I don't think religion causes war, but I definitely think it's used as an excuse to do unthinkable things to living, breathing and feeling people en masse, not to mention the damage to the planet and it's other inhabitants. Like you say religion is used to control people, people are willing to die for their religion, willing to turn on their children or vice versa.
Though I do get that for some people it brings them hope, allows them to be part of a community and other benefits. And even though it also fuels pure hatred, bigotry and racism and gives people personal allowances to commit atrocities. I wouldn't hold any negative feelings to those that do choose to take part in religion. Providing the religion stops before the evil starts, nothing too extreme, ya know. There's a line but hard to say where it's drawn.
To add to this the absolute worst thing religion does is try to force itself on others. Wouldn't be such a bad thing if it was just kept to itself. But nope. Like the saying; religion is like a penis, it's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it. But if you start waving it around outside and start trying to push it down my throat, we're going to have a problem!
Raised mormon, did the mission thing, moroni's promise was bullshit so I switched to general christianity, realized that it's just another brand of bullshit. Currently agnostic/atheist/who cares.
IF there's a god, he's not a fucking primate with a sphincter- humans are so freaking narcissistic to think the "ultimate" being of all time is just like them.
IF there's a god, why would he be omniscient/omnipresent? You created this post, do you actively control how it interacts with people's minds?
IF there's a god, and he's the christian idea of a god, he's evil. No loving being would send their "children" to a test (omniscient, knowing the future) knowingly sending them to a place where the result would be them suffering for eternity.
IF there's a god, their existence doesn't answer the question of where we came from, what came before god? If your answer to this question is "god just always was" you're an idiot who missed the point.
Being raised under Christianity and having actually read the Bible like a book (as in just front to back like a novel; but boring) is what led me to it.
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.
Same boat but I have heavily leaned towards science. And I think that leaning hard that way has kinda pushed me into being agnostic more than atheist. Have you had similar thoughts?
No arguments that I've heard for the existence of a deity have met their burden of proof. For some of these deities (the Abrahamic god, gods of most eastern religions, Zeus, Xenu), I actively assert they do not exist, while for others (e.g. a deistic god) I can't honestly claim they don't exist due to the lack of falsifiable claims involved, but I still don't believe claims that they do exist.
Buddhism. I first learned about it when someone was discussing whether it's a religion or a way of life. They specifically mentioned that it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being Christian (which I was) at the same time.
3 years later and I disagree with that statement, to a certain extent. You could choose to ignore the "supernatural" parts of Buddhism and just learn from the lessons. But I think the more you learn, the more it just kinda makes sense.
For instance, buddhist believe in "re-incarnation" but there's a lot of debate about what that is. I prefer death and rebirth. Which I interpret as: I'm a different person than I was 10 years ago. The old me died and was reborn as what I am now.
Other things that I like about it:
it is encouraged that you have skeptisicm about what you learn. I'm fact, you shouldn't just accept it because without questioning what your being told, you can not come to a true understanding and belief.
The lessons all revolve around how to be a better person. How to achieve nirvana through your thoughts, actions, views, etc.
Many of the principles were first introduced when buddha was alive 2500 years ago. Today, psychology studies have shown that many of them really do have long lasting, extremely beneficial effects. Think meditation and mindfulness (not necessarily invented by Buddhism, but popularized by it)
For me it really resonates. A lot of the things I care about are discussed. From mental health to treating life with respect to the environment to forgiveness. I also don't find much hipocracy.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Atheist. Raised catholic. Too old, I realized that the god of the bible isn't a moral person. 1 Samuel 15:3 etc. Arguing with young-earth creationists gave me the final push, I understood science well enough to understand the implications of radiometric dating, plate tectonics, geology etc.
Currently none, I consider myself agnostic. Grew up protestant christian, left the church last year due to not identifying with its beliefs (and to save church tax). I have a casual interest in Buddhism, but don't plan on actually converting.
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 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.
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.
Some sort of humanist atheism/existentialism? I guess...
As a teenager and young adult, I used to be very interested in cosmology and astrophysics, to the point I wanted to study it at uni. The vastness of the world and existence seemed like a beautiful enigma. I was also always interested in philosophy, which ended up more lasting than my interest in physics.
After growing older, the vastness of nature and existence seemed more and more haunting than beautiful. If there was something like a God, it had to be a mad idiot god. I actually kind of sympathised with Gnosticism and similar thoughts for a while, but I could not believe in a metaphysical, perfect entity waiting even further behind everything. I could not believe in some sort of salvation, that could just come to us by giving up on materiality. It seemed like an empty self-delusion. Similarly, I respect Buddhism a lot, and think there is a lot of good ideas within it, but it's ultimate life-nonaffirming philosophies and focus on avoidance of suffering did not resonate with me.
Looking at the history of our planet, our universe, and humanity, it seemed clear to me, that existence just stumbles along. We are a "mistake" in a vastness of empty, dumb, boring clouds of hydrogen and dust, nuclear furnaces and holes in reality, devoid of meaning. Life felt more and more to me, like a great rebellion against a vast, seemingly all-encompassing nothingness. No aliens in sight either, that could relieve us of our burden. Just humanity, as the one lifeform so far known to us, that at least has the potential to not fall into the traps of self-annihilation and lifelessnes that permeates our past and present. Just humanity with the responsibility of getting our shit together or life eventually being just reincorporated into the vast, dumb nothing of the "idiot god", so to speak.
All the mistakes of humans felt to me more and more like just extensions of the same stupidity that is also manifest in all of nature. And our struggle against it, feels like a sort of "sacred duty". Those loaded words to illustrate, that I'd think of myself as actually having strong faith in a weird way, even though it is not rooted in the supernatural as such.
It's also evident to me, this faith has at least partially persisted for me as an anchor for myself. I have not been suicidal ever since I felt that way, even though for most of my life I have been struggling with trauma and a variety of mental health disorders, and have been suicidal before. I could not think of that anymore, suffering seemed almost meaningless to me, now, and it feels better to endure it than to give in to the vast nothingness without a fight, without trying to create as much good as possible in this small contingent miracle that is life, that has been brought forth by so much struggle and so many seemingly impossible coincidences, chance and "mistakes".
I have a big aversion against beliefs that put faith into higher powers, be it nature or God or some sort of transdimensional aliens or whatever. I try to analyse beliefs like that not with disdain, though, but as results of how we are caught in the world we are, in our circumstances, and how life itself has had to "trick" existence itself into allowing life to exist, by follwing its rules but also emergently transcending them, creating something new from it, that is more than the sum of its parts.
Politically and philosophically it lead me to Marxism and Hegel respectively. Marxism with it's focus on changing our material foundations and dynamics, in order for us to be able to develop our humanity and be able to act more rational in the grand scheme lends itself well to it. Hegel, with looking at the development of ideas and humanity dialectically, developing something until it reaches the limit of its own contradictions also appealed to me.
Sorry for the wall of text, the question caught me in a somber mood and caused me to monologue.
Really got into latter-day saints but after it didn't work out with the girl I was trying to get with, I stopped pretending I gave a shit about that cult
I was brought up as a Reformed/Calvinist christian, I never could fully believe even as a child. Today I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't say that there definitely is no god or a higher power because I don't know, but for now I assume there isn't.
I don't want to convert anyone or take their faith away, so I only talk about my reasons for not believing if people try to convince me to believe.
Lastly, Science tells us that the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being.
[citation needed]
If “you” can form once, is it so absurd to believe that it could happen twice? If twice, why not an infinite number of times?
I don't believe it's impossible. But I'd put the odds of the exact same atoms arranging themselves in the exact same way so as to form another "you" in roughly the same ballpark as me being able to touch the palm of my hand to a 6" thick wall and have it pass right through. Both my hand and the wall are mostly empty space, so it's possible for the atoms to all align in the correct way for it to happen, but the odds are infinitesimally small.
Which part would you like a citation for? I am happy to provide.
The part I quoted: that "the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being." I take particular issue with 1) the "formed itself" language, because it sounds a bit like you're referring to the universe as an entity that can act of its own accord, which I don't believe is correct, and 2) "presumably from a state of non-being," because it sounds like you believe science has actually established that there was likely a "state of non-being," when I don't know that a "state of non-being" is even something that makes any sense to discuss in a scientific manner. So if you had citations to corroborate the entire statement, that would be ideal.
Edit: and your second paragraph strays pretty far from the original topic of reincarnation. Yes, in a many-worlds interpretation of the cosmos, there are infinitely many copies of me, and an infinite number of them have put their hands through walls as if by magic. But this is pretty different from the commonly-accepted concept of reincarnation, in that you aren't saying that we are reborn again only when we die, but rather that we exist in infinitely many universes simultaneously.
Atheist, if you consider that a religion. I view it more as a lack of religion or belief, but that's just pedantry. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, but eventually became disillusioned with their teachings as I grew older and realized that they were out of touch with the Bible and (more importantly) reality. After a period of self-reflection, I examined what I believe and came to the conclusion that I didn't really believe in much of anything anymore.
I don't believe in the Bible. It's a great work of literature, in an academic sense, but it's not something to model your life on. You can tie yourselves up in knots trying to come up with a coherent interpretation or you can take everything so figuratively that you might as well ignore the source material all together. I didn't see much point in either and just view it as a product of the wide range of people over the millennia that contributed to it.
I don't believe in God either. For me, I don't see a reason to think that there is a God. It's essentially impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. If you disproved one, people would just come up with either excuses or another God entirely. Some might argue that Earth's existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn't the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first? Why should we accept that God had no creator but that the universe had to have a creator?
There are other arguments, sure, but my lived experience has shown me no reason to think that there's a God or specific meaning, plan, scheme, or rhyme and reason to life on Earth. That doesn't mean we can't find meaning in our own lives, but it does mean we have to work to make it.
Nobody is coming to save us. Nobody is going to hand us an answer or salvation. We have to save ourselves.
Some might argue that Earth's existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn't the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first?
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There's other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe's beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there's a beginning of "time" does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there's no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don't need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don't.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don't mean to say it is certain. But I do think there's a good argument for it.
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn't Reddit :)
But that's a theory isn't it? I haven't seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It's just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don't enjoy your tone policing.. There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.
How so? I don't see what you mean here, it doesn't explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don't, so it explains nothing.
If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
Hmm, I don't see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an "eternal always existing" modifier. We don't know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn't eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is merely a statement that they must exist.
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you're building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
An effect must have a cause.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can't get away from that without special pleading.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
No worries, I don't care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term "beginning." The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it's a bit nuanced, but it's really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I'm aware of that claims it hasn't.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
Raised Roman Catholic, broke with that after a classmate died out of the blue of an aneurysm (how could God let shit like that happen?), after looking through Buddhism and some Occultist stuff, realized that the main function of "God" is to be used as a prop to scam people. I've considered the Satanist Left Hand path, but I don't care about rituals. I'd rather follow the scientific method as applied to everything, and use it to extend and expand human nature. While theists still kind of nauseate me with a dash of pity, like seeing a dead kitten in the gutter, I'm up for positive interactions with anyone capable of maintaining one.
Why are people answering atheist here? OP is asking for religion. It's like if OP was asking what colour your basketballs are and having people respond (at length for some reason) that they don't have one.
Any survey of people's religions will have a category for people to answer "no belief/atheism". OP seems interested in what people believe and what led them to have that belief. I don't think answering with Atheism is going against that.
I'm totally down for the atheist response, although it technically isn't a religion in itself as much a position on whether you believe in a deity or not. A N/A response is totally cool in my book and I actually appreciate it. But def would prefer if people would describe what led them to it in more depth
I am an a-stamp-collector. I do not collect stamps. This does not necessarily mean I still collect something.
I am also an atheist. I do not believe any claim I have heard about a god. This does not necessarily mean I still believe something (about a deity, or indeed about anything else).
Right? Nature is cruel and lazy. It can’t even make me completely bald, I have to finish the job to get that streamlined look that brings all the boys to the yard.
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.
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.
I do. I do pray and observe Ramadan, avoid pork, and so on. I did it as a child and a teenager - but there was a while in my young adult years of briefly slipping into a bad lifestyle and abusing shit to cope with work and poor mental health at the time. To be frank, it was the fact that I took my driver's license that made me do away with that stuff.
Thankfully, I have had a spiritual re-awakening since then and found back to those roots. It's a good thing for me that allows me to stay grounded keep my humility. It's a gift that I'm proud of to have received from my parents. I've managed to shave away other vices such as gambling, but other vices like nicotine remain.
This happens to be my heritage and my life story. Having been born and raised in a secular country, I've seen and heard enough to recognize that everyone has their own heritage and their own life story. What's yours?
I didn't want to come off as condescending, but your original comment was formed in such a way that it would lead to misunderstanding since you only mentioned the heritage part, which IMO should not be the most important aspect of picking a religion.
I don't have any religious heritage myself. I was raised by agnostic and completely irreligious parents, although I did go to a catholic school growing up. I'm an atheist myself but I understand why people feel drawn to religions and why believing in a higher power makes certain aspects of life easier. I've studied religions quite a bit though, and as a philosophy and way of life I tend to agree more with the teachings of Christianity. At least I like to think that is my rationale speaking and not simply my upbringing.
I’ve been vegan for a while now and the concept of nonharm as a philosophical/religious focus of your life seems very interesting to me.
The concept is basically just, do your best not to hurt anyone, human or nonhuman. Unless it’s in self defence. I quite like that idea. More people should try it.
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.
Dudeism. Regarding what led me to identify with it, well, you know. A lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous, and uhh... lost my train of thought there.
In that, yeah, western pluralism is derived from a "Rhode Island" interpretation of tolerance from Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament. But waa the guy diety? Nah.
Was raised LDS/Mormon for the first three decades of my life. But gradually burned out of it as the church became more demanding and greedy -- and slowly evolved away from "Rhode Island" tolerance Christianity into a near- LGBTQ hate group. The church decided to die on that hill, and I left. I believe Jesus teaches me to be kind, understanding, and tolerant.
The LDS/Mormon church is basically obsessed over anti-LGBTQ acceptance and tithing (money). If it were on the Nasdaq, the church would rival Lockheed Martin in market cap. Yet they are hella stingy helping the poor and still demand even the church's poorest members to pay their "widow's mite" of 10 percent. It's downright immoral.
Currently I'm non-religious, agnostic, and spiritual in some sense. I was raised Christian, but broke away in my early teen years, mostly due to rhetoric I was hearing from Sunday school and the Church back when I was forced to attend. It also didn't help that my folks are biblical literalists. I was ridiculed quite a lot by my family for being an atheist. I left atheism some years, I had closed myself off to any spiritual or religious, but I thought to myself that it didn't have to be that way.
None. My family and basically everyone in my rural hometown were on the spectrum from "quite" to "extremely" protestant Christian. None of it was compatible with my brain, none of it ever made sense at all. I've been areligious as long as I can remember and here's hoping I never get a brain tumor, because I'm pretty sure that's the only way I will ever become religious.
However, I'm a big fan of people retaining their full agency and that includes leaving people to believe whatever they want. I'm not at all militant and outside of the fact that a large percentage of the world's religious population would probably want me dead or, at minimum, thinks I'm incapable of having any sense of morality, or thinks that my children should be indoctrinated, etc. etc. Other than all that kind of stuff, I really do not care what they believe. Unitarian Universalists seem pretty cool though.
At minimum, thinks I'm incapable of having any sense morality, or thinks that my children should be indoctrinated
Man, do I hate that with such a burning passion....
Like, the amount of times I've had to sit someone down and go "I'm not a decent human being because The Bible showed me to be or because my local priest told me I'd burn in Hell if I wasn't, I'm a decent human being because my ma raised me to be--because her mom raised her to be that way, and so on. She never threatened me with fire and brimstone nor told me it's what Jesus would have wanted, just that people ought to be kind to one another. God didn't teach me manners and how to be kind to others, she did." is unreal. How it's so hard for people to grasp is beyond me
Also, the indocternation of children without thier consent makes my blood boil. It's cool if they believe in Christ, Allah, Brahma, or none of the above...but that should be thier own choice, not something chosen for them. "Come freely of your own will" and all that. Because if you're forced to love something for fear of punishment, is it really love?
Christian.
I have been a non-practising Christian for all my life until my wife and I was through some personal events. And since have I been attending church regularly.
I was born into, but as I grew, I had to know for myself it was true or not. I did a lot of praying and reading, and one day received an answer to my prayers. In this case, the best I can describe is a flow of light and knowledge, and a confirmation to my Spirit that it was true.
From then on I've had more experiences, but that was the start, and that is why I continue on the path I'm on.
What is your Spirit? Can you describe its properties and offer some evidence to show the rest of us that it exists? How do you know you received an answer to your prayers? How might someone else replicate this experience?
There certainly is a replication process, as found in the Book of Moroni (a section within the Book of Mormon), chapter 10, verses 4 & 5
"4.And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
As for knowing it was my Spirit feeling an impression, it's much the same as people knew what emotions were long before we could see activity in the brain; through experience we can recognize and understand it even though it does not as yet appear on a scan.
To paraphrase a church scholar Hugh Nibley, it's not that science and https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gospel-library/id598329798 contractadict, but that incomplete religion and incomplete science do. Complete religion and complete science work fine together.
For properties, we go to Doctrine and Covenants (another standard work in our church), section 93, verse 29
"29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be"
In other words, the building blocks are intelligences. Now, when those intelligences come together, they can be formed into a Spirit.
Moving to section 131, verses 7 and 8
"7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter"
To reframe my experience then, the Holy Ghost, a member of the Godhead along with Jesus Christ and The Father (who are separate beings), spoke to my Spirit in a way I can sense and understand internally but, much like emotions before brain scanning, I cannot show.
Certainly happy to answer more questions (though I will be on the road today).
There is an app that contains all our standard works and will make finding these and other references easier. I believe there is also a section for Gospel Topics
Every single one of the things you mentioned are claims, not evidence. Maybe I can rephrase my question:
When I buy a delicious Share Size Snickers bar at the 7-11, I see on the package that it claims that the bar weighs 3.86 ounces. It feels a little light to me; I am skeptical of the fact that this particular Share Size Snickers bar weighs what it claims on the package. My options are:
Take the weight printed on the package as the truth and don't question it any further;
Put the bar on a scale and measure its weight independently, to confirm whether the weight is correct.
With regard to religion, you appear to be doing only #1, and I'm asking how I can do #2. What are the tools and evidence I can use, akin to the scale, that are independent of the religious text (= the Snickers wrapper) and can show me that your claims are valid?
Grew up evangelical. Now I’m not “religious” but am “Christ leaning.” Like, I appreciate the idea of Christ and hope that whatever higher being there might be has some Christlike qualities.
I don’t know. I doubt. I hope. I do shrooms. I’m confident there is more to existence than we know. I hope to leave a legacy of kindness. I like to learn and experience as much as I can. Love wins and transcends. I think enjoying the universe is method of worship. All that shit. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Also, when I was religious I was an amillenial partial preterist which pissed off a lot of bible thumpers in my region. Felt kind of punk to adopt those beliefs. That Left Behind shit is weird and never helped anyone.
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.
Agnosticism after doubting my way out of Protestantism in my teens. Major contributing factors were my parents' divorce (which was clearly the right thing for them to have done, as one was abusive) and realizing I was queer
I'm split damn near 50/50 on whether I think a deity or deities exist. Physics observations that suggest our universe is a simulation, and weird things about consciousness (dreams, deja vu, near death experiences, psychedelic experiences, cultural parallels in seemingly isolated ancient civilizations, etc.) fascinate me and keep me wondering what might be "up there." At the same time, studying biology made me realize the "power" of randomness over millions of years to "create" what people find meaningful without there necessarily having to be divine influence. Typewriter-monkey-Shakespeare philosophical stuff.
I really, really hope reincarnation or a non-hell afterlife exist, though. I am TERRIFIED of oblivion. :(
This is the argument/reassurance I hear most often, but it doesn't make me less afraid, unfortunately. Even if I were shown undeniable proof that my consciousness will stop existing after my death and therefore be unable to experience negative emotions/pain/fear/etc., my problem is that, well, I just really don't wanna stop existing.
To me, nonexistence is only preferable to a hell-type afterlife of guaranteed eternal suffering
If I could choose, I'd most prefer reincarnation (preferably as a human or other sapient being...)
I'm still haunted by the possibility that I send a version of myself to oblivion every time I lose consciousness. 🫠
Was Secular Humanist atheist 1998-2013 until converting to moderate Sunni Hanafi Islam to date law abiding london pakistanis. I quit alcohol 2006 and was straight edge before so very against intoxication. racist parents repeatedly tried to force me into according to northwell south oaks "incest" arranged marriages with uneducated feminists I have nothing in common with as an engineer.
Strong atheist. Not only I believe there are no Gods, I think religions are bad for humanity and society as a whole.
With you on this.
I don't think religion causes war, but I definitely think it's used as an excuse to do unthinkable things to living, breathing and feeling people en masse, not to mention the damage to the planet and it's other inhabitants. Like you say religion is used to control people, people are willing to die for their religion, willing to turn on their children or vice versa.
Though I do get that for some people it brings them hope, allows them to be part of a community and other benefits. And even though it also fuels pure hatred, bigotry and racism and gives people personal allowances to commit atrocities. I wouldn't hold any negative feelings to those that do choose to take part in religion. Providing the religion stops before the evil starts, nothing too extreme, ya know. There's a line but hard to say where it's drawn.
To add to this the absolute worst thing religion does is try to force itself on others. Wouldn't be such a bad thing if it was just kept to itself. But nope. Like the saying; religion is like a penis, it's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it. But if you start waving it around outside and start trying to push it down my throat, we're going to have a problem!
Raised mormon, did the mission thing, moroni's promise was bullshit so I switched to general christianity, realized that it's just another brand of bullshit. Currently agnostic/atheist/who cares.
IF there's a god, he's not a fucking primate with a sphincter- humans are so freaking narcissistic to think the "ultimate" being of all time is just like them.
IF there's a god, why would he be omniscient/omnipresent? You created this post, do you actively control how it interacts with people's minds?
IF there's a god, and he's the christian idea of a god, he's evil. No loving being would send their "children" to a test (omniscient, knowing the future) knowingly sending them to a place where the result would be them suffering for eternity.
IF there's a god, their existence doesn't answer the question of where we came from, what came before god? If your answer to this question is "god just always was" you're an idiot who missed the point.
I am an atheist.
Being raised under Christianity and having actually read the Bible like a book (as in just front to back like a novel; but boring) is what led me to it.
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:
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.
Pastafarian. I've preferred alfredo to marinara ever since I was a kid and loved pirates. I just knew that my colander had a sacred use: as a hat!
NULL
Hail Satan! God is dead.
I was raised Roman Catholic, but am feeling much better now.
I'm an atheist because religion describes our reality about as well as Flat Earthers describe the shape of our planet.
Same boat but I have heavily leaned towards science. And I think that leaning hard that way has kinda pushed me into being agnostic more than atheist. Have you had similar thoughts?
My faith corroded as my critical thinking skills developed. I'd consider myself a strong atheist on the Dawkins scale.
I haven't seen anything that would nudge me off of my position towards agnosticism.
Atheist.
No arguments that I've heard for the existence of a deity have met their burden of proof. For some of these deities (the Abrahamic god, gods of most eastern religions, Zeus, Xenu), I actively assert they do not exist, while for others (e.g. a deistic god) I can't honestly claim they don't exist due to the lack of falsifiable claims involved, but I still don't believe claims that they do exist.
Buddhism. I first learned about it when someone was discussing whether it's a religion or a way of life. They specifically mentioned that it doesn't necessarily prevent you from being Christian (which I was) at the same time.
3 years later and I disagree with that statement, to a certain extent. You could choose to ignore the "supernatural" parts of Buddhism and just learn from the lessons. But I think the more you learn, the more it just kinda makes sense.
For instance, buddhist believe in "re-incarnation" but there's a lot of debate about what that is. I prefer death and rebirth. Which I interpret as: I'm a different person than I was 10 years ago. The old me died and was reborn as what I am now.
Other things that I like about it: it is encouraged that you have skeptisicm about what you learn. I'm fact, you shouldn't just accept it because without questioning what your being told, you can not come to a true understanding and belief. The lessons all revolve around how to be a better person. How to achieve nirvana through your thoughts, actions, views, etc. Many of the principles were first introduced when buddha was alive 2500 years ago. Today, psychology studies have shown that many of them really do have long lasting, extremely beneficial effects. Think meditation and mindfulness (not necessarily invented by Buddhism, but popularized by it)
For me it really resonates. A lot of the things I care about are discussed. From mental health to treating life with respect to the environment to forgiveness. I also don't find much hipocracy.
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!
Apatheism.
"Because God said so" sounds like a terrible rationale for morality to me. For that reason I do not think the existence of God is relevant to my life.
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.
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.
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.
Strong atheist. Not only I believe there are no Gods, I think religions are bad for humanity and society as a whole.
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.
Atheist. Raised catholic. Too old, I realized that the god of the bible isn't a moral person. 1 Samuel 15:3 etc. Arguing with young-earth creationists gave me the final push, I understood science well enough to understand the implications of radiometric dating, plate tectonics, geology etc.
Currently none, I consider myself agnostic. Grew up protestant christian, left the church last year due to not identifying with its beliefs (and to save church tax). I have a casual interest in Buddhism, but don't plan on actually converting.
Agnostic atheist. Sometimes I kind of forget religion even exists, it just seems like such a non-issue to me.
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.
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.
Some sort of humanist atheism/existentialism? I guess...
As a teenager and young adult, I used to be very interested in cosmology and astrophysics, to the point I wanted to study it at uni. The vastness of the world and existence seemed like a beautiful enigma. I was also always interested in philosophy, which ended up more lasting than my interest in physics.
After growing older, the vastness of nature and existence seemed more and more haunting than beautiful. If there was something like a God, it had to be a mad idiot god. I actually kind of sympathised with Gnosticism and similar thoughts for a while, but I could not believe in a metaphysical, perfect entity waiting even further behind everything. I could not believe in some sort of salvation, that could just come to us by giving up on materiality. It seemed like an empty self-delusion. Similarly, I respect Buddhism a lot, and think there is a lot of good ideas within it, but it's ultimate life-nonaffirming philosophies and focus on avoidance of suffering did not resonate with me.
Looking at the history of our planet, our universe, and humanity, it seemed clear to me, that existence just stumbles along. We are a "mistake" in a vastness of empty, dumb, boring clouds of hydrogen and dust, nuclear furnaces and holes in reality, devoid of meaning. Life felt more and more to me, like a great rebellion against a vast, seemingly all-encompassing nothingness. No aliens in sight either, that could relieve us of our burden. Just humanity, as the one lifeform so far known to us, that at least has the potential to not fall into the traps of self-annihilation and lifelessnes that permeates our past and present. Just humanity with the responsibility of getting our shit together or life eventually being just reincorporated into the vast, dumb nothing of the "idiot god", so to speak.
All the mistakes of humans felt to me more and more like just extensions of the same stupidity that is also manifest in all of nature. And our struggle against it, feels like a sort of "sacred duty". Those loaded words to illustrate, that I'd think of myself as actually having strong faith in a weird way, even though it is not rooted in the supernatural as such.
It's also evident to me, this faith has at least partially persisted for me as an anchor for myself. I have not been suicidal ever since I felt that way, even though for most of my life I have been struggling with trauma and a variety of mental health disorders, and have been suicidal before. I could not think of that anymore, suffering seemed almost meaningless to me, now, and it feels better to endure it than to give in to the vast nothingness without a fight, without trying to create as much good as possible in this small contingent miracle that is life, that has been brought forth by so much struggle and so many seemingly impossible coincidences, chance and "mistakes".
I have a big aversion against beliefs that put faith into higher powers, be it nature or God or some sort of transdimensional aliens or whatever. I try to analyse beliefs like that not with disdain, though, but as results of how we are caught in the world we are, in our circumstances, and how life itself has had to "trick" existence itself into allowing life to exist, by follwing its rules but also emergently transcending them, creating something new from it, that is more than the sum of its parts.
Politically and philosophically it lead me to Marxism and Hegel respectively. Marxism with it's focus on changing our material foundations and dynamics, in order for us to be able to develop our humanity and be able to act more rational in the grand scheme lends itself well to it. Hegel, with looking at the development of ideas and humanity dialectically, developing something until it reaches the limit of its own contradictions also appealed to me.
Sorry for the wall of text, the question caught me in a somber mood and caused me to monologue.
Thanks for the awesome wall though.
I'm finding it really interesting reading other people's journey with this stuff, and I relate to the pain that working through it creates
Really got into latter-day saints but after it didn't work out with the girl I was trying to get with, I stopped pretending I gave a shit about that cult
Yeah, I read about them using the girls as bait
Flirt to convert!
I was brought up as a Reformed/Calvinist christian, I never could fully believe even as a child. Today I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't say that there definitely is no god or a higher power because I don't know, but for now I assume there isn't.
I don't want to convert anyone or take their faith away, so I only talk about my reasons for not believing if people try to convince me to believe.
How did you come to this realisation that we all reincarnate?
[citation needed]
I don't believe it's impossible. But I'd put the odds of the exact same atoms arranging themselves in the exact same way so as to form another "you" in roughly the same ballpark as me being able to touch the palm of my hand to a 6" thick wall and have it pass right through. Both my hand and the wall are mostly empty space, so it's possible for the atoms to all align in the correct way for it to happen, but the odds are infinitesimally small.
The part I quoted: that "the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being." I take particular issue with 1) the "formed itself" language, because it sounds a bit like you're referring to the universe as an entity that can act of its own accord, which I don't believe is correct, and 2) "presumably from a state of non-being," because it sounds like you believe science has actually established that there was likely a "state of non-being," when I don't know that a "state of non-being" is even something that makes any sense to discuss in a scientific manner. So if you had citations to corroborate the entire statement, that would be ideal.
Edit: and your second paragraph strays pretty far from the original topic of reincarnation. Yes, in a many-worlds interpretation of the cosmos, there are infinitely many copies of me, and an infinite number of them have put their hands through walls as if by magic. But this is pretty different from the commonly-accepted concept of reincarnation, in that you aren't saying that we are reborn again only when we die, but rather that we exist in infinitely many universes simultaneously.
Atheist, if you consider that a religion. I view it more as a lack of religion or belief, but that's just pedantry. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, but eventually became disillusioned with their teachings as I grew older and realized that they were out of touch with the Bible and (more importantly) reality. After a period of self-reflection, I examined what I believe and came to the conclusion that I didn't really believe in much of anything anymore.
I don't believe in the Bible. It's a great work of literature, in an academic sense, but it's not something to model your life on. You can tie yourselves up in knots trying to come up with a coherent interpretation or you can take everything so figuratively that you might as well ignore the source material all together. I didn't see much point in either and just view it as a product of the wide range of people over the millennia that contributed to it.
I don't believe in God either. For me, I don't see a reason to think that there is a God. It's essentially impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. If you disproved one, people would just come up with either excuses or another God entirely. Some might argue that Earth's existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn't the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first? Why should we accept that God had no creator but that the universe had to have a creator?
There are other arguments, sure, but my lived experience has shown me no reason to think that there's a God or specific meaning, plan, scheme, or rhyme and reason to life on Earth. That doesn't mean we can't find meaning in our own lives, but it does mean we have to work to make it.
Nobody is coming to save us. Nobody is going to hand us an answer or salvation. We have to save ourselves.
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There's other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe's beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there's a beginning of "time" does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there's no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don't need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don't.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don't mean to say it is certain. But I do think there's a good argument for it.
Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?... magic?
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn't Reddit :)
But that's a theory isn't it? I haven't seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It's just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don't enjoy your tone policing.. There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You're right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
How so? I don't see what you mean here, it doesn't explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don't, so it explains nothing.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
Hmm, I don't see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an "eternal always existing" modifier. We don't know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn't eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you're building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can't get away from that without special pleading.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
No worries, I don't care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term "beginning." The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it's a bit nuanced, but it's really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I'm aware of that claims it hasn't.
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
Transhumanist, non-practicing Antitheist
Raised Roman Catholic, broke with that after a classmate died out of the blue of an aneurysm (how could God let shit like that happen?), after looking through Buddhism and some Occultist stuff, realized that the main function of "God" is to be used as a prop to scam people. I've considered the Satanist Left Hand path, but I don't care about rituals. I'd rather follow the scientific method as applied to everything, and use it to extend and expand human nature. While theists still kind of nauseate me with a dash of pity, like seeing a dead kitten in the gutter, I'm up for positive interactions with anyone capable of maintaining one.
I see no compelling argument for believing any particular religion.
I'll pick out the good parts of philosophy if you have any but I'll leave the dogma and rituals.
Why are people answering atheist here? OP is asking for religion. It's like if OP was asking what colour your basketballs are and having people respond (at length for some reason) that they don't have one.
Any survey of people's religions will have a category for people to answer "no belief/atheism". OP seems interested in what people believe and what led them to have that belief. I don't think answering with Atheism is going against that.
This one does not have a category for not being religious. It only asks what religion people belive in.
I'm totally down for the atheist response, although it technically isn't a religion in itself as much a position on whether you believe in a deity or not. A N/A response is totally cool in my book and I actually appreciate it. But def would prefer if people would describe what led them to it in more depth
Atheism can be considered a "religion". In fact, it's the "religion" of people who believe there isn't a God.
It absolutely can not be considered a religion, because it is the absence of one.
Believing in nothing is still believing
Not collecting stamps is still collecting something.
Completely unrelated. Obviously if you replace words by other random words, it will make no sense
It was an analogy.
I am an a-stamp-collector. I do not collect stamps. This does not necessarily mean I still collect something.
I am also an atheist. I do not believe any claim I have heard about a god. This does not necessarily mean I still believe something (about a deity, or indeed about anything else).
You (we) believe there is no god, which you cannot prove. Come on
No it isn't
That's what you believe...
That's like calling baldness a hair style
I'm bald. I have to shave my head to achieve the look, shave my hair into a style if you like. Even if that style is the absence of hair.
Right? Nature is cruel and lazy. It can’t even make me completely bald, I have to finish the job to get that streamlined look that brings all the boys to the yard.
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.
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.
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.
Muslim, born to muslim parents. I was raised in it and still hold on it as it's a good way for me to honor my parents and those who came before them.
So you don't believe in it?
I do. I do pray and observe Ramadan, avoid pork, and so on. I did it as a child and a teenager - but there was a while in my young adult years of briefly slipping into a bad lifestyle and abusing shit to cope with work and poor mental health at the time. To be frank, it was the fact that I took my driver's license that made me do away with that stuff.
Thankfully, I have had a spiritual re-awakening since then and found back to those roots. It's a good thing for me that allows me to stay grounded keep my humility. It's a gift that I'm proud of to have received from my parents. I've managed to shave away other vices such as gambling, but other vices like nicotine remain.
This happens to be my heritage and my life story. Having been born and raised in a secular country, I've seen and heard enough to recognize that everyone has their own heritage and their own life story. What's yours?
I didn't want to come off as condescending, but your original comment was formed in such a way that it would lead to misunderstanding since you only mentioned the heritage part, which IMO should not be the most important aspect of picking a religion.
I don't have any religious heritage myself. I was raised by agnostic and completely irreligious parents, although I did go to a catholic school growing up. I'm an atheist myself but I understand why people feel drawn to religions and why believing in a higher power makes certain aspects of life easier. I've studied religions quite a bit though, and as a philosophy and way of life I tend to agree more with the teachings of Christianity. At least I like to think that is my rationale speaking and not simply my upbringing.
I’ve been reading a lot about Jainism
I’ve been vegan for a while now and the concept of nonharm as a philosophical/religious focus of your life seems very interesting to me.
The concept is basically just, do your best not to hurt anyone, human or nonhuman. Unless it’s in self defence. I quite like that idea. More people should try it.
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.
Dudeism. Regarding what led me to identify with it, well, you know. A lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous, and uhh... lost my train of thought there.
Allegorical Christianity
In that, yeah, western pluralism is derived from a "Rhode Island" interpretation of tolerance from Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament. But waa the guy diety? Nah.
Was raised LDS/Mormon for the first three decades of my life. But gradually burned out of it as the church became more demanding and greedy -- and slowly evolved away from "Rhode Island" tolerance Christianity into a near- LGBTQ hate group. The church decided to die on that hill, and I left. I believe Jesus teaches me to be kind, understanding, and tolerant.
The LDS/Mormon church is basically obsessed over anti-LGBTQ acceptance and tithing (money). If it were on the Nasdaq, the church would rival Lockheed Martin in market cap. Yet they are hella stingy helping the poor and still demand even the church's poorest members to pay their "widow's mite" of 10 percent. It's downright immoral.
Always nice to see fellow exmormons around.
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
Currently I'm non-religious, agnostic, and spiritual in some sense. I was raised Christian, but broke away in my early teen years, mostly due to rhetoric I was hearing from Sunday school and the Church back when I was forced to attend. It also didn't help that my folks are biblical literalists. I was ridiculed quite a lot by my family for being an atheist. I left atheism some years, I had closed myself off to any spiritual or religious, but I thought to myself that it didn't have to be that way.
None. My family and basically everyone in my rural hometown were on the spectrum from "quite" to "extremely" protestant Christian. None of it was compatible with my brain, none of it ever made sense at all. I've been areligious as long as I can remember and here's hoping I never get a brain tumor, because I'm pretty sure that's the only way I will ever become religious.
However, I'm a big fan of people retaining their full agency and that includes leaving people to believe whatever they want. I'm not at all militant and outside of the fact that a large percentage of the world's religious population would probably want me dead or, at minimum, thinks I'm incapable of having any sense of morality, or thinks that my children should be indoctrinated, etc. etc. Other than all that kind of stuff, I really do not care what they believe. Unitarian Universalists seem pretty cool though.
Man, do I hate that with such a burning passion....
Like, the amount of times I've had to sit someone down and go "I'm not a decent human being because The Bible showed me to be or because my local priest told me I'd burn in Hell if I wasn't, I'm a decent human being because my ma raised me to be--because her mom raised her to be that way, and so on. She never threatened me with fire and brimstone nor told me it's what Jesus would have wanted, just that people ought to be kind to one another. God didn't teach me manners and how to be kind to others, she did." is unreal. How it's so hard for people to grasp is beyond me
Also, the indocternation of children without thier consent makes my blood boil. It's cool if they believe in Christ, Allah, Brahma, or none of the above...but that should be thier own choice, not something chosen for them. "Come freely of your own will" and all that. Because if you're forced to love something for fear of punishment, is it really love?
Christian. I have been a non-practising Christian for all my life until my wife and I was through some personal events. And since have I been attending church regularly.
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I was born into, but as I grew, I had to know for myself it was true or not. I did a lot of praying and reading, and one day received an answer to my prayers. In this case, the best I can describe is a flow of light and knowledge, and a confirmation to my Spirit that it was true.
From then on I've had more experiences, but that was the start, and that is why I continue on the path I'm on.
What is your Spirit? Can you describe its properties and offer some evidence to show the rest of us that it exists? How do you know you received an answer to your prayers? How might someone else replicate this experience?
There certainly is a replication process, as found in the Book of Moroni (a section within the Book of Mormon), chapter 10, verses 4 & 5
"4.And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
As for knowing it was my Spirit feeling an impression, it's much the same as people knew what emotions were long before we could see activity in the brain; through experience we can recognize and understand it even though it does not as yet appear on a scan.
To paraphrase a church scholar Hugh Nibley, it's not that science and https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gospel-library/id598329798 contractadict, but that incomplete religion and incomplete science do. Complete religion and complete science work fine together.
For properties, we go to Doctrine and Covenants (another standard work in our church), section 93, verse 29
"29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be"
In other words, the building blocks are intelligences. Now, when those intelligences come together, they can be formed into a Spirit.
Moving to section 131, verses 7 and 8
"7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter"
To reframe my experience then, the Holy Ghost, a member of the Godhead along with Jesus Christ and The Father (who are separate beings), spoke to my Spirit in a way I can sense and understand internally but, much like emotions before brain scanning, I cannot show.
Certainly happy to answer more questions (though I will be on the road today).
There is an app that contains all our standard works and will make finding these and other references easier. I believe there is also a section for Gospel Topics
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gospel-library/id598329798
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.lds.ldssa&hl=en_US&gl=US
Every single one of the things you mentioned are claims, not evidence. Maybe I can rephrase my question:
When I buy a delicious Share Size Snickers bar at the 7-11, I see on the package that it claims that the bar weighs 3.86 ounces. It feels a little light to me; I am skeptical of the fact that this particular Share Size Snickers bar weighs what it claims on the package. My options are:
With regard to religion, you appear to be doing only #1, and I'm asking how I can do #2. What are the tools and evidence I can use, akin to the scale, that are independent of the religious text (= the Snickers wrapper) and can show me that your claims are valid?
Grew up evangelical. Now I’m not “religious” but am “Christ leaning.” Like, I appreciate the idea of Christ and hope that whatever higher being there might be has some Christlike qualities.
I don’t know. I doubt. I hope. I do shrooms. I’m confident there is more to existence than we know. I hope to leave a legacy of kindness. I like to learn and experience as much as I can. Love wins and transcends. I think enjoying the universe is method of worship. All that shit. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Also, when I was religious I was an amillenial partial preterist which pissed off a lot of bible thumpers in my region. Felt kind of punk to adopt those beliefs. That Left Behind shit is weird and never helped anyone.
I have no idea what this means but I'm curious. Care to elaborate?
Amillenial = basically we are not waiting for a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ as king on earth. More info here: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-is-amillennialism.html
Preterism = the belief that some or all of the biblical prophecies have already taken place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
Pantheism/panentheism/Spinoza's God
found God through philosophy. now i'm deeply obsessed with Kaballah, Rosicrucians, and esoteric christianity. and Dmt.
Christ Consciousness (ego death) is good. institutional religion is corrupt.
Christianity is a leftist tradition.
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.
Agnosticism after doubting my way out of Protestantism in my teens. Major contributing factors were my parents' divorce (which was clearly the right thing for them to have done, as one was abusive) and realizing I was queer
I'm split damn near 50/50 on whether I think a deity or deities exist. Physics observations that suggest our universe is a simulation, and weird things about consciousness (dreams, deja vu, near death experiences, psychedelic experiences, cultural parallels in seemingly isolated ancient civilizations, etc.) fascinate me and keep me wondering what might be "up there." At the same time, studying biology made me realize the "power" of randomness over millions of years to "create" what people find meaningful without there necessarily having to be divine influence. Typewriter-monkey-Shakespeare philosophical stuff.
I really, really hope reincarnation or a non-hell afterlife exist, though. I am TERRIFIED of oblivion. :(
Do you remember what it was like before you were born?
Exactly.
This is the argument/reassurance I hear most often, but it doesn't make me less afraid, unfortunately. Even if I were shown undeniable proof that my consciousness will stop existing after my death and therefore be unable to experience negative emotions/pain/fear/etc., my problem is that, well, I just really don't wanna stop existing.
To me, nonexistence is only preferable to a hell-type afterlife of guaranteed eternal suffering
If I could choose, I'd most prefer reincarnation (preferably as a human or other sapient being...)
I'm still haunted by the possibility that I send a version of myself to oblivion every time I lose consciousness. 🫠
Nondualism. I looked in direct experience.
Was Secular Humanist atheist 1998-2013 until converting to moderate Sunni Hanafi Islam to date law abiding london pakistanis. I quit alcohol 2006 and was straight edge before so very against intoxication. racist parents repeatedly tried to force me into according to northwell south oaks "incest" arranged marriages with uneducated feminists I have nothing in common with as an engineer.
Raised protestant, went to catholic school, went Atheist within a year of leaving