• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is your religion?

What is your religion?


  • Total voters
    132
Buddhists don't call it a religion because it's sort of more of a philosophy, if I understand it correctly.

Of course it also depends on the particular sect of Buddhism. It's about a thousand times more fractured than Christianity.

It is still a set of beliefs or customs that one follows or adheres to.
 
Yup, I chose to because it's the same claim that's been made over and over and over (not in this particular thread, but in forums for years) without ever receiving a credible response, so after a long time of people making absurd claims without a shred of support, you get what the claim has coming.

Respect is earned, not simply granted on a silver platter. If religion wants respect, it needs to actually back up what it has to say.

Surprising that you've never proven that there is no God. Why should I give you any respect?
 
Surprising that you've never proven that there is no God. Why should I give you any respect?

I've never claimed there's no God. Quote where I have. I was, however, responding to someone who *DID* make a specific claim, yet has entirely failed to back it up.

Try again.
 
We are discussing beliefs. Something does not have to be proven true, shown as logical, or anything else to have a belief in it.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, which is related to whether one believes God(s) exist but does not answer the question. This is why claiming "agnosticm" as your religious belief doesn't make sense because it does not answer the question. There can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Likewise there can be gnostic theists and gnostic atheists.

Agnostic simply means you can't know certainty.
Gnostic means you believe you can know certainty.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God(s), (not necessarily active disbelief).
Theism is simply a belief in God(s).

For people unfaimiliar with these distinctions, agnostics are usually agnostic athiests.

Agnostic atheist - does not believe the existence of Gods can be known and does not believe or has a lack of belief in God(s).

Gnostic atheist - believes the existence of Gods can be known and does not believe or has a lack of belief in God(s).

Agnostic theist - does not believe the existence of Gods can be known and believes in God(s).

Gnostic theist - believes the existence of Gods can be known and believes in God(s).

Once again, beliefs don't have to be true, verifiable, logical, etc. A belief is simply confidence in a claim.

Also note that atheists include those who lack a belief--as opposed to disbelief. E.G., people who are undecided on whether God(s) exists or not and people who have never considered the question of God(s). (Remember, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not God)
 
Yup, I chose to because it's the same claim that's been made over and over and over (not in this particular thread, but in forums for years) without ever receiving a credible response, so after a long time of people making absurd claims without a shred of support, you get what the claim has coming.

Respect is earned, not simply granted on a silver platter. If religion wants respect, it needs to actually back up what it has to say.


I'm not talking about respect, I'm talking about basic politeness... though on this forum that would appear to be a lost cause.

Do you talk like that to religious people face to face in the real world? I don't mean the random zealot on the street, I mean the nice lady you work with who serves food to the homeless at the Presbyterian soup kitchen, the nice guy across the street who happens to be Methodist and works with his church's teen outreach down in the 'hood, the friendly receptionist at that office who wears a cross and goes to Mass every Sunday. When one of them says "God bless you" do you tell them "I don't need the blessings of your imaginary man in the sky"?

If I went out of my way to tell DP atheists they're going to hell for rejecting God, with the same frequency that DP atheists call my beliefs nonsense or use belittling phrases like you used, I'd be viewed as a rude, aggressive, hostile zealot.

G.
 
Eclectic Pagan
 
Atheist. If there is a God, I've seen no satisfactory evidence for hs existence.
 
THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS DEBATE THREAD!! I just wanted to know the general religious background of this site.


Yeah, like that could ever happen here.
 
I'm not talking about respect, I'm talking about basic politeness... though on this forum that would appear to be a lost cause.

Do you talk like that to religious people face to face in the real world? I don't mean the random zealot on the street, I mean the nice lady you work with who serves food to the homeless at the Presbyterian soup kitchen, the nice guy across the street who happens to be Methodist and works with his church's teen outreach down in the 'hood, the friendly receptionist at that office who wears a cross and goes to Mass every Sunday. When one of them says "God bless you" do you tell them "I don't need the blessings of your imaginary man in the sky"?

If I went out of my way to tell DP atheists they're going to hell for rejecting God, with the same frequency that DP atheists call my beliefs nonsense or use belittling phrases like you used, I'd be viewed as a rude, aggressive, hostile zealot.

G.
I see you've met the resident grouch. Yes, he's always that way and probably in real life too.
 
Evangelical, Bible-based, non-denominational Christian.
 
Why are agnostics and atheists always lumped together?

Atheists do not believe in any form of God. Agnostics or even Deists think something Godly mite be out there, they just don't know what.

So why would they be grouped together?
 
Love to meet the other Buddhist on the board......:)

edited to just noticed it's goldwaters--hi there.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, garden gnomes, santa claus, or any gods and goddesses.
 
It is still a set of beliefs or customs that one follows or adheres to.
Hey, I'm just sayin'. It's probably not as cut and dried as one might think.
 
I've never claimed there's no God. Quote where I have. I was, however, responding to someone who *DID* make a specific claim, yet has entirely failed to back it up.

Try again.

I have plenty of arguments at least of the existence of some kind of divinity, the principal problem for me is the origin of matter and motion. After that comes the problem of free will. If we are simply composed of atoms and nothing more then there is no free will and we do not make our own decisions. Our decisions can conceivably be explained by laws of nature. After that is the problem of consciousness. Then there are other problems for the naturalist/atheist that I don't think I need to get into; these seem sufficient.
 
I have plenty of arguments at least of the existence of some kind of divinity, the principal problem for me is the origin of matter and motion.
Really? The strongest reason for your belief in God is that you don't have a good answer for where matter and motion comes from? I highly doubt it. Furthermore please familiarize yourself with the following: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance]Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven."


A lack of explanation for the origin of matter and motion does not necessitate God as a solution anymore than it necessitates a God who created the universe and died, or an infinite universe, or a flying spaghetti monster who created the universe. Any solution to the problem must stand on its own merit by satisfying the burden fo proof.

After that comes the problem of free will. If we are simply composed of atoms and nothing more then there is no free will and we do not make our own decisions. Our decisions can conceivably be explained by laws of nature.
And why is that a problem? We may in fact have the illusion of freewill and nothing more. Is that too much for you to handle? Is that why you reject it? Or do you just have some unresolved questions that need answering before you are willing to accept it as plausible?

After that is the problem of consciousness.
What problem is that? Another argument from ignorance? Please see above.
 
Both. LOL I never associated any religion with you, so it's interesting to me that religion is clearly important to you.

Do you go to temple every weekend? If you would rather not discuss this, no worries. (I'll just PM you. ;) KIDDING.)

Interesting. I don't disclose much about myself, but I thought that both my Jewishness and my strong connection to my religion were pretty well known at DP. No, I don't go to temple every Friday, but I have my own ways of worshiping God.
 
I have on religion, I have experienced God.
 
Atheist. Belief in imaginary friends is utterly ludicrous.

Moderator's Warning:
Comments like these are attacking. I've warned you before. If you cannot discuss this topic with civility, don't discuss it.
 
Because there is no way to disprove a negative. Skepticism is one thing, that could be considered agnosticism. Atheism however means that you believe there are no gods. It cannot be proven, so it is a leap of faith.

No, I don't believe in any deity, there is a huge difference. If someone asked me "Do you believe in god?" I would have to ask which one. I certainly believe in the Einstein/Spinoza notion of a god.

You're an atheist in respect to every god you don't believe in. Agnosticism answers the epistemological question of what you know, and since no one "knows" anything about the supernatural, everyone is an agnostic. Whether or not you believe in a particular god makes you an atheist, or theist; in respect to that god.

IMO this is why atheism is a problematic term, and we shouldn't define ourselves by what we don't believe in. I don't go around proclaiming that I am an a-unicornist, or non-astrologer.
 
Last edited:
I have plenty of arguments at least of the existence of some kind of divinity, the principal problem for me is the origin of matter and motion. After that comes the problem of free will. If we are simply composed of atoms and nothing more then there is no free will and we do not make our own decisions. Our decisions can conceivably be explained by laws of nature. After that is the problem of consciousness. Then there are other problems for the naturalist/atheist that I don't think I need to get into; these seem sufficient.

How does any of that demonstrate the factual existence of any sort of divinity? What you're describing here almost entirely is the fallacy from ignorance. You don't understand it, therefore you're demanding that there be another, easier to understand explanation.

Nothing you present is, in any way, evidence that any god(s) exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom