• 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!

The Religious/Atheist/Agnostic/Deist/ Theism/Science? and Poll

The Religious/Atheist/Agnostic/Deist/ Theism/Science?


  • Total voters
    67
The Religious/Atheist/Agnostic/Deist/ Theism/Science?
I am an Atheist
I am Agnostic
I believe in a Creator –Theism
I am a Deist
Science and Religious belief can coexist
Science and Religious belief cannot coexist


Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com

Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

Theism | Define Theism at Dictionary.com

Deist | Define Deist at Dictionary.com

Problem is that religion makes claims about the world and the universe. Science makes claims about the world and the universe. Eventually there is going to be conflict.
 
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No you can't. Is capitalism a religion? Is feminism a religion? Ideologies and economic policies ARE NOT RELIGIONS.

If it has dogma which cannot be challenged, preists who are incharge of such dogma, set ways of thinking etc... then it's a religion. Look at global warming.
 
If it has dogma which cannot be challenged, preists who are incharge of such dogma, set ways of thinking etc... then it's a religion. Look at global warming.

So I could believe in God, but as long as I don't attend a dogmatic church I'm not religious?
 
I am an agnostic. I can only know what I actually know.

Science is the art of knowing, and so I see no reason that those who do believe in God should reject it. What kid of God would give us the keys to discovering the workings of creation and then demand we don't use them?

The same God that gave us a tree and told us not to eat from its fruits..?
 
If it has dogma which cannot be challenged, preists who are incharge of such dogma, set ways of thinking etc... then it's a religion. Look at global warming.

Projection is a subtle psychological schema for selfjustification of one's untenable worldview
 
I'm a theist (Christian) and science and religion can coexist just fine, they're doing that right now -- best exemplified in the first world, developed nations across the world. There's only conflict if you want there to be conflict.

I'd argue there's no conflict only if you take science as fact and consider everything that contradicts facts in the bible to be "metaphorical". Both science and religion make claims about the consistency and history of the universe, and they can't both be right. You can't take both literally.

Science is the culmative knowledge we have of reality. Religion is mankind's first attempts to understand reality. They got a lot of things wrong.

Now a days we see a whole range of interpetations of the old myths. A lot of people try to fit what we now know into these old myths and say it's compatable. To do this they have to move away from a literal definition of these myths. The compatability of religion and science is dependent on the flexibility of the interpeter. Those who want the old myths to be true and have meaning are quite flexible indeed.

This! Exactly what I was trying to explain above. Religion and science are only compatible if you make your religious interpretations highly maleable to fit the facts and evidence science has to offer. In the strictest since most of the world religions, and all of the Abrahamaic religions are completely incompatible with science at face value.
 
So I could believe in God, but as long as I don't attend a dogmatic church I'm not religious?

There are those who argue that.

There are those who profess some sort of mystical spirituality of no decernable theology or sense what so ever. I call it just drivel in a hippy sense but ... they say it's not religious.
 
If it has dogma which cannot be challenged, preists who are incharge of such dogma, set ways of thinking etc... then it's a religion. Look at global warming.

Dogma is not exclusive to religion, as a matter of fact, it's simply a word a set of principles. Professional body building has dogma. Artistry has dogma. Neither are religions. No priests in communism/feminism/capitalism etc, and global warming has been challenged in multiple ways. Try again.
 
I am a deist/agnostic-theist...

Some religion dabbles in philosophy.... the ones that don't and parts that don't, I don't think they are compatible with science if you are truly being honest within your own mind...
 
Dogma is not exclusive to religion, as a matter of fact, it's simply a word a set of principles. Professional body building has dogma. Artistry has dogma. Neither are religions. No priests in communism/feminism/capitalism etc, and global warming has been challenged in multiple ways. Try again.

Political correctness is a religion. Deal with it.
 
Dogma is not exclusive to religion, as a matter of fact, it's simply a word a set of principles. Professional body building has dogma. Artistry has dogma. Neither are religions. No priests in communism/feminism/capitalism etc, and global warming has been challenged in multiple ways. Try again.

It seems it is all semantics actually and pointless to even argue, but many will just to get under your skin, you just don't Identify yourself with the word religion, to you it has a negative connotation if it is put on yourself.

there seems to be a few different definitions of religon..
1. Belief in and worship of an supernatural God/s
2. a particular system of faith and worship.

You seem to be both right....
Ideologies could, technically fall under the second definition... does it not? You don't have to have faith in or worship a god, you could an ideology and it's leadership. The national anthem and pledge of allegiance is some form of worship....Idealization of figures is worship, idealization of ideology is faith and worship.

in the end it's just semantics to piss you off...

but their could be significance to calling Nazism a religon, there are some definite similarities... or any extreme social construct operates like a religion..
 
Political correctness is a religion. Deal with it.

LOL.... wha? Who is the supernatural being in political correctness? Don't worry. Take your time. Or post another picture of Xenu. I don't care. :lol:
 
Last edited:
It seems it is all semantics actually

Nope, there aren't any semantics to be played. It's people using a word wrong. That word being: Religion. Religions have supernatural beings. None of the ideologies and economic policies have any supernatural beings. There is nothing to be faithful about when it comes to them. Continuing this argument that it's a religion because people simply believe a particular measure is best, is quite absurd.

You seem to be both right....
Ideologies could, technically fall under the second definition... does it not?

No. Political ideologies are competing ideas for how to best structure a society or how to view events. Only one of these political ideas for good governance specifically carries religious implications. That is theocracy. Theocracy itself is NOT a religion. It's structuring government THROUGH a specific set of religious beliefs. So outside of that you have: republicanism, liberalism, feminism, capitalism, sexism, racism, marxism, libertarianism, fascism etc. None of which exist as a particular system of faith or worship. Nobody goes to the church of republicanism or confesses their sins to feminist priests. There are no ethnic or racial undercurrents behind these political ideologies. That's why they're not religions. Please, this is Poli-Sci 101.
 
Nope, there aren't any semantics to be played. It's people using a word wrong. That word being: Religion. Religions have supernatural beings. None of the ideologies and economic policies have any supernatural beings. There is nothing to be faithful about when it comes to them. Continuing this argument that it's a religion because people simply believe a particular measure is best, is quite absurd.



No. Political ideologies are competing ideas for how to best structure a society or how to view events. Only one of these political ideas for good governance specifically carries religious implications. That is theocracy. Theocracy itself is NOT a religion. It's structuring government THROUGH a specific set of religious beliefs. So outside of that you have: republicanism, liberalism, feminism, capitalism, sexism, racism, marxism, libertarianism, fascism etc. None of which exist as a particular system of faith or worship. Nobody goes to the church of republicanism or confesses their sins to feminist priests. There are no ethnic or racial undercurrents behind these political ideologies. That's why they're not religions. Please, this is Poli-Sci 101.
hmmm your interpretation seems a little rigid, but again... It doesn't matter to me
 
hmmm your interpretation seems a little rigid, but again... It doesn't matter to me

There is no rigidity. I simply refuse to use words incorrectly. :shrug:
 
There is no rigidity. I simply refuse to use words incorrectly. :shrug:

can you not worship an object? Can you not worship an idea? Can you not have faith in a object? Can you not have faith in a idea?
 
can you not worship an object? Can you not worship an idea? Can you not have faith in a object? Can you not have faith in a idea?

Not religious faith, no. The definition of faith is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." I have none of that in anything. One of the important things of having a rational discussion is maintaining accurate definitions. You ought to try that.
 
Not religious faith, no. The definition of faith is "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." I have none of that in anything. One of the important things of having a rational discussion is maintaining accurate definitions. You ought to try that.

chill out, I stated the definition before, and there are multiple definitions
 
I've heard quite a few people claim the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were deists, but I checked on that and it's probably less than a handful that were.
 
Back
Top Bottom