God(s):: yes, no, maybe {agnosticism}

[Tricky]

It's hard to answer. I would say athiest but born christian. I do go to church sometimes but I don't actually believe it exists.

[nazinji]

I'm intrested to see the results. It was kind of hard for me to answer, I went from athiest, to strong agnostic to 'other'. I'm kind of 'anti organised religion' . I believe each religion contains the same spiritual truth, However you wish to interpret the content. I hate doing long answers, In the right mood I can explain my beliefs flawlessly, but giving it a name isn't so easy.

[xriz]

Obviously I selected Atheist.

But I am now making a claim: The word Atheism is a philosophical double negative. How can I not believe in something, that doesn’t already not exist?

Therefore, from now on the correct definition for my own believes is “Evolutionist”: since I believe in Evolution as the cause our existence and the question of gods, moot.

And further, the use of Atheist, or Atheism refer to my beliefs is a derogatory term or usage, just like Whites using the term “Nigger” to refer to Black people. The terms were derived from the contempt and hatered religious people have toward thoughts that do not follow their god(s) and I will no longer let them force their definitions on me.

In the event someone does not believe in either Evolution or god(s) they can either keep the term to define themselves or make up their own name: I will let them speak for them selves.

tricky: technically you can only be born Jewish. To be Christian or Muslim I think you are suppose to “Accept” god or Allah or Jesus or whatever to really “Be” one or the other. Your ½ Pilipino so there’s a good chance your parents are Catholic? Catholics baptize right after birth but technically you are not born Catholic.

Lol, don’t feel bad my Polish Grandmother had me Baptized as an infant, probably the last time I was in a Catholic church. LOL and get this: my father bought both my self and my deceased grandmother Indulgences in the Mormon church, ROFL.

[jenbrook]

^I actually think that people are born muslim though. I mean if you are born in say.. Saudi Arabia, you'd probably get stoned to death for rejecting islamic beliefs

[david]

It depends what you believe in but Jennifer actually got it right from an Islamic perspective of course. Muslims believe everyone is born a ‘Muslim’ (ie. one who submits their Will to God) but that one gets ‘converted’ to other beliefs as they grow up. So no one is actually ‘converted’ to Islam – one is ‘reverted’ to Islam. However, once a free-thinking adult, one can make a conscious decision to formally accept Islam by declaring the Shahadah in front of at least two Muslim witnesses. Whereas one can also be born a Jew if the definition of race or ethnicity was implied there - and Jewish Muslims and Jewish Christians exist (and Jewish atheists etc). Some Christians believe in baptism; some don't.

xriz said:

But I am now making a claim: The word Atheism is a philosophical double negative. How can I not believe in something, that doesn’t already not exist?

That is just another way of saying ‘how can I believe in something that exists?’

xriz said:

Therefore, from now on the correct definition for my own believes is “Evolutionist”: since I believe in Evolution as the cause our existence and the question of gods, moot.

Evolution implies a change in form from a prior form - that is all. Are you implying that there was ‘always life’ or ‘inanimate begat animate’ in which case was there ‘always inanimate’? Such questions already invite the assumptions of pre-existing temporal and spatial notions when concepts like ‘first’ and ‘cause’ are used. And evolution does not necessarily clash with religion too.

[shugi]

In Simple terms im atheist, but i do follow some of the traits of a Agnostic person.

If i were to be born into a religion i suppose id want to be born into buddhism, i agree with its teachings and outlook, and it doesnt press a (supremacy style) view on gods or dieties such as the other major religions do.

[shugi]

^ i concur, hehhehe u uncovered my secret reason why i would choose to follow buddhism.
I could wake in the morning and rightfully say
"I'm a demi-GOD, someone make me breakfast!!"
But then i'd remember i can only eat small morsels.... i couldnt stomach buddhism afterall.

but yes i wouldnt follow religion in this lifetime for the time being, unless something like a lightning bolt struck down hilary duff than perhaps, just perhaps i might think god existed.
If there was a religion that didnt have gods, afterlife etc, but just had a good moral system than i'd follow it.

[xriz]

david said:

..............
Evolution implies a change in form from a prior form - that is all. Are you implying that there was ‘always life’ or ‘inanimate begat animate’ in which case was there ‘always inanimate’? Such questions already invite the assumptions of pre-existing temporal and spatial notions when concepts like ‘first’ and ‘cause’ are used. And evolution does not necessarily clash with religion too.

NO DAVID, IT IS ONLY YOU, WHO ARE MAKING THUOGHS IMPLICATIONS! There are no questions being invited, you are simply making up gibberish about pre-exiting bulls*** in a vain attempt justify your own believes.

Again, as usual you failed to actually read what was written, I am making statement of what I CHOSE to call my belief, giving the word a slightly different meaning when used in that context, rather the making a statement on the dictionary definition of the word Evolution.

Unlike your religion I don’t find the need to stuff my exact beliefs down everyone’s throat. People are free to believe what they want, true or false.

Evolution does not require Religion, Religion now requires Evolution; to not look like an adult who still believe in Santa Clause. Science has time and time again shown some Religious thought is wrong; like the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.

Why don’t you stick to quoting “The Qurap”.

[xriz]

kyuree said:

…. he... what do you mean?

You say that "how can I not believe in something that doesn't exist anyways?"

hm... the only sense that there could be is "You don't believe in God (but He exists)" when you're a Satanist?!
The question was "Does a God exist?" so that's got nothing to do w/ believing in Him...

Sorry to be confusing Claudia, it’s grammatical satire on the English language. Something we call a double negative in a sentence. The joke being the definition of “Atheist” as a double negative sentence; thus allowing me to redefine the term Evolutionist in the English Lexicon, or at least EAN Lexicon, lol.

As for Satanist; I understand definition but I think this clearly shows Christian influence on the English Language in defining a people that/can reject the existence of God.

I don’t like the term; Satan is deity, no if’s and or but’s to apply the term to anybody who does not believe in deities is simply a way for the Christians vilify people who don’t believe in there version of god. The Muslims do the same thing when they call America the “Great Satan”. Things associated to Satan are evil by most mainstream religions.

By rejecting these terms, I define my beliefs on my terms, not there’s.

kyuree said:

….
And Evolutionist... there are religions that accept the evolution theory (even some Christian).
Well... the Korean Pentecoastal Church my mom goes to doesn't--- A good reason I can't go there
(I remember there was this service and the priest would say "So we human beings are descendents of MONKEYS???!" and everyone started to "L.O.L" --- ) .............

Claudia, please tell me at least you understand Evolution makes no such assertion. For the Record - the simple version; Evolution maintains “Monkeys” and “Humans” shared a common Ancestor.

I am not surprised to hear that a religious organization resorts to lying in order to maintain it’s control over people.

Yea, funny, my Asian parent, father, is Morman. I'm not sure how much of it he really belives, the last thing I need to do is get into anther argument with him, lol.

[david]

xriz said:

NO DAVID, IT IS ONLY YOU, WHO ARE MAKING THUOGHS IMPLICATIONS! There are no questions being invited, you are simply making up gibberish about pre-exiting bullsh*t in a vain attempt justify your own believes.

NO XRIZ, it’s funny how you say this and then do exactly what you have accused me of – you have a constant habit of doing that through your own prejudicial way of how you view the world. Look who is making up gibberish bulls*** in a vain attempt to justify his own beliefs.

In every definition of the word ‘evolution’ it implies a change from one form to another – nothing more, nothing less. That is all. That means there IS something pre-existing in order for something to evolve. So how can that be made up ‘gibberish’? Care to define what ‘evolution’ means? YOU merely mentioned ‘Evolution’ to us – and then failed to define it. I didn’t bring God into the concept – in fact it was YOU who brought it into the concept when you mentioned that you believe in Evolution as you obviously feel that was a very necessary pre-condition for your belief. Yet you keep bringing that up which is a completely separate issue.

There is no justification of my own beliefs.

xriz said:

Again, as usual you failed to actually read what was written, I am making statement of what I CHOSE to call my belief, giving the word a slightly different meaning when used in that context, rather the making a statement on the dictionary definition of the word Evolution.

You claim to give the word a ‘slightly different meaning’ when in actual fact you FAILED to define what you believe; thus you couldn’t have given the word a ‘slightly different meaning’. You merely STATED your belief is called “Evolutionist” and then claimed to believe in ‘Evolution’ as the cause of our existence and then you separately brought in the concept of gods into your statement. Again, you SHOULD actually read what is written instead of thinking what is written.

xriz said:

Unlike your religion I don’t find the need to stuff my exact beliefs down everyone’s throat. People are free to believe what they want, true or false.

Exactly – so who is stuffing whose religion down whose throat? What religion am I sticking down your throat?

xriz said:

Evolution does not require Religion, Religion now requires Evolution; to not look like an adult who still believe in Santa Clause.

^ there you go again.

xriz said:

Science has time and time again shown some Religious thought is wrong; like the world is flat or the sun revolves around the earth.

Why don’t you stick to quoting “The Qurap”.

Oh the irony. It would appear that science is now starting to catch up with religion. The Quran has stated that the world is NOT flat and the earth revolves AROUND the sun.

[david]

Claudia I think you have a very good basis – you are trying to be honest with yourself (do that with your moderation too!!! ). At the end of the day, it is only you who must be sure of what you believe in. Don’t do anything because someone else simply told you so unless you truly believe in it yourself. Just make sure there is no conflict between your head (Reason) and heart (Emotion). I think certainly starting with a healthy dose of doubt and critical appraisal is a healthy and normal thing. In fact I shudder at those who don’t think and follow things blindly.

[rob]

Claudia: Check back with me when I'm in dire straits or on my deathbed. I can afford to be agnostic now.

[Tamy]

Yes. There is a god. If not, we're all doomed.

Everyone has to believe in something, even if you believe that there is nothing. But if you don't believe in something as a means for further existence wouldn't it be rather depressing to know that one day you will be nothing, nonexistent....and eventually forgotten. That's just how I see it.

[qomix]

science and religion are too very different things, you cannot even compare them..
science is based on proof, of collated factual data that can be either confirmed or refuted by another party.
Religion is based on prosumtion, of the lack of factual data, and in assumption that because there is no factual data a certain course of events must have occured.. an example being: god created the universe.
religion has long been the assumption of what human beings did not understand. from early civilisation's explanations for things right through to modern times. Science because it is based on factual data is solid and real, thus making religion the flexible partner. Religion has had to re-assess itself constantly as more and more scientific achievments have been made.

Now take evolution and religion, may I point to a recent debate in an American school about the teaching of evolution. Christian creationist believe that creationism should be taught along side the theory of evolution. But by law in america any subject based on a religious proposition cannot be taught as science. Thus was born the idea of 'irreducible complexity' which was proposed as a 'breakthrough' in scientific understanding. This scienaro makes interesting reading www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
this proposed that certain microscopic organisms could simply not have evolved and therefore must have been created by a external force. But this goes against what science represents as it is thus based on assumption, and not the collection of factual data, and therefore has religious undertones, making it illegal to be taught in the school system as science.

in conclusion I would just like to state, that science does not have all the answers at the present day but to 'assume' is to denote religion not science.

P.S. I sence some tension..

[miaim]

kyuree said:

hm... some confusion...


I meant there could be two things meant by "someone who doesn't believe in God"

1) Someone who says God exists but doesn't believe in Him anyways (ppl call that an Satanist)
2) Someone who says God doesn't even exist (atheist)

imho, 'God' only exists if you believe he exists....if you don't believe he exists, then 'God' does not exist....quite simple, really....i don't understand why people complicate it all so much....



peace