mega thread Everypony's Religion And Why?

[Koelath 445]

I am an Athiest. While I believe the morals religions try to teach the religions themselves seem far fetched hard to swallow and flat out unbelievable to me. I do not believe in a higher deity but am open to the concept that I am wrong. It's just not for people to tell me I am wrong as it is not my place to tell them they are wrong. Guess we'll just find out which religion was correct on judgement day be at a religious one or a human decimating man made apocalypse 

 

I cast my bets on man-made apocalypse. Or zombies. Maybe both. And you're what's called an agnostic atheist. Regular atheists stop at "I do not believe."...Frankly, agnosticism is the most reasonable option.

I may well return to being Christian one day, but for now I will stay agnostic

 

There is such a thing as Agnostic Christianity... You did know that, right? Agnostic is just being open to the possibility that you're wrong about whatever's out there. XD

[QuirkyUsername 1,576]

Sounds more like you're agnostic rather than atheist. An atheist absolutely believes there is no deity, whereas you're saying you're open to the possibility and will wait and see on judgement day, whatever that may entail.

 

 

I cast my bets on man-made apocalypse. Or zombies. Maybe both. And you're what's called an agnostic atheist. Regular atheists stop at "I do not believe."...Frankly, agnosticism is the most reasonable option.

 

Well if that's what I sound like I'll change my vote. I have no shame in admitting I till now didn't 100% know what an Agnositc is. I never really looked into it.

Damn straight Koelath I've got nuclear apocalypse in the betting pool

[Skylar 1,641]

Koelath, I don't really care, This is a post your religion topic not, get judged / receive a comment from Koelath topic. I am not bothered about labels nor do I wish to have one 

 

Agnostic, Christian agnostic *shrugs* Just names to sum up how I feel  

Edited November 4, 2013 by Skylar

[Koelath 445]

Well if that's what I sound like I'll change my vote. I have no shame in admitting I till now didn't 100% know what an Agnositc is. I never really looked into it.

Damn straight Koelath I've got nuclear apocalypse in the betting pool

 

Nuclear? I think nobody's crazy enough for that anymore after Hiroshima...Honestly, the only man-made apocalypse I can see is if we render the planet uninhabitable prior to the immortality threshold. Though religions generally don't favor that threshold...

 

@Skylar: You cared enough to comment on it. I'm just pointing out those two aren't mutually exclusive. You're in a topic about labels, so I figured you ought to know. Take a chill pill.

 

 

For what it's worth, my label is "Transtheistic Pagan" but nobody ever has any idea what it means when I say it because I just made it up one day to describe a belief system that had no formal name.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Koelath

[Guest]

@@Ezynell,
Im a proud member of Discordianism. Could you add that please?
I believe in the holy chao with my whole body. I actually am a pope of that religion.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Guest

[MontagnaMagica 307]

I can understand those who don't believe (I was one myself for a time). But why is there almost always hostility towards those who do? If not hostility, it's a sense of superiority. That's what I've been getting from this thread as I continue to check up on it... :/

[Nohbdy 4,108]

Okay, guys. Let's settle down. I know religion's a sensitive topic. It's something that people care very much about. It's understandable, and it's perfectly fine. That's why we have a debate section where people can engage in civil discussion on the issues that concern them. 

 

What's not acceptable, however, is resorting to personal attacks. The global rules still apply here. If you feel that a discussion is getting heated, take a step back and do something else. Otherwise, respond in a civil manner. Remember--attack the argument, not the person. 

[Not_A_Replicant 109]

Christian, mainly because I think that it is the most believable. God is clearly there and shows that to us all the time. We just refuse to see it. I think that it takes more faith to not believe in a God than to believe, mainly because the Big Bang Theory implies that the universe somehow appeared with no scientific evidence to back up the "creation" of that one little ball of hot, dense mass. This would prove that spontaneous generation does occur, which it clearly doesn't.

[Galen 1,354]

Christian, mainly because I think that it is the most believable. God is clearly there and shows that to us all the time. We just refuse to see it. I think that it takes more faith to not believe in a God than to believe, mainly because the Big Bang Theory implies that the universe somehow appeared with no scientific evidence to back up the "creation" of that one little ball of hot, dense mass. This would prove that spontaneous generation does occur, which it clearly doesn't.

 

The Higgs Boson particle has been found and could lend scientific evidence as to how the universe was created. But that being said I will give you that experiments to discover the particle are abysmal compared to the Big Bang, which is the reason why I do in fact believe there is a creator, altho whether or not said creator exists in the Christian sense or not is highly debatable. Personally, after doing some research today, I'm of the idea that the existence of a god should not influence your actions in cultivating goodness.

[Not_A_Replicant 109]

The Higgs Boson particle has been found and could lend scientific evidence as to how the universe was created. But that being said I will give you that experiments to discover the particle are abysmal compared to the Big Bang, which is the reason why I do in fact believe there is a creator, altho whether or not said creator exists in the Christian sense or not is highly debatable. Personally, after doing some research today, I'm of the idea that the existence of a god should not influence your actions in cultivating goodness.

The only thing that I have wrong with the Higgs Boson particle is that, something would have had to have created it. Nothing just appears. Frankly, I think it is easier to believe that an all-powerful God, who has always been thee, because he exists solely on his own power and because he exists outside of time created everything than nothing did.

[Galen 1,354]

The only thing that I have wrong with the Higgs Boson particle is that, something would have had to have created it. Nothing just appears. Frankly, I think it is easier to believe that an all-powerful God, who has always been thee, because he exists solely on his own power and because he exists outside of time created everything than nothing did.

 

Pretty much what I said. Indeed, something had to have created it, altho I count on science to eventually prove how it happened, but so long as that doesn't happen, I also don't see a reason for myself not to believe there is a creator.

[Koelath 445]

God is clearly there and shows that to us all the time. We just refuse to see it.

 

If we don't see it, how do you know he shows anything? If he's so clearly there, why isn't his presence...You know, actually clear? Are you just the only person who sees these constants shows of godliness? Do you get some special knowledge, some unique front-row seat to these shows? I mean, far be it for me to suggest that's all just a little too convenient...When exactly has he shown himself anyway? There's never been any mass sighting. (Inb4 vague fortune cookie lines about the beauty of sunsets or the wind or the complexity of eyeballs: These things are not clear displays of godly presence, they're sunsets and wind and eyeballs.)

 

"...mainly because the Big Bang Theory implies that the universe somehow appeared with no scientific evidence..." - So you don't buy the Big Bang because it allegedly lacks evidence but you'll buy a god who...Also lacks evidence. That seems contradictory.

 

Belief is fine and all but if you're going to claim a god clearly shows himself all the time, you should probably back that up with solid support. And if you're going to demand scientific evidence to believe something, that demand really ought to be consistent. Saying your god clearly shows itself all the time and implying his existence has more scientific evidence than the Big Bang (while citing nothing at all in support of either claim) is just exaggerating the evidence and artificially inflating your faith. And if you have to resort to that, it's really no faith at all.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Koelath

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

I think that it takes more faith to not believe in a God than to believe...

 

Let's try something interesting with that claim...

 

"I think that it takes more faith to not believe in Zeus than to believe..."

"I think that it takes more faith to not believe in Dianetics than to believe..."

 

If you heard somebody say that, you'd probably be skeptical of the speaker's understanding of their own beliefs (and reality in general).  Most Christians would expect an ancient Greek or modern Scientologist to be able to articulate why they believe that their own convictions are the one truth...it works the other way around, too.

[Not_A_Replicant 109]

If we don't see it, how do you know he shows anything? If he's so clearly there, why isn't his presence...You know, actually clear? Are you just the only person who sees these constants shows of godliness? Do you get some special knowledge, some unique front-row seat to these shows? I mean, far be it for me to suggest that's all just a little too convenient...When exactly has he shown himself anyway? There's never been any mass sighting. (Inb4 vague fortune cookie lines about the beauty of sunsets or the wind or the complexity of eyeballs: These things are not clear displays of godly presence, they're sunsets and wind and eyeballs.)

"...mainly because the Big Bang Theory implies that the universe somehow appeared with no scientific evidence..." - So you don't buy the Big Bang because it allegedly lacks evidence but you'll buy a god who...Also lacks evidence. That seems contradictory.

 

Belief is fine and all but if you're going to claim a god clearly shows himself all the time, you should probably back that up with solid support. And if you're going to demand scientific evidence to believe something, that demand really ought to be consistent. Saying your god clearly shows itself all the time and implying his existence has more scientific evidence than the Big Bang (while citing nothing at all in support of either claim) is just exaggerating the evidence and artificially inflating your faith. And if you have to resort to that, it's really no faith at all.

  

Let's try something interesting with that claim...

 

"I think that it takes more faith to not believe in Zeus than to believe..."

"I think that it takes more faith to not believe in Dianetics than to believe..."

 

If you heard somebody say that, you'd probably be skeptical of the speaker's understanding of their own beliefs (and reality in general).  Most Christians would expect an ancient Greek or modern Scientologist to be able to articulate why they believe that their own convictions are the one truth...it works the other way around, too.

I don't think you guys quite get what I am saying. I'm just trying to imply that something must have had to create everything. Just because things appearing by themselves is impossible.

[\/ 651]

I've looked into the topic, and it seems I am an agnostic atheist. I'm pretty skeptical of the existance of any divine beings, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and anyway, I've learned something. 

 

Well if that's what I sound like I'll change my vote. I have no shame in admitting I till now didn't 100% know what an Agnositc is. I never really looked into it.

I'm with Quirky here, and just recently found out exactly what it was.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Pixelated Awesome

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

  

I'm just trying to imply that something must have had to create everything. Just because things appearing by themselves is impossible.

 

With that as a baseline, your view seems reasonable.  However, there are two potential problems with that.

 

First, nothing in the Big Bang Theory requires that matter comes from nothing.  A common version of the theory is that all matter was already there, albeit in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely small state.  Then it expanded (and nobody knows why), eventually resulting in what we see today.

 

Second, you claimed that "something must have had to create everything".  To me, the most likely nature of that "something" consists of natural, unthinking scientific processes.  My question for you is this: why does that 'something' have to be sentient at all, let alone be affiliated with talking snakes, virgin birth and demon-possessed pigs?

[Smitty91 57]

He doesn't take pleasure yet still does it. For a being supposedly sporting infinite patience and benevolence, you'd think he would take a more direct approach in reforming those who sin that no matter how many wrongdoings one committed in their life, he would send them to a place where they can think on their actions and cultivate goodness. Also, regarding god not caring about if one believes him or not, it is true, he treats unbelievers the same way he would any other depraved sinner:

 

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.......Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. "

 

John 3:18-36

 

It is not God who sends one to hell; it is the sinner who sends themselves their. Remember, one of the names for God is Judge. God's judgment is very much like that of an actual judge. If I were to go out here and deliberately do something that was illegal and I got sent to jail, I would have no right to get pissed at the judge for sentencing me to jail. The same is true of sinners. Romans 1:20 says that we are "without excuse." It is sin that keeps us away from God since He cannot tolerate sin. 

 

How much more direct could God be than sacrificing His own Son so that we may live? I know of no other greater expression of love and mercy than sacrificing one's Son so that mankind could have a renewed relationship with you. God communicates to us through a variety of ways. For some, it's experience. For others, it's through His Word. For others, it's through one's heart. More often than not, however, God communicates to us through His Word. Books are timeless, living far beyond their original authors once they have passed on. This is true of Steinbeck, Poe, Shakespeare, and will be true for many other authors such as Rowling after they have passed away. 

[Ac3xAssasin 453]

I am atheist, because I search through science and observation, I'm not really good at having absolute faith I always need some kind of proof,  That being said I do not look down on or hate any other religion.  We all have our own personal searches for truth and that is a decision for everybody to make on their own.  

[Darrala 269]

Your average-Joe atheist reporting in. As for why, i much rather trust peer-reviewed, tested and applied science than any religious texts. While you could argue that they contain good moral principles, they present claims about the physical world that simply aren't true. That's why i have a hard time believing in a god.

Edited November 6, 2013 by ThatFinnMetalhead

[Galen 1,354]

 

 

It is not God who sends one to hell; it is the sinner who sends themselves their. Remember, one of the names for God is Judge. God's judgment is very much like that of an actual judge. If I were to go out here and deliberately do something that was illegal and I got sent to jail, I would have no right to get pissed at the judge for sentencing me to jail. The same is true of sinners. Romans 1:20 says that we are "without excuse." It is sin that keeps us away from God since He cannot tolerate sin.

 

Putting it that way, a LOVING god is capable of making the choice to allow the sinner to reform. And here is why your analogy doesn't work to justify hell. Prisons exist (or at least should) for the purpose of reforming the criminal such that when he is back in society, he will not commit the crime again. Eternal hell and fires doesn't exactly achieve that because it's eternal. There is no getting out of it. a LOVING god, even as the judge, would not allow that to the people he loves. Even if you're a sinner, he still loves you, or at least that's what your scriptures say. Therein lies the contradiction.

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

 

 

It is not God who sends one to hell; it is the sinner who sends themselves their. Remember, one of the names for God is Judge. God's judgment is very much like that of an actual judge. If I were to go out here and deliberately do something that was illegal and I got sent to jail, I would have no right to get pissed at the judge for sentencing me to jail. The same is true of sinners. Romans 1:20 says that we are "without excuse." It is sin that keeps us away from God since He cannot tolerate sin. 

I dislike the whole concept of "sinning". I can understand how killing or stealing is bad, but how exactly is Homosexuality a sin? What kind of God cares so much over what you decide to pleasure yourself over? And why is lust a sin? Lust is pretty much harmless. 

[Rinkitty 589]

I guess you could say I'm an atheist. I don't particularly believe the concept of a guy in the sky controlling everything that goes on via cosmic puppet strings, or whatever.

 

I don't doubt the existence of a god or gods, I just don't see a reason to believe the existence of them at this point.

[Neon Fire 473]

Why is there so much arguing in this topic?  It's post your religion, not reply to others who believe what they do and flame them for it...  Sheesh.  Anyway, I'm a Christian, I believe fully in the Bible and don't just believe certain things.  I believe the whole thing.  I don't think I've posted in this topic yet, but I do believe I voted.

[BalanceBrony 259]

Simple. Just post in your religion. If its not included, quote this post and tell me what it is. I'll add it.

My religion... That is a very hard declaration for me to make. I do not know if there are and religions which fully match my paradigm. Indeed, I am sure that isn't the case. I have built up a whole system of how I think existence functions. It contains aspects from many different religions and philosophies. At a fundamental level, I suppose I am agnostic. I believe that there may or may not be a God, but I simply do not know (although at the same time, I like to think that there is a God. I just accept that there might not be).

 

But I also firmly believe that all religions and philosophies really tend towards some universal Truth which we do not yet know. If we examine all of the different paradigms, we can get a glimpse of at least a part of the Truth by seeing where all of them overlap. So in a sense, I guess I am Universalist as well.

 

But then I also respect and worship the power of Nature as well, and acknowledge Her as a powerful force, so there's some paganism in there too.

 

But I also believe in Jesus Christ's teaching, so Christianity is my faith as well.

 

Then there is an aspect of my belief which is unique to me, and that is a fusion of Taoist principles and pluralism which I call Isorropism, a whole new philosophy of Balance and Harmony. And I suppose it counts as a religion because I hail Balance and Harmony as transcendent principles towards which all things strive, and while I don't pray to Balance, it is religious in that I look towards something beyond myself to find meaning, purpose, and morality to apply to my life.

 

Which brings up and interesting issue... How does one define religion? Does religion necessarily mean that you believe in a god or gods? Or does it simply concern itself with greater issues? Are philosophy and religion entirely separate concepts, or can they be coinciding, as in Eastern philosophy? Can a philosophy be called a religion, and vice versa? I really don't know. All I know is that I have a belief system and paradigm which doesn't fit into any single religion on Earth. But is the new conglomerate which I have compiled a faith in its own right, or does its combined nature mean simply that I am a member of all the faiths which I draw inspiration from?

 

It is all a mystery to me. All I know is that all religions have a glimpse of some, or even all of the Truth. They clearly illustrate that, in  all likelihood, there is in fact something beyond us. There are things which we strive to understand, and partake of. Is there a religion where the only thing you seek is Truth? And if there is, is that religion, in fact, simply philosophy? Is philosophy in itself a religion? I wish I knew. But these are questions which have been mulled over for centuries... And now I have a new idea for a blog post.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

I dislike the whole concept of "sinning". I can understand how killing or stealing is bad, but how exactly is Homosexuality a sin? What kind of God cares so much over what you decide to pleasure yourself over? And why is lust a sin? Lust is pretty much harmless. 

 

It's worth nothing that, AFIAK, that Jesus's teaches in the new testament pretty much over-rode much of that and laid down the general rule of loving on another and not bringing harm to others as kind of the faith's one true tenet, so the sects that still hold on to the frivolous and pointless laws of the old testament fail to understand their own book.

 

After putting a lot of though into it, I'm probably closest to self-practicing/non-denominational Christian with some random spirituality thrown in. As a whole the only moral I abide by is pretty much "don't unjustly harm another"(just in this case would be something like self-defense). I do sometimes