Are you religious?

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

i am aware of the situation

I know. Just saying because I know a lot of people aren't. Not that it'll make them stop saying it in most occasions, but worth pointing out.

 

[brblx]

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Before you make statements it's a good idea if you actually have any idea of what you're talking about. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s); nothing else. You're not rejecting anything, just lacking belief in it.

good think i didn't read the second paragraph, i might've had to forcibly castrate you to ensure you don't reproduce.

let's quote wikipedia, since if i tried to get any more intellectual your brain might explode.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

atheism- no god. you can say that you're atheist but believe in an afterlife or something, but we already have a word for that, i think it's 'dumbass.'

agnostic- not claiming to have answers to questions that cannot and will not ever be answered. scientists postulate on things that they do not know because they're performing SCIENCE. they must attempt to prove their guesses. they don't just guess about something, then write a book and declare it truth.

sorry that you're so offended because you feel i'm disturbing your labels too much. maybe if you were smart enough to think for yourself, you wouldn't need them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Before you make statements it's a good idea if you actually have any idea of what you're talking about. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s); nothing else. You're not rejecting anything, just lacking belief in it.

Complete agnosticism is not inherently smart in any way. It's just believing that there's no way to answer the question and there's 0 probability going in one way or the other. There's zero evidence that a god(s) exist, just like there's zero evidence that unicorns exist. Just because we can't prove the opposite gives ZERO justification to agnosticism. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims, not the one refuting it based on absence of evidence. You can't prove with 100% certainty that a god does not exist, but you don't need to be 100% certain there's no god(s) to be an atheist. That's a mistake people commonly make; at the same time, it's the reason why most atheists (including me) are agnostic atheists. I'm agnostic in the sense that I know we can't prove definitely that god(s) exists, but an atheist because there's no evidence to suggest a god exists to begin with. We already have science and philosophy to answer our questions.

Precisely this.
The entire issue is about ‘believing’
The 'agnostics don't claim to know 100%' argument is a strawman.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

good think i didn't read the second paragraph, i might've had to forcibly castrate you to ensure you don't reproduce.

let's quote wikipedia, since if i tried to get any more intellectual your brain might explode.



atheism- no god. you can say that you're atheist but believe in an afterlife or something, but we already have a word for that, i think it's 'dumbass.'

agnostic- not claiming to have answers to questions that cannot and will not ever be answered. scientists postulate on things that they do not know because they're performing SCIENCE. they don't just guess about something, then write a book and declare it truth.

sorry that you're so offended because you feel i'm disturbing your labels too much. maybe if you were smart enough to think for yourself, you wouldn't need them.

Good job. You quoted an article that has an incorrect definition. Do you want a cookie?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or god(s). And yes, you can be atheist and religious. In fact, most Buddhists are. If you don't know what you're talking about, STFU.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Actually the 80% religious figure is correct for the US as of 2006, but it's been trending steadily downward.

National - the General Social Survey:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website/

(From the above GSS) - Religion 2006 - 17.3% None / Other (so > 80% belong to some religion)

130) What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion? (RELIG)
1) Protestant 51.6%
2) Catholic 24.7%
3) Jewish 1.7
4) None 16.4
5) Other 0.9
6) Buddhism 0.7
7) Hinduism 0.2
8) Other Eastern 0.0
9) Moslem/Islam 0.4
10) Orthodox-Christian 0.3
11) Christian 2.3
12) Native American 0.1
13) Inter-Nondenominational 0.1
99) No answer 0.6
TOTAL 4510 100.0

http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Codebooks/GSS2006_CB.asp

 

[SMOGZINN]

atheism- no god. you can say that you're atheist but believe in an afterlife or something, but we already have a word for that, i think it's 'dumbass.'

agnostic- not claiming to have answers to questions that cannot and will not ever be answered. scientists postulate on things that they do not know because they're performing SCIENCE. they must attempt to prove their guesses. they don't just guess about something, then write a book and declare it truth.

What you are not getting is that agnostic and atheist come to the same conclusion, that it is not practical to believe in a god.

You are beating on a strawman that atheists try to claim that they know 100% that there are no gods. Atheists only state that they see no evidence for the extraordinary claim that there are gods, and therefore do not believe in them, which is exactly what agnostics say.

sorry that you're so offended because you feel i'm disturbing your labels too much. maybe if you were smart enough to think for yourself, you wouldn't need them.

I would point out that you are arguing your point just as hard.

 

[zokudu]

Yes I attend church every week and am an active practicing christian.

 

[torpid]

good think i didn't read the second paragraph, i might've had to forcibly castrate you to ensure you don't reproduce.

let's quote wikipedia, since if i tried to get any more intellectual your brain might explode.

The article you quoted had this in it. I am putting it in bold it for your reference. It makes me very confused as to your position, as it would seem you quoted a source that has as one possible definition the exact thing you seemingly were attempting to refute with the quote.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

 

[dud]

ROFL.

and 'faith' doesn't?

'i'm not religious, but i believe in lots of magical invisible things for no reason in particular...'

faith, religion, and spirituality are all different versions of the same thing.

atheism is complete rejection.

agnosticism is just being smart enough to not claim to have answers that don't exist.

Sorry dude but ROFL yourself ...

Not believing in anything is a complete rejection of what could be. I'm not impressed and reject your perception of the Universe.

Rejection of what lies right in front of you is total banality ... but at least I don't disrespect your lack of belief in a public forum.

What "drives" me is what I like to call the "Internet coward" ... the poster who hides behind the anonymity of the Internet to attack others beliefs.

These people are so sad. I hope you respect other users enough to not disrespect them. We'll see ...

 

[dud]

good think i didn't read the second paragraph, i might've had to forcibly castrate you to ensure you don't reproduce.

let's quote wikipedia, since if i tried to get any more intellectual your brain might explode.



atheism- no god. you can say that you're atheist but believe in an afterlife or something, but we already have a word for that, i think it's 'dumbass.'

agnostic- not claiming to have answers to questions that cannot and will not ever be answered. scientists postulate on things that they do not know because they're performing SCIENCE. they must attempt to prove their guesses. they don't just guess about something, then write a book and declare it truth.

sorry that you're so offended because you feel i'm disturbing your labels too much. maybe if you were smart enough to think for yourself, you wouldn't need them.

Dude ... you need to stop posting on the Internet. You have become irrelevant.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

The article you quoted had this in it. I am putting it in bold it for your reference. It makes me very confused as to your position, as it would seem you quoted a source that has as one possible definition the exact thing you seemingly were attempting to refute with the quote.

Good old quote mining. He's lost any and all credibility.

 

[brblx]

Sorry dude but ROFL yourself ...

Not believing in anything is a complete rejection of what could be. I'm not impressed and reject your perception of the Universe.

Rejection of what lies right in front of you is total banality ... but at least I don't disrespect your lack of belief in a public forum.

What "drives" me is what I like to call the "Internet coward" ... the poster who hides behind the anonymity of the Internet to attack others beliefs.

These people are so sad. I hope you respect other users enough to not disrespect them. We'll see ...

reread your posts, it makes no sense.

also, i'm sorry i'm not one of the ATOT millionaires, or else i would purchase you all a dictionary.

rejecting something and not believing in it are the same fucking thing. your brains are apparently not capable of understanding words that can have complex meanings.

it's not 'HI I'M JESUS I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU' and someone screaming 'i reject this!'

it's rejecting retarded ideals that have no evidence to support them- and from that you can come to one of two conclusions- essentially, 'i wager that there is no god,' or, 'i see no reason to believe in god but also see no reason to bet on it.'

 

[brblx]

alright, better post:

fuck this argument. it's dumb. i'm not even sure what the argument is, there's just some pretty stupid stuff on the first page of this thread.

we can all just agree that organized religion is like a big roflcopter crashing into a farm full of baby lmaos.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

reread your posts, it makes no sense.

also, i'm sorry i'm not one of the ATOT millionaires, or else i would purchase you all a dictionary.

rejecting something and not believing in it are the same fucking thing. your brains are apparently not capable of understanding words that can have complex meanings.

it's not 'HI I'M JESUS I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU' and someone screaming 'i reject this!'

it's rejecting retarded ideals that have no evidence to support them- and from that you can come to one of two conclusions- essentially, 'i wager that there is no god,' or, 'i see no reason to believe in god but also see no reason to bet on it.'

You just got called out on your bullshit and lost the argument. Just stop embarrassing yourself more. You don't know what you're talking about.

One more time, even though you're too much of a moron to get it: the burden of proof lies on the one making the claims, not the ones refuting it based on absence of evidence.

 

[torpid]

it's rejecting retarded ideals that have no evidence to support them

So in the field of science, you reject anything that has yet to be tested?

 

[brblx]

So in the field of science, you reject anything that has yet to be tested?

no, i reject things that CAN'T be tested and have no scientific basis whatsoever.

for you others, in case you were confused, THAT is the defintion of both lack of reading comprehension and a 'straw man' argument.

 

[Ns1]

So in the field of science, you reject anything that has yet to be tested?

no evidence to support =/= yet to be tested

 

[MotionMan]

Poll question does not match thread title. Stupid. So, count one incorrect answer.

MotionMan

 

[torpid]

no, i reject things that CAN'T be tested and have no scientific basis whatsoever.

I agree with this, but I find your previous wording rather odd; thus, my question. Rejecting the untestable and/or that which has no basis in science is a far cry from the general practice of "rejecting ideals that have no evidence to support them."

no evidence to support =/= yet to be tested

Not sure of your point here. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the same thing. However, often times the latter implies the former. Thus, my question to him. Certain ideas that have no evidence to support them are also as-yet untested.

 

[Ns1]

Not sure of your point here. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the same thing. However, often times the latter implies the former. Thus, my question to him. Certain ideas that have no evidence to support them are also as-yet untested.

original quote:

it's rejecting retarded ideals that have no evidence to support them'

your retort:

So in the field of science, you reject anything that has yet to be tested?

which is the definition of

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

 

[MetalMat]

I am a Mardi Gras Catholic

 

[brblx]

there's really no need for an argument here.

this kind of shit just generally starts as me posting something that a lot of people may actually agree with...but because my brain is weird i often word things in strange ways (sometimes intentionally for comic effect, often not); or i simply express a thought that is not 100% literal, without taking into account all views and the fact that some people will not receive the implied connotations of said thought. it happens to me in person but it's much worse in writing.

here's an example- i'm talking to my therapist (big surprise, right?) and somehow we to talking about AA and 12 step programs. i tell her i'm against them, considering them to confuse and indoctrinate just as much as religion. i say something along the lines of 'it angers me to see young kids starting to experiment with drinking and initially go overboard to be FORCED into what you call alcoholism. some college kid knows he's drinking too much, but instead of attempting self-control, he goes to a meeting where someone tells him that he's an alcoholic that the only path to happiness is sobriety and belief in a high power.'

this pisses her off. 'no one is going to grab somebody by the arm and tell them these things, she says.'

then i have to go into a whole explanation that includes me presenting an example of what i consider to be a kind of almost 'subliminal' indoctrication- lots of people start talking about how hopeless their alcoholism was...until they gave up control, believed in a higher power, pledged total abtinense from alcohol, ect...and they literally do say that it's the only way to 'get better.'

anyway, maybe that's a bad example and opening a bag of worms, but it seems appropriate to me. i'm not understood well in real life. less so on the internet. i've learned not to be bothered too much by it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

there's really no need for an argument here.

this kind of shit just generally starts as me posting something that a lot of people may actually agree with...but because my brain is weird i often word things in strange ways (sometimes intentionally for comic effect, often not); or i simply express a thought that is not 100% literal, without taking into account all views and the fact that some people will not receive the implied connotations of said thought. it happens to me in person but it's much worse in writing.

Not to be mean, but it is the very reason that there are lots of rules and structure to language. Failure to follow those rules leads to miscommunication. It is why I, and many other people like me, are dismayed at the fast downward spiral our society’s language skills are headed.

 

[brad310]

I think you're going to find that polling people here will be disproportionately unreligious compared to the rest of society. I'm not saying 80% is correct but it will likely be higher than the percentage from this poll.

Probably because we're disproportionately more intelligent.

 

[brblx]

Not to be mean, but it is the very reason that there are lots of rules and structure to language. Failure to follow those rules leads to miscommunication. It is why I, and many other people like me, are dismayed at the fast downward spiral our society’s language skills are headed.

it's not language skills. without trying to seem like a dick, i'm actually pretty damned good with the english language and have a pretty respectable vocabulary. but i'm not trying to be a literary genius on an internet forum, and i do feel i express myself pretty well- it just doesn't always gel with the majority of others.

if anything it's often my more direct and literal statements that are misinterpreted the most. maybe i've just given up trying.