Turn on thread page Beta

TSR Religion census watch

  • View Poll Results: Orientation
    Theist
    32
    24.24%
    Agnostic
    33
    25.00%
    Atheist
    67
    50.76%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why thank you
    That sounds ok
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Atheist FTW.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I took a test online where it said I'm Agnostic. But I'm a Hindu.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I voted "agnostic"

    I'm open to the idea of a conscious force that is somehow "other". Be it a force of creation, destruction, knowledge or deception. I believe that for it to classify as a "deity", it must somehow defy the laws of the universe, and be somehow separate from it. So a big space goat that could hurl balls of molten lava would not count if it could be show to occur naturally and plausibly within the boundaries of our universe. However, even if the existence of such a being could be proven, what could not be proven was whether it could justifiably claim to be a god, as I do not think we shall ever know all there is to know about the universe and thus shall ever be able to prove that something could not occur within our universe.

    So maybe that makes me athiest . . . as I will not accept the "god" label on a force/entity/being, irrespective of how many fancy and awe inspiring powers it had.

    I am also open to the suggestion that there is nothing weird going on at all, and we are just a bunch of atoms that have occurred purely by chance.

    So, as you can see, I like to keep my options open.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a theist
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Are you suggesting that theism is illogical, or that you can logically prove that the inductive reasoning of science is universally consistent? If you claim so then that puts you up against every single philosopher in the world.
    That was in response to Libertin du Nord's comment about o-e-s-j's sig, which seemed to suggest he thought having faith in science was in some way dodgey.

    And yes, since theism seems to be basically nuts, I'd say that might allow it to be classed as illogical, to my mind.

    I don't deny that the humans practising science can be faulty, but the whole lot of science is based on logic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Blind faith is just as ignorant as dismissing it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loadmalz)
    Blind faith is just as ignorant as dismissing it.
    I'd disagree - dismissing blind faith with reason ain't awfully ignorant.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Lot of people going to hell on this forum :p:

    As a theist I claim all agnostics to my side. Therefore we are winning the poll at the moment against the atheists
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ixivxivi)
    I'd disagree - dismissing blind faith with reason ain't awfully ignorant.
    Yes. The thing is that, dismissing some random theory by some guy who was probabally high when he/she wrote it isn't as ignorant as actually believing it. But to automatically dismiss it without actually proving it wrong is ignorant, in my opinion.

    Technically, it's a catch 22, you lose either way haha.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fishfinger Sandwich)
    As far as I'm concerned, when something goes into "nothing", our understanding is at it's limit and more research is needed. How can something disappear into nothing without energy being given out?
    I know you have given an example, but I don't believe it. I think we simply lack a full understanding of what happens to these exchange particles you speak of.
    You wouldn't like quantum physics.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ixivxivi)
    That was in response to Libertin du Nord's comment about o-e-s-j's sig, which seemed to suggest he thought having faith in science was in some way dodgey.

    And yes, since theism seems to be basically nuts, I'd say that might allow it to be classed as illogical, to my mind.
    Don't use terms you don't understand. There is nothing illogical regarding faith. The argument for religion is valid, admittedly with uncertain premises [questionable soundness]. In fact, I've yet to see a compelling argument for faith being even irrational. I speak as an atheist. Furthermore, faith and science are perfectly reconcilable. Christians and other theists can believe in evolution and the Big Bang whilst believing in God. The early Church even embraced the Big Bang theory with open arms.

    The very fact that most Christian philosophers put God within logic suggests that we can approach religion through logic.
    I don't deny that the humans practising science can be faulty, but the whole lot of science is based on logic.
    Certainly not classical, deductive logic. It employs inductive reasoning. There's nothing "wrong" with that, mind you; but I could, humorously, cheekily call it a type of faith.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Don't use terms you don't understand. There is nothing illogical regarding faith. The argument for religion is valid, admittedly with uncertain premises [questionable soundness]. In fact, I've yet to see a compelling argument for faith being even irrational. I speak as an atheist. Furthermore, faith and science are perfectly reconcilable. Christians and other theists can believe in evolution and the Big Bang whilst believing in God. The early Church even embraced the Big Bang theory with open arms.

    Certainly not classical, deductive logic. It employs inductive reasoning. There's nothing "wrong" with that, mind you; but I could, humorously, cheekily call it a type of faith.
    I thought you were a christian :/

    ...to be fair that's mainly because they claimed it as evidence of a creator.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I thought you were a christian :/
    Nah, I used to be. I just kinda pretend to be a Christian on the religion forum.
    ...to be fair that's mainly because they claimed it as evidence of a creator.
    'Tis true. Yet I wrote it because I predicted some idiot would say the Church changed their approach to Genesis just to fit with scientific discoveries; which isn't accurate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TML)
    Nah, I used to be. I just kinda pretend to be a Christian on the religion forum.

    'Tis true. Yet I wrote it because I predicted some idiot would say the Church changed their approach to Genesis just to fit with scientific discoveries; which isn't accurate.
    Haha, fair enough.

    Ah cool, fair enough.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robob)
    I thought you were a christian :/

    ...to be fair that's mainly because they claimed it as evidence of a creator.
    The latest thing I heard (although it was quite some years ago now) from a Professor of Astro-physics was that the theory of the Big Bang required the existance of a pan-dimensional entity that is not bound by time floating around occasionally making universe. Or something like that. It sounded like God to me then and it sounds like God now. Was he wrong? If so, how did the Big Bang originate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say i'm Agnostic but I prefer to sit on the fence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The latest thing I heard (although it was quite some years ago now) from a Professor of Astro-physics was that the theory of the Big Bang required the existance of a pan-dimensional entity that is not bound by time floating around occasionally making universe. Or something like that. It sounded like God to me then and it sounds like God now. Was he wrong? If so, how did the Big Bang originate?
    But a god implies it has some kind of intelligence. An entity doesn't necessarily have intelligence. A star or a planet is an entity, but it doesn't have any intelligence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The latest thing I heard (although it was quite some years ago now) from a Professor of Astro-physics was that the theory of the Big Bang required the existance of a pan-dimensional entity that is not bound by time floating around occasionally making universe. Or something like that. It sounded like God to me then and it sounds like God now. Was he wrong? If so, how did the Big Bang originate?
    It doesn't.

    That's basically a guess.

    Well, the answer is, noone really knows. However it doesn't necessarily require a cause. Time is a dimension of our universe, so to talk of a cause of the big bang is a bit strange, since a cause implies there was already time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But a god implies it has some kind of intelligence. An entity doesn't necessarily have intelligence. A star or a planet is an entity, but it doesn't have any intelligence.
    I'd say there's a difference between 'intelligent' and 'all knowing' and i'd describe a God as being the latter. All knowing, to me, could imply that you've just been there to see everything happen.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.