What Are Your Religious Beliefs?

[mr friendly guy]

Usually when one uses the term agnostic in every day conversation people refer to those who are for all intents and purposes undecided. Of course as has been pointed out that isn't the proper use of the term because you can be agnostic and atheist or agnostic and theist. However I am going to assume that the creator of the OP meant agnostic in the sense that they are undecided.

Just for the record I voted atheist.

[adam_grif]

It's even more convoluted than that, MFG.

It's impossible to be neither theist nor atheist, since the loosest definitions of "Atheism" (widely accepted ones, I might add) effectively surmount to "not theism". The proposion is thus A or !A, and it's logically impossible to be a fence sitter in these terms.

The obvious retort is "BUT WHAT IF YOU AREN'T SURE IF GOD EXISTS BUT YOU AREN't AN ATHEIST EITHER?" This is also a misunderstanding, because under these definitions if you don't actively believe in a deity, you are an Agnostic Atheist. So if you aren't sure, are undecided, you're an Agnostic Atheist.

But people don't like being called Atheists, and the terms are misunderstood, so people go around acting as though Agnosticism is some sort of middle-ground between Theism and Atheism, as opposed to a supplementary description.

[Celador]

I prefer to call myself "irreligious," as it's a less deity-centric way of describing my lack of religious beliefs.

Also, labeling myself as either a theist or an atheist seems to imply that descriptions of God are coherent enough to make that designation meaningful. I don't think this is the case, so I remain a conceptual skeptic. Functionally, this amounts to atheism.

[mr friendly guy]

True, even if you say you are undecided, by default you would be an atheist. You can change your mind once you have decided and become a theist.

[open_sketchbook]

Militant atheist with emphasis on the militant part. Religion represents a fundamental error of thinking that drags down the overall capacity for reason in society. While an individual person's religious beliefs may not be in themselves harmful they indicate a irrational thinking process that is unacceptable. While obviously I do not always come to the right conclusions, I am at least aware of the methods one must use to do so and try my best with the information I have; a person being religious shows they do not understand these processes (because, fundamentally, they believe without evidence) Religion is an indicator that a person is incapable of basic reasoning.

[Starglider]

I agree with the sentament Alyrium, but openly insulting them in public and saying shit like 'relgion must be eliminated! moderates are just as bad as fundamentalists RAR!" just makes them feel persecuted.

So? They feel persecuted whether they are actually being persecuted or not. The persecution/martyr mindset is central to all the Abrahamic faiths.

Atheist obviously. Not militant in the sense that I have better things to do with my time than try and deprogram/convert random people, but militant in the sense that if I had access to a fleet of mind control satellites that could magically delete all religion from the planet, I would consider using them to be a lesser evil than allowing religion to continue to blight the earth.

[adam_grif]

So? They feel persecuted whether they are actually being persecuted or not. The persecution/martyr mindset is central to all the Abrahamic faiths.

Making people feel persecuted and/or under attack from you, specifically, is counterintuitive to the goal of making them not be religious anymore.

[Starglider]

Making people feel persecuted and/or under attack from you, specifically, is counterintuitive to the goal of making them not be religious anymore.

The people who whine about being persecuted are usually older individuals who are effectively a lost cause anyway. Like most cultural progress, you are ultimately constrained by the rate at which stubborn old idiots die off.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Religion is an indicator that a person is incapable of basic reasoning.

Psychologically it is not. A person can be very logical but still entertain religious thought through mental compartmentalization. The history of science and philosophy is full of such persons, but if I'd have to mention just one example, it would be the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who openly admitted that there is no rational reason to believe in Christian dogma, but you should anyways. Much of Kierkegaard's philosophy is an effort to explain why the religious truth (he called it "virtue of the absurd") is superior to the rational truth and why you therefore should embrace it or "take the leap of faith".

[SCRawl]

Religion is an indicator that a person is incapable of basic reasoning.

Psychologically it is not. A person can be very logical but still entertain religious thought through mental compartmentalization. The history of science and philosophy is full of such persons, but if I'd have to mention just one example, it would be the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who openly admitted that there is no rational reason to believe in Christian dogma, but you should anyways. Much of Kierkegaard's philosophy is an effort to explain why the religious truth (he called it "virtue of the absurd") is superior to the rational truth and why you therefore should embrace it or "take the leap of faith".

Just to build upon this a little, it seems to me that a believer has to have a sort of partition in his mind -- he may believe these things that cannot be justified logically, but still has to function in the real world, sometimes in a profession that demands intellectual rigour. As an example, I have a friend who works as an engineer at a fairly high level. He could not do this without understanding much more than basic reasoning, and yet he believes in a god. (He's not in the "talking snake" camp, but he at least claims to believe in the bare minimum qualifications for being a member of his religion.) If a colleague of his were to approach him with a problem, his answer would not be "place your trust in god, for he will see to all things"; I'm sure that his response would be grounded in the natural world.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Just to build upon this a little, it seems to me that a believer has to have a sort of partition in his mind -- he may believe these things that cannot be justified logically, but still has to function in the real world, sometimes in a profession that demands intellectual rigour. As an example, I have a friend who works as an engineer at a fairly high level. He could not do this without understanding much more than basic reasoning, and yet he believes in a god. (He's not in the "talking snake" camp, but he at least claims to believe in the bare minimum qualifications for being a member of his religion.) If a colleague of his were to approach him with a problem, his answer would not be "place your trust in god, for he will see to all things"; I'm sure that his response would be grounded in the natural world.

People like that are quite common even today in science and technology. One of me former colleagues was a pretty good scientist in her own field and the leader of her own research group for several years. We did know that she was a believer of some kind, but it rarely came up at work.

One day she announced that she had had enough of the "apply for research grant, do some science, then apply for another grant" rat race (which admittedly is pretty tedious and takes a lot of energy away from the actual science) and that she would go back to university and study theology. She wasn't absolutely sure if she wanted become an actual priest (which is possible for women in the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church), but that was not out of the question. I don't think she was a fundamentalist either, but quite clearly a true believer of some sort, in other words she believed that the Jesus is the Lord and Savior, and all that standard protestant Christian dogma.

[General Mung Beans]

At worst it is a mind-parasite and cancer on humanity.

Because most people with religious belief are dangerous fundamentalists.

No. They just enable them by providing a smokescreen of moderation and being a block of people that constrain our options in political discourse by being a group that is too important politically to offend. I cannot open up with both barrels on fundies for fear of alienating moderates and thus the fundies who have no such constraints are able to gain ground. Because of the moderates, Atheists like me who have the stomach for debate are marginalized in our own god damn community.

They also make decisions on the basis of their religious beliefs. Moderates vote against gay marriage just as much as the fundies do, they are more passive about it but they oppose abortion and population control as often as support either. They often take the "why not teach both?" approach to the subject of evolution and creationism in our public schools. They are the religious equivalent to the Mindless Middle.

What about liberal religionists who support progressive social policy as much as you do?

[Temujin]

While I can't speak for Alyrium, for me personally groups like that and other less harmful religious belief systems (Buddists, Pagans, etc.) are tolerable because by their nature they tend to be either innocuous or actually capable of doing some good, even if in a minor way.

Remember though, truly liberal progressive Christian churches in America are relatively rare. While many mainstream (i.e., non-Fundy) churches may pay lip service to some liberal ideas, its generally because its increasingly the politically correct thing to do. It's kind of like how many people will pay lip service to being offended by openly racist comments yet may still harbor racist sentiments themselves.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What about liberal religionists who support progressive social policy as much as you do?

I dont bother them as long as they dont bother me.

[General Mung Beans]

While I can't speak for Alyrium, for me personally groups like that and other less harmful religious belief systems (Buddists, Pagans, etc.) are tolerable because by their nature they tend to be either innocuous or actually capable of doing some good, even if in a minor way.

Remember though, truly liberal progressive Christian churches in America are relatively rare. While many mainstream (i.e., non-Fundy) churches may pay lip service to some liberal ideas, its generally because its increasingly the politically correct thing to do. It's kind of like how many people will pay lip service to being offended by openly racist comments yet may still harbor racist sentiments themselves.

Actually at least in America you'll get more flak for supporting gay marriage than opposing it so I doubt it.

[Caiaphas]

Mahayana Buddhist, thank you.

[Lief]

I put buddhist in the poll, though it isn't really a religion (more a philosophy), I try to adhere to its main principle of 'be happy'

It just seems right to me someone as a good way to go about life, though it doesn't always work ;p

[Temujin]

While I can't speak for Alyrium, for me personally groups like that and other less harmful religious belief systems (Buddists, Pagans, etc.) are tolerable because by their nature they tend to be either innocuous or actually capable of doing some good, even if in a minor way.

Remember though, truly liberal progressive Christian churches in America are relatively rare. While many mainstream (i.e., non-Fundy) churches may pay lip service to some liberal ideas, its generally because its increasingly the politically correct thing to do. It's kind of like how many people will pay lip service to being offended by openly racist comments yet may still harbor racist sentiments themselves.

Actually at least in America you'll get more flak for supporting gay marriage than opposing it so I doubt it.

Excuse me, did I mention gay marriage specifically? No, I said: "may pay lip service to some liberal ideas". Gay marriage is just one of many liberal ideas, and currently, certainly not the most politically correct.

[Rye]

I'm an antitheist in that I am ideologically opposed to theistic influence on philosophy, epistemology, politics and ethics. I think theism all suffers from the main problem of being untrue and a natural human tendency towards hierarchy, meaning it's almost always wrapped up in control mechanisms for the species. We need some control, sure, but it should be on principles of good for its outcome, not good according to divine diktat for its own sake.

I'm an atheist overall, with an emotional admiration for nature. Scientific pantheism comes pretty close to what I emotionally connect to.

If I had to pick an old-world religion, it would probably be Greek paganism, it's always been the pantheon I've identified with most.

I'm a secularist, but not a humanist.

[mr friendly guy]

Richard Dawkins is pretty polite but that doesn't stop the religious WRONG screaming for his blood. I wonder how they would handle Christopher Hitchens or perhaps Odin Zeus McGaffer.

The fact is for a lot of these people just opposing them automatically makes them feel persecuted. Stopping them forcing their views on others makes them feel persecuted. Thus I don't see SD.net "militant" style debates with fundies wrong or necessarily inferior to playing nice. Some people respond well to being nice, some others may respond well to religious people being humiliated in public discourse. Particularly pertinent since mocking one side is less about convincing the other side, but convincing fence sitters who may be watching.

[Coyote]

Aren't all philosophies that foster a belief in something beyond yourself kind of banking on a persecution complex? Are the religions really the only ones limited to that?

I mean, Communism: us workers are persecuted; communism will be our salvation!
Libertarianism: government taxes oppress us, the free market will be our salvation!
Nazism: the Untermench besoil us; racial purity shall be our salvation!
Democracy: Disenfranchisement is unjust to the people, democracy will save us!

Really, any system that requires you to think of a "higher thing" will tend to point out how your life as it is will be currently lacking something. Of course, a political philosophy will standa better chance of delivering some of what you want, whereas a religion will tell you that you get "rewarded" for hopping on the bandwagon after you die.

[Samuel]

Democracy: Disenfranchisement is unjust to the people, democracy will save us!

Generally people advocate for the democracy because they feel concrete needs aren't being meet. Ideological drive on the grounds that disenfranchisement is wrong... I don't think that has ever been the case.

Really, any system that requires you to think of a "higher thing" will tend to point out how your life as it is will be currently lacking something.

Yeah, but advertising is different from a persecution complex.

[TheFeniX]

I fly under a "I dont' care" kind of flag. My brother-in-law's father (A Southern Baptist preacher) believes I'm a good little Christian boy and I don't really care to state otherwise to avoid any bullshit at family gatherings. If I'm dealing with someone in a position to fuck with me (like at work) then I'm also a god-fearing Christian. It's annoying that I have to lie like this, but I don't care enough about other people's religious beliefs to try and explain mine.

When I really think about it: I'm atheist. I know there's no God. But I still get that little thought in the back of my head about "what if?" It's like that "did I leave the oven on?" kind of feeling I get when I think about God or lack thereof. Then I just drink a lot and play violent video games to drown out the noise.

[Modax]

I don't believe in gods, life after death, extraterrestrial UFOs, FTL, psychic powers, magic, or 'bad luck'.*

* "oh don't say that, it's bad luck! You'll jinx him!"

I'm a secularist, but not a humanist.

Can you explain that? What issue do you have with humanism?

[eion]

I put buddhist in the poll, though it isn't really a religion (more a philosophy), I try to adhere to its main principle of 'be happy'

It just seems right to me someone as a good way to go about life, though it doesn't always work ;p

You really think the main principle of the Catvari Arya Satyani (Four Noble Truths) is "be happy"?

That's like saying the point of Christianity is to gather together every Sunday and enjoy crackers and wine.

And I'm sorry, I like being a Buddhist, but it's a religion. It's got myths and rituals, makes unprovable assumptions about the existential nature of reality, and even has gods (they're just not held up as any sort of ideal).