Why are you religious/not religious?

KristallNacht wrote:

Ukurse wrote:I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

plenty of people do.

look at your average college-aged female

Really?
Are you sure you are not mixing media with reality.

Ukurse wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Ukurse wrote:I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

plenty of people do.

look at your average college-aged female

Really?
Are you sure you are not mixing media with reality.

You know what it means to be promiscous?

I'm sure there are many females and males alike whom have multiple/many sex partners in their life.

Gauz wrote:

Ukurse wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Ukurse wrote:I don't think anybody really does, religious or not.

plenty of people do.

look at your average college-aged female

Really?
Are you sure you are not mixing media with reality.

You know what it means to be promiscous?

I'm sure there are many females and males alike whom have multiple/many sex partners in their life.

Yea I know.
But I though we were talking about supporting it...

KristallNacht wrote:do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

Although people do actually do it.
I don't think many people actually support it?..

Maybe In the '70s

KristallNacht wrote:

Ukurse wrote:Really?
Are you sure you are not mixing media with reality.

have you been to college?

hell, even in high school it starts showing.

Of coarse I haven't been to university..
And also, in my college, I have only known one person who has ever done so, and he was dump straight away once the girl found out...

Maybe NZ has different standards and stuff? Because I have never ever heard of anyone ever even coming close to openly supporting the idea of having multiple sexual partners.

ReconToaster wrote:The fallacy of Pascal's wager is the same fallacy that permeates everything you're saying. It's the notion that belief is based on personal will. You can't just look at something, like the idea of going to hell, and DECIDE to believe in God. It doesn't work that way, or at least it doesn't work that way for me. I can follow the teachings of Pascal's wager, and I can tell myself every day that I'm Christian. That won't change anything. Deep down, I'll still be agnostic.

I think that's the first time I've seen you use the term agnostic over atheist. I was going to grill you because I know you to be somewhere between agnostic and atheist, which would mean that your current belief was not based purely on logic, since the purely logical belief is that of agnosticism.

But I still can't say that belief is not a choice. I have never had any trouble choosing what I believe. Sometimes I'll doubt what I believe, or I'll believe something that I'm not sure I should believe, but the point stands that I choose what I believe and what I do not believe. If someone says something, I can choose to believe them, or I can choose to not believe them. There isn't some subconscious trigger that forces me to either believe or disbelieve them.

Recon Toaster wrote:Sure, life is sometimes shitty, and it certainly is meaningless and futile. I think it would be nice to believe that there is a heaven, and I'm gonna live forever with the people I love and all that great stuff. However, as much as I like the idea... that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it. I'd like to think that Carl Sagan was a prophet sent down by some sort of God, to encourage us to continue in our exploration of Universe.

I still don't think it's true...

But that's because there's evidence that Carl Sagan is not a prophet of God sent to encourage us to continue to explore our universe (namely, that he himself is an agnostic, and prophets are generally theists, and that he isn't predicting the future, but rather encouraging our current actions). There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, nor is their evidence that he does exist. You can either believe he does, doesn't, or avoid the question through logic.

Recon Toaster wrote:This is that fundamental difference between religious and non-religious people that I'm getting at. You seem to have the ability to believe in things based on pure will. It's either that, or you don't "believe" it to the same degree that you present yourself as doing so.

As long as we note that atheists have to use the same pure will for their beliefs. It seems to be more of an issue amongst agnostics, who don't want to pick a side. In this sense, the trait isn't the ability to believe, but indecision which comes with making a decision when you cannot look on evidence and just have to go with your gut or go with whichever decision has the best outcomes for you.

Recon Toaster wrote:I can't believe something because I want to, or because it's a pleasant idea, or because believing in such a thing would be beneficial. That's just not how it works.

But it is. People have been convincing themselves of far less logical things than religion for countless decades. I mean, look at the conspiracy theorists! They whole heartedly believe that George W. Bush is the antichrist and that he personally flew those planes into the Pentagon and Twin Towers for no other reason than out of spite for human life. They don't believe it because it is logical, or because there is evidence to suggest this. They believe it because they choose to. And some of them will eventually choose to believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists and move on with their lives.

KristallNacht wrote:do the main religions support promiscuous sex?

No, but Tiger Woods sure does did. Ironically, it appears the media doesn't support promiscuous sex either. Or really, nobody does, except for the people who are so busy drinking their livers to death and smoking as much pot as possible that they wouldn't know a rational decision from an irrational decision if it fucked them up the ass. I mean, God forbid we're asked to make a small sacrifice for the person we intend to spend the rest of our life with!

Rot wrote:I think that's the first time I've seen you use the term agnostic over atheist. I was going to grill you because I know you to be somewhere between agnostic and atheist, which would mean that your current belief was not based purely on logic, since the purely logical belief is that of agnosticism.

For a while I was hanging on to the whole "doubtfully agnostic" thing, but I've been growing more and more open to the idea of a higher power and all that every day. That's not to say that I believe in one, or ever will, but the more time I spend thinking about how incredible and complicated the universe really is, and how very little we know about it, the more I realize that the idea of there being a god, in context, really isn't all that crazy after all.

Admittedly, I still don't take any religions seriously. I think a higher power is possible, but I highly doubt that Humans are of any importance in the universe, and I very highly doubt that the human race could know anything about such a higher power.

It's possible, but I am doubtful.

Rot wrote:But that's because there's evidence that Carl Sagan is not a prophet of God sent to encourage us to continue to explore our universe (namely, that he himself is an agnostic, and prophets are generally theists, and that he isn't predicting the future, but rather encouraging our current actions). There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, nor is their evidence that he does exist. You can either believe he does, doesn't, or avoid the question through logic.

God works in mysterious ways, though I wouldn't say that Carl Sagan was ever really happy with our "current actions." He was pretty expressive of his disappointment toward the leaders of the world, and the nuclear weapons which they possessed. He also had a lot to say about the American education system.

Perhaps Carl Sagan himself was merely a humble, peaceful god?

Rot wrote:It seems to be more of an issue amongst agnostics, who don't want to pick a side. In this sense, the trait isn't the ability to believe, but indecision which comes with making a decision when you cannot look on evidence and just have to go with your gut or go with whichever decision has the best outcomes for you.

Hmmm... I suppose it does have to do with the acceptance of gut feelings. For me, gut feeling usually doesn't factor into my beliefs. But I suppose that, if they did, I couldn't really call myself agnostic.

Like I said, my gut tells me that human religions are full of shit, but that doesn't really factor in by beliefs.

Rot wrote: If someone says something, I can choose to believe them, or I can choose to not believe them. There isn't some subconscious trigger that forces me to either believe or disbelieve them

Are you choosing whether or not to believe what they say, or are you deciding whether or not to follow their advice based on whether or not logic, or your gut feeling, tells you to believe them?

I just... I still don't think that belief can be a decision.

Rot wrote:But it is. People have been convincing themselves of far less logical things than religion for countless decades. I mean, look at the conspiracy theorists! They whole heartedly believe that George W. Bush is the antichrist and that he personally flew those planes into the Pentagon and Twin Towers for no other reason than out of spite for human life. They don't believe it because it is logical, or because there is evidence to suggest this. They believe it because they choose to. And some of them will eventually choose to believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by terrorists and move on with their lives.

I think conspiracy theorists suffer from the same problem as atheists. They are making decisions based on logic, but that logic is incredibly flawed. Trust me, I've seen my fair share of 9/11 conspiracy videos. There's plenty of "evidence" to be had by those who assume that the information being fed to them is accurate.

Now, a predisposition of hatred toward George W. Bush might make the viewer less inclined to doubt 9/11 conspiracy theories, but that's more of a lazy, careless trust toward something that deserves more looking in to.

They're not just deciding that they want to believe in a conspiracy, and therefore believing in one.

Rot wrote:Ironically, it appears the media doesn't support promiscuous sex either.

I wouldn't go that far. I think the media will support just about anything, so long as it gets them plenty of ratings. They supported Michael Jackson and hailed him as the "King of Pop," when he died. And yet, up until that point, they were constantly obsessing over how abnormal he was, and making pretty disgusting accusations about him.

Anyway, a promiscuous person is, by definition, someone who engages in sexual activity with more partners than is generally accepted by society. So... by definition... promiscuity is something that most people do not accept. Obviously, many immature teenage boys aspire to lead promiscuous lifestyles, but that probably has a lot to do with their lack of understanding toward the real world, and the concept of an actual relationship.

I'm not someone who goes to church on a regular basis because quite honestly I do not believe in organized worship.

as for beliefs?
There is a God; there has to be
I mean, look out at the universe and with a straight face that there is not some higher force at work

So, there is a God: he knows me, but i really don't know him. Hell, i break at least three of the Ten Commandments on a regular basis

I also know that He makes things happen for a reason. But that reason is never apparent to me. I would ask "why?" so many times, but i never do get an answer

sometimes i wonder if God is just not trying to deliberately screw me over...