argument over whether the singularity that led to the big bang is the same as the universe or its own distinct thing. Matter, energy, hypothetical branes, or any other “stuff” of existence: do we have a mechanism for this that isn’t just turtles all the way down?
We don’t have to get into it, but neither of the options you just gave is the same as “universe from nothing,” which is what you said initially.
I think you’re implying that the claim “the matter and energy that comprise the universe has always existed” is a bad position. If I’m correct on that, why do you feel that way? I feel that it is the claim that best comports with our current understanding of the cosmos.
Simple: how has it always existed? Why is there not more of it, or less, or none at all? Is there a viable explanation beyond “It just is?”
Also, your god vs. universe that started existing out of nothing (which isn’t a thing) argument is a false dichotomy.
Also,
Fairies, however, don’t add anything to the discussion and can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
For a given proposition, I don’t think it makes any sense to use “does it add anything to the discussion” as a criterion for dismissing it. The OP is asking about other claims of supernatural entities, which are simliar to gods at least in terms of their supernatural qualities. You don’t just get to dismiss them. So, rephrasing the OP’s question: given that you have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of deities and unicorns, why do you believe in one but not the other?
I’d be certainly willing to consider any other models you may have.
And yes, I do get to dismiss them, because this entire thread is a question of whether and what people believe, and OP asked me whether I believe in them, so I answered. I could believe in literally anything and it would fit the topic of this thread.
But to get more specific, I am a fallibilist: I believe that everything is ultimately unprovable, not just gods. The scientific method and deities are simply two models I find compelling enough to be worthy of my time and attention.
I already answered your specific question: the philosophical arguments that make consideration of deities compelling do not hold for fairies. As one of many examples, no one has ever advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for fairies. Without those, the claims are not at all similar, and I have found no compelling reason to contemplate the existence for unicorns or fairies.
No one has advanced any sort of ontological argument that would hold for a deity, either.
Regardless, thank you for being honest and admitting that you believe what you believe because of feelings and nothing more. I find it hard to have discussions with people who don’t care about the actual truth of what they believe, so I’m gonna disengage here. Have a good one.
Incorrect. There have been many ontological arguments: Wikipedia lists over a dozen formulations.
You not being convinced by any does not change the fact that they have been seriously proposed and discussed for the last 1000 years or so. And again, ontological arguments are just one of many different types.
I see you feel the need to project some notion of “feelings” onto me, which is not at all what fallibilism is. So not only did you attempt to start an argument on an explanatory thread, but now you’ve demonstrated you’ve misunderstood the replies, declared yourself winner of your own game, and are jotting off. So… congrats?
I was trying to disengage peacefully, and I honestly didn’t intend to insult you or declare myself “winner” of anything. But now you’re being dishonest, so you’re blocked. Again, have a good one.
I’m a Christian. I was raised Episcopalian, and still attend Episcopal services, but I have been a Unitarian (not Universalist) for a while. After a lot of thought and prayer and Pascal’s wagering I settled on mostly following Church doctrine and the scripture but departing from them where I feel they don’t makes sense.
Roman Catholic here. I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic but there was a time in my life that I really wanted to put that to the test since I wasn’t entirely sure if I truly believed in it or it was just something that I’ve known all my life. When I went to university, I took this subject called Medieval Philosophy which focused on the philosophical underpinnings of the Catholic theologians like Thomas Aquinas. Funny enough, it was being taught by an atheist who had a great appreciation for the philosophy behind Catholic theology. It was a life changing experience that not only strengthened my belief in God, but made me understand morality and humanity in a deeper sense.
Hindu, I believe in it because it actually makes sense. I know there is a lot of nonsense in Hinduism like it’s there in every religion. Because religions are ultimately jsut tools to power. But i like Hinduism for some of the core beliefs. Some of the important things I like to believe.
- Change is the only constant in the universe, nothing else stays conatsnt.
- God is a construct that is unknowable by definition, it’s larger than the largest thing, and it’s smaller than the smallest thing. It’s infinitly big and infinitesimally small at the same time.
- The morals of how to live life is not something that is defined by God, and God doesn’t care one way or the other if someone follows any.
That being said I understand this is not traditional Hinduism. But I find this to the core with anyone that is willing to discuss Hinduism at length will reach at.
Catholic raised. It was while studying St. Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy that I realized that the underlying philosophy was not very compelling… I then tried to find a more compelling source, but found Richard Dawkins instead.
Militant agnosticism. I don’t know and you don’t either. Strong feelings don’t count as evidence. As long as doubt is entertained as equal to faith, I can get along with a wide variety of believers.
Technically I’m atheist agnostic. Once you’ve seen through one real-estate sex cult, they all start to look the same. So I’ve made my Pascal’s Wager. I bet my immortal soul that any being worth calling God doesn’t care what club I belong to.
Since the purported reward of worship is only received after death, it all sounds like pie in the sky to me.
“I don’t know, and neither do you”
I don’t know if there are diamonds hidden within the walls of my house, but pretending it’s true is going to result in a lot of damage.
The default position is to say “I’m not convinced there are diamonds in my walls” until someone proves me wrong.
I may not “know”, but I’m almost certainly right. I’m also very confident that all of the religions I know about are wrong. I feel justified to say I know that, even though, semantically, that’s technically incorrect.
real-estate
Exjw?
Close. Ex-Mormon. All churches and religious bodies can be classified as real-estate sex cults, technically. All that tax advantaged real estate is a lovely hedge and a place to hide wealth in plain sight.
I don’t know and you don’t either. Strong feelings don’t count as evidence.
<whistles>
