Are you religous?, And Why? Options

[innovation]

You don't need to be religious to have morals

Wow, that's really interesting. It was one of our seminar questions for World Religions, in fact.

I agree that you don't need religion to have morals, but do you need religion to be moral?

[Jorge2]

Nope, It's opinion over reality. I am though very religious.

[flc]

I agree that you don't need religion to have morals, but do you need religion to be moral?

Explain to me, what do you think the difference is between having morals and being moral?

[AngelinaTaylor]

Wow, that's really interesting. It was one of our seminar questions for World Religions, in fact.

I agree that you don't need religion to have morals, but do you need religion to be moral?

I don't need to believe in some higher being to know what's right and wrong. Sure, the bible may teach some morals, and that's a good thing.. I don't deny that. However, I don't need to be religious in order to be moral.

Taylor``

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

yes I am .. because I can be?

[AngelinaTaylor]

I've found that many atheists themselves admit that they can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Of course we can't prove that he doesn't exists.. but people have done a pretty nice job attempting to. Who knows - they could be right.

And by the way, what I meant was that most of what Christians believe has been challenged. Not exactly disproven, but they do question a lot of things; they show you that some parts of the bible are flawed (for example Moses and the whole escaping from Egypt story), and then you make up your mind about it. I'm talking about minimalists and archeologists.. They're the people who have done research and discoveries related to those issues.

Also, are you telling me that I'm better off being an agnostic because I'm "unsure" that God doesn't exists, due to the fact that I can't exactly PROVE that he doesn't? I could say the same thing about you.. if you believe that God exists, can you give me solid proof? No, you can't. Therefore this argument is useless..

Taylor``

[so_jentran]

i'm not religious, but sometimes i can act like it on the inside. it's hard to explain

[innovation]

Explain to me, what do you think the difference is between having morals and being moral?

Having morals requires one to adhere to his own moral code. Being moral requires one to adhere to the universal moral code (assuming that one exists).

[*disco infiltrator*]

I don't believe there's a set universal moral code, but more like an implied one. There are things that are "wrong" by many peoples' judgement and things that are "frowned upon" that you're not supposed to do, by implied moral code.

[flc]

I've found that many atheists themselves admit that they can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I've also found that many Christians can't prove that he exists, either.

Having morals requires one to adhere to his own moral code. Being moral requires one to adhere to the universal moral code (assuming that one exists).

Well then I would still say no. You don't need to believe in a higher power to know that killing, stealing, and committing adultery is wrong, which is basically what the rest of society says.

[*mipadi*]

Well then I would still say no. You don't need to believe in a higher power to know that killing, stealing, and committing adultery is wrong, which is basically what the rest of society says.

Adultery isn't really a concept held universally.

[*januaryrain*]

I don't need to believe in some higher being to know what's right and wrong. Sure, the bible may teach some morals, and that's a good thing.. I don't deny that. However, I don't need to be religious in order to be moral.

Taylor``

I agree. I am buddhist, but i find it to be more of a philosophy than a religion. I don't believe in god, but i am not some sinful person. i respect my parents, and almost everybody i come across. i am still a virgin, and i do not smoke or drink. hows that for morals?

[flc]

Adultery isn't really a concept held universally.

Do you mean that when people have affairs, they don't really think of it as adultery? I'm sorta confused..

[*mipadi*]

Do you mean that when people have affairs, they don't really think of it as adultery? I'm sorta confused..

No, I mean that the concept of monogamous relationships (a prerequisite for adultery) is not a universally-held moral.

[*kryogenix*]

Of course we can't prove that he doesn't exists.. but people have done a pretty nice job attempting to. Who knows - they could be right.

And by the way, what I meant was that most of what Christians believe has been challenged. Not exactly disproven, but they do question a lot of things; they show you that some parts of the bible are flawed (for example Moses and the whole escaping from Egypt story), and then you make up your mind about it. I'm talking about minimalists and archeologists.. They're the people who have done research and discoveries related to those issues.

Also, are you telling me that I'm better off being an agnostic because I'm "unsure" that God doesn't exists, due to the fact that I can't exactly PROVE that he doesn't? I could say the same thing about you.. if you believe that God exists, can you give me solid proof? No, you can't. Therefore this argument is useless..

Taylor``

You still haven't pointed out a flaw in the Bible.

I think agnosticism is a more reasonable position than atheism because you cannot prove a negative. A person who believes in God can at least find evidence for themself, even though they can't prove it to other people.

[NoSex]

You still haven't pointed out a flaw in the Bible.

She did. Exodus is highly inaccurate in any kind of historical sense.

I think agnosticism is a more reasonable position than atheism because you cannot prove a negative.

1. You clearly, as I have pointed out number times, do not understand what agnosticism or atheism is. You continue to misuse the terms despite this.
2. Agnosticism is the belief that we can not know spiritual truths.
3. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It is the opposite of theism. Note the prefix. You are either an atheist or a theist. You either believe in a god or you do not. Neither position requires a duductive affirmation of any existential properties.
4. You can prove a negative. What makes you think you can't? And, how would you go about proving that we couldn't seeing as the proposition, "You can not prove a negative," is a negative proposition itself.

A person who believes in God can at least find evidence for themself, even though they can't prove it to other people.

What is evidence that can not be translated into a reasonable domonstration? Proper epistemology may not count such instances as actual evidence but rather psychological noise. Also, I can share with many other people various strong points in favor of non-belief.

[*mipadi*]

Perhaps in this case we are misusing logic. As Wittgenstein articulated, logic is essentially a description of the world. Metaphysical concepts such as God, however, lay outside of the realm of the world; they are in the realm of the mystical, and such things cannot be discussed in any logical sense, due to the limitations of logical language. Any discussion of such concepts is meaningless. If a question cannot be answered, it cannot even be asked in any meaningful sense.

The medieval philosopher Mimonades (sp?) was onto this track as well. Discussion of God limits God's power, which is not possible; one can only lay out what God is not.

As Wittgenstein pointed out, what cannot be discussed must be passed over in silence.

[typh-a-knee]

Not really.

My qualm is I was raised chrisitian. I was raised on scripture. My whole problem with religion persay is that it takes a good idea and "turns it askew". People use religion to gain. Most religions are corrupt these days, all about money, and power. Look at Catholicism, priests raping boys, a dark past that includes the Crusades. I don't want to conform to something that is said to be good for you, yet is hypocritical because it's the total opposite of what it idolizes.

I was alot more religious when I was younger, but this was because it was what my parents told me was right. Not because I had any actual interest in it, more because I was scared of what would happen if I didn't abide by my parents' rules.

My thing now is. "Religion is an opiate for the masses"- Karl Marx, which means that religion is used to almost brainwash the minds of people and have them do things they wouldn't normally do if they didnt have the burden of religion to instill "beliefs on them". I believe in what I see, and not much of what I read. Thus I don't belive 1/2 the stuff I read inthe bible nor do I believe that I should conform to most aspects of religion. I'm a sinner if I don't go to church, dude I can pray at home, I don't need to go to church for all that.

[flc]

I don't want to conform to something that is said to be good for you, yet is hypocritical because it's the total opposite of what it idolizes.

The religion itself is not corrupt. It's the people that practice it who are.

Yeah, I know, I'm defending Catholicism for once.

[NoSex]

The religion itself is not corrupt. It's the people that practice it who are.

Yeah, I know, I'm defending Catholicism for once.

Well, depends on what you mean exactly. The Bible is a pretty nasty text. I mean, the spanish inquisition was closer to following the actual Biblical law than any other institution that I am aware of. The problem is, moderate Christianity doesn't exactly make sense.
I mean, if God says we should kill people, shouldn't we kill people?

[AngelinaTaylor]

She did. Exodus is highly inaccurate in any kind of historical sense.

Yeah, and not only that.. what about Noah's ark? Highly unlikely that it happened.

But anyway.

Atheism is denying a belief in God. Agnosticism is being uncertain about his existance. I'm not uncertain. I think that there is no God.

And you can't tell me that being a believer, you can PROVE that God exists. Can you? Because I would love to see that. I would love to believe.

Taylor``

[*disco infiltrator*]

Agnosticism is nottttt not not notnotnot being uncertain about the existence of God at all, anytime, anywhere.

If you are agnostic, you proclaim that no one can know whether God exists or not. You can be both theist and agnostic or atheist and agnostic. It's saying that you cannot prove anything about it; it can't be known whatever you do to try and know it.

[Smoogrish]

Wow, that's really interesting. It was one of our seminar questions for World Religions, in fact.

I agree that you don't need religion to have morals, but do you need religion to be moral?

I don't see why you would need religion. People can still judge (for the most part) what is moral and immoral without religion.

Yeah, and not only that.. what about Noah's ark? Highly unlikely that it happened.

But anyway.

Atheism is denying a belief in God. Agnosticism is being uncertain about his existance. I'm not uncertain. I think that there is no God.

And you can't tell me that being a believer, you can PROVE that God exists. Can you? Because I would love to see that. I would love to believe.

Taylor``

We're all inbred.

[AngelinaTaylor]

We're all inbred.

And your point is?

Have you heard of evolution?

Agnosticism is nottttt not not notnotnot being uncertain about the existence of God at all, anytime, anywhere.

If you are agnostic, you proclaim that no one can know whether God exists or not. You can be both theist and agnostic or atheist and agnostic. It's saying that you cannot prove anything about it; it can't be known whatever you do to try and know it.

"agnosticism

n 1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" 2: the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge [syn: skepticism, scepticism]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University "

[n00b]

bad topic.
Then people just get all mad.
I believe in God
and he is not gay!!!