I was raised Roman Catholic, but am feeling much better now.
I’m an atheist because religion describes our reality about as well as Flat Earthers describe the shape of our planet.
Same boat but I have heavily leaned towards science. And I think that leaning hard that way has kinda pushed me into being agnostic more than atheist. Have you had similar thoughts?
My faith corroded as my critical thinking skills developed. I’d consider myself a strong atheist on the Dawkins scale.
I haven’t seen anything that would nudge me off of my position towards agnosticism.
Pastafarian. I’ve preferred alfredo to marinara ever since I was a kid and loved pirates. I just knew that my colander had a sacred use: as a hat!
Strong atheist. Not only I believe there are no Gods, I think religions are bad for humanity and society as a whole.
With you on this.
I don’t think religion causes war, but I definitely think it’s used as an excuse to do unthinkable things to living, breathing and feeling people en masse, not to mention the damage to the planet and it’s other inhabitants. Like you say religion is used to control people, people are willing to die for their religion, willing to turn on their children or vice versa.
Though I do get that for some people it brings them hope, allows them to be part of a community and other benefits. And even though it also fuels pure hatred, bigotry and racism and gives people personal allowances to commit atrocities. I wouldn’t hold any negative feelings to those that do choose to take part in religion. Providing the religion stops before the evil starts, nothing too extreme, ya know. There’s a line but hard to say where it’s drawn.
To add to this the absolute worst thing religion does is try to force itself on others. Wouldn’t be such a bad thing if it was just kept to itself. But nope. Like the saying; religion is like a penis, it’s fine to have one, it’s fine to be proud of it. But if you start waving it around outside and start trying to push it down my throat, we’re going to have a problem!
Buddhism. I first learned about it when someone was discussing whether it’s a religion or a way of life. They specifically mentioned that it doesn’t necessarily prevent you from being Christian (which I was) at the same time.
3 years later and I disagree with that statement, to a certain extent. You could choose to ignore the “supernatural” parts of Buddhism and just learn from the lessons. But I think the more you learn, the more it just kinda makes sense.
For instance, buddhist believe in “re-incarnation” but there’s a lot of debate about what that is. I prefer death and rebirth. Which I interpret as: I’m a different person than I was 10 years ago. The old me died and was reborn as what I am now.
Other things that I like about it: it is encouraged that you have skeptisicm about what you learn. I’m fact, you shouldn’t just accept it because without questioning what your being told, you can not come to a true understanding and belief. The lessons all revolve around how to be a better person. How to achieve nirvana through your thoughts, actions, views, etc. Many of the principles were first introduced when buddha was alive 2500 years ago. Today, psychology studies have shown that many of them really do have long lasting, extremely beneficial effects. Think meditation and mindfulness (not necessarily invented by Buddhism, but popularized by it)
For me it really resonates. A lot of the things I care about are discussed. From mental health to treating life with respect to the environment to forgiveness. I also don’t find much hipocracy.
Dude, I came here to write the same as you but you were faster and definitely wrote WAY better then I’m capable to do.
You put why Buddhism resonates with me into such good terms.
I think that interpretation (dying and being reborn as a new “you”) in particular resonates with me on both a physical and spirit/soul level. While there are fundamental parts of us that remain for long periods of time, our bodies are constantly breaking down and rebuilding themselves on a cellular level, and on a more personal level, our minds are constantly growing, changing, evolving, and forgetting as we learn and experience new things. I’m still not entirely sure what death as an experience will be like, but looking at it this way (the current or future “me” ending and taking on some new form) makes the most sense right now.
Mental health and personal growth-wise, I also really like the focus it has not on worshipping a certain being or beings, but about learning, understanding, and trying to be a good person. It makes things feel more… reachable, if that makes sense. More down-to-earth.
For sure. You aren’t supposed to “worship” buddha in the same way as gods from other religions. Rather he is seen as a role model.
Apatheism.
“Because God said so” sounds like a terrible rationale for morality to me. For that reason I do not think the existence of God is relevant to my life.
Raised mormon, did the mission thing, moroni’s promise was bullshit so I switched to general christianity, realized that it’s just another brand of bullshit. Currently agnostic/atheist/who cares.
IF there’s a god, he’s not a fucking primate with a sphincter- humans are so freaking narcissistic to think the “ultimate” being of all time is just like them.
IF there’s a god, why would he be omniscient/omnipresent? You created this post, do you actively control how it interacts with people’s minds?
IF there’s a god, and he’s the christian idea of a god, he’s evil. No loving being would send their “children” to a test (omniscient, knowing the future) knowingly sending them to a place where the result would be them suffering for eternity.
IF there’s a god, their existence doesn’t answer the question of where we came from, what came before god? If your answer to this question is “god just always was” you’re an idiot who missed the point.
Dudeism. Regarding what led me to identify with it, well, you know. A lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous, and uhh… lost my train of thought there.
It really ties the room together.
None. My family and basically everyone in my rural hometown were on the spectrum from “quite” to “extremely” protestant Christian. None of it was compatible with my brain, none of it ever made sense at all. I’ve been areligious as long as I can remember and here’s hoping I never get a brain tumor, because I’m pretty sure that’s the only way I will ever become religious.
However, I’m a big fan of people retaining their full agency and that includes leaving people to believe whatever they want. I’m not at all militant and outside of the fact that a large percentage of the world’s religious population would probably want me dead or, at minimum, thinks I’m incapable of having any sense of morality, or thinks that my children should be indoctrinated, etc. etc. Other than all that kind of stuff, I really do not care what they believe. Unitarian Universalists seem pretty cool though.
At minimum, thinks I’m incapable of having any sense morality, or thinks that my children should be indoctrinated
Man, do I hate that with such a burning passion…
Like, the amount of times I’ve had to sit someone down and go “I’m not a decent human being because The Bible showed me to be or because my local priest told me I’d burn in Hell if I wasn’t, I’m a decent human being because my ma raised me to be–because her mom raised her to be that way, and so on. She never threatened me with fire and brimstone nor told me it’s what Jesus would have wanted, just that people ought to be kind to one another. God didn’t teach me manners and how to be kind to others, she did.” is unreal. How it’s so hard for people to grasp is beyond me
Also, the indocternation of children without thier consent makes my blood boil. It’s cool if they believe in Christ, Allah, Brahma, or none of the above…but that should be thier own choice, not something chosen for them. “Come freely of your own will” and all that. Because if you’re forced to love something for fear of punishment, is it really love?
Currently none, I consider myself agnostic. Grew up protestant christian, left the church last year due to not identifying with its beliefs (and to save church tax). I have a casual interest in Buddhism, but don’t plan on actually converting.
NULL
Atheist, if you consider that a religion. I view it more as a lack of religion or belief, but that’s just pedantry. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, but eventually became disillusioned with their teachings as I grew older and realized that they were out of touch with the Bible and (more importantly) reality. After a period of self-reflection, I examined what I believe and came to the conclusion that I didn’t really believe in much of anything anymore.
I don’t believe in the Bible. It’s a great work of literature, in an academic sense, but it’s not something to model your life on. You can tie yourselves up in knots trying to come up with a coherent interpretation or you can take everything so figuratively that you might as well ignore the source material all together. I didn’t see much point in either and just view it as a product of the wide range of people over the millennia that contributed to it.
I don’t believe in God either. For me, I don’t see a reason to think that there is a God. It’s essentially impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. If you disproved one, people would just come up with either excuses or another God entirely. Some might argue that Earth’s existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn’t the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first? Why should we accept that God had no creator but that the universe had to have a creator?
There are other arguments, sure, but my lived experience has shown me no reason to think that there’s a God or specific meaning, plan, scheme, or rhyme and reason to life on Earth. That doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning in our own lives, but it does mean we have to work to make it.
Nobody is coming to save us. Nobody is going to hand us an answer or salvation. We have to save ourselves.
Some might argue that Earth’s existence implies the existence of a creator. Assuming that was true, wouldn’t the existence of this creator imply the existence of a second creator for the first?
It is not merely the existence of the earth that implies it, but the fact that it has a beginning. There’s other evidence in physics and thermodynamics that the universe’s beginning could be explained with an external trigger. The fact that the universe does not stretch endlessly into the past, and there’s a beginning of “time” does allude to the possibility of a creator.
This logic may not apply to the creator themselves, as there’s no evidence that they have a beginning too, and they don’t need one to be a creator. In fact, it makes more sense that they don’t.
But this is all very hand wavy in the end. I don’t mean to say it is certain. But I do think there’s a good argument for it.
Why do you think the universe needs a beginning, but there are special rules for your god because of?.. magic?
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
But that’s a theory isn’t it? I haven’t seen any scientific theories to gods how do we know anything about a god, much less what the nature of their being? It’s just not based on anything, (therefore my allusions to magic)
I don’t enjoy your tone policing… There are ways to do that without sounding pretentious and holier than though, please keep that in mind for the next time.
Yes it is a scientific theory (not a hypothesis), which means it is the widely accepted explanation by scientists.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe. What I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion. If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow. What kickstarted it is by definition its creator. And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
This does not reveal the nature of the creator or anything about them. It is merely a statement that they must exist. An effect must have a cause.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
You’re right that the theory is not about God, but explains the origins of the universe.
How so? I don’t see what you mean here, it doesn’t explain anything, it just builds a level of assumptions on top of something, basically explaining something with an untested hypothesis.
what I said about God is what I think is a logical conclusion.
If you Agree to the premises I guess, but I don’t, so it explains nothing.
If something has a beginning, then it must have been kickstarted somehow.
Then who kickstarted god? Or does he/she/it for some reason get special treatment here? (This is special pleading)
What kickstarted it is by definition its creator.
If I kick a stone down a hill I did not create the stone even though I set it in motion.
And this applies to our universe, in my opinion.
Hmm, I don’t see how you evade an infinite regression here, unless you break your own rules and give one link in the chain an “eternal always existing” modifier. We don’t know that anything eternal exist, or even that our universe isn’t eternal (extisting eternally as a singularity before spreading or a part of a bigger multiverse that we cannot perceive)
It is merely a statement that they must exist.
It is just assuming that something must exist, since you’re building your logic on very shaky premises that we cannot prove.
An effect must have a cause.
Must it? Or have we just never seen the contrary (black swan fallacy) Who caused god? like I said before you can’t get away from that without special pleading.
I apologize for sounding pretentious earlier, that was not my intention, but I can see how it came off as such. And apologize for misunderstanding your intentions as well.
Water under the bridge :) No worries :)
Also I notice you have some downvotes. Just want to clarify that it is not me.
No worries, I don’t care about the votes, interactions are worth way more than someone clicking an arrow :)
One of the primary assertions of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe has a beginning, and it is thus far the most widely accepted explanation of the origin of the universe.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but please bear with me: this statement is quite incorrect except in the most colloquial sense of the term “beginning.” The big bang describes the processes that led to what we understand as the current presentation of the universe. It does not offer any explanation about the actual origins of the matter and energy that make up the universe; in fact, it requires that they were already present in an extremely hot and dense state for the initial expansion to occur. This is a common misconception among theists and non-scientists and it’s a bit nuanced, but it’s really important. To state in a different way that might more directly counter your statement: my understanding is that the energy and matter that we observe as making up the universe has always existed, and there is no scientific theory that I’m aware of that claims it hasn’t.
Also please tone down the passive aggression. No one said anything about magic, and this isn’t Reddit :)
Speculating about the supposed properties of a creator of the universe that has no evidence of existing is pretty useless. You might as well be talking about magic.
Is it true that the Big Bang asserts that the universe had a beginning? True, we don’t know much about the pre-Big Bang universe, but we don’t have a reason to think that it didn’t exist.
I am an atheist.
Being raised under Christianity and having actually read the Bible like a book (as in just front to back like a novel; but boring) is what led me to it.
Atheist. Raised catholic. Too old, I realized that the god of the bible isn’t a moral person. 1 Samuel 15:3 etc. Arguing with young-earth creationists gave me the final push, I understood science well enough to understand the implications of radiometric dating, plate tectonics, geology etc.
Reformed Christian. I was raised in a Christian family, and always believed in the basic concepts of God, heaven, hell, etc. But I mistakenly thought Christianity was about trying to be “good enough” for God until my mid teens. Around this time I realised that I couldn’t be perfect, which was super distressing for a time. But then I read Ephesians 2:8-9 which says:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
This was a big relief, as it meant that I didn’t need to rely on trying to be good enough for God. I just needed to accept God’s free gift of salvation. That’s the moment I would say I became a Christian.
Since then, I’ve had times where I’ve questioned it all, but I always come back to the resurrection of Jesus. I find the non-miraculous explanations of the resurrection account to be so implausible that it makes more sense to accept that it’s a historical fact. And if the resurrection’s true, then it makes sense to believe the rest of it as well.
I have had bad experiences with Christianity personally such that it has left a permanent bad taste in my mouth, but it makes me happy to see people like you, who have found genuine solace in some of its teachings.
This seems like faulty logic to me. What other things in your life do you affirmatively believe “by default” just because their counter-arguments seem implausible to you? Doesn’t it make more sense to not hold belief in something until you have evidence supporting that belief?
It’s not so much that I believe it ‘by default’. Rather, when I’ve examined the historical case for the resurrection, the arguments that it really happened seem stronger than the arguments that it was a hoax, or a mass hallucination, or that he fainted etc.
I’m sorry if this comes off as rude or blunt, but here goes:
I am not aware of any evidence that resurrection is possible, or indeed that anything that could be called “supernatural” is real. Don’t you need to establish that before you can claim that arguments for a flipping resurrection seem strong? What am I missing here?
I’m a Christian. I was raised Episcopalian, and still attend Episcopal services, but I have been a Unitarian (not Universalist) for a while. After a lot of thought and prayer and Pascal’s wagering I settled on mostly following Church doctrine and the scripture but departing from them where I feel they don’t makes sense.
