Religion

[iNeo 0]

What do you prefer?

[EiZei 0]

You forgot us agnostics.

[iNeo 0]

You have Other for those things I don't know the meaning of.

[Donnervogel 0]

Atheism kinda... close to nihilism though....

[iNeo 0]

Yeah I looked it up, now I have to look nihilism up too though.

[Donnervogel 0]

hmm not sure if that got misunderstood... what I had written was about me ;)

[red oct 2]

athiest. i abandoned my faith a long time ago.

[iNeo 0]

hmm not sure if that got misunderstood... what I had written was about me ;)

Oh. Anyway I'd say nihilism is a philosophy rathar than a religion.

Although it may be an outlook on life just like religions are in many ways, so... yeah.

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]hmm not sure if that got misunderstood... what I had written was about me ;)

Oh. Anyway I'd say nihilism is a philosophy rathar than a religion.

Well all religion is philosphy for me. I see no special status for religion there. (Not to confuse with religious institutions)

Religion is an attempt to explain the unexplainable... and deriving from that "philosophy" people elaborate codes of conduct or similar things. But the heart of every religion is a phlosophical belief.

[denoir 0]

I selected atheist in the poll, but I'm actually more agnostic. The term "agnostic" is often misused though - often people think that it means that you believe in some form of undefined higher power. And that's completely misusing the term.

Atheism

An atheist denies the existance of gods/dieties.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the viewthat the existence of gods or deities is either unknown or inherently unknowable.

The latter is the only view compatible with the scientific methods. If there will ever be undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence of the existance of some higher power, then I'll believe it. Right now, it's a very unlikely and completely unproven hypothesis.

I dismiss religions that make claims that are incompatible with the laws of nature and empirically proven models.

So basically, I put the same demands on religion as on anything else that tries to explain the world. So far religion hasn't delievered anything.

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]The latter is the only view compatible with the scientific methods.

If I would scientifically analyse the anything that is covered by religion I would take the viewpoint of an agnostic too... but if you ask me what I believe... then my terribly biased opinion is the atheistic one, well I go a bit further than classical atheists but I don't know any term for it.. so I see it as atheism close to nihilism ;)

[bonko the sane 1]

in my opinion Mankind should have abandoned these archaich beliefs long ago, religion is a load of hocus pocus, and very unproductive at that.

If any of you studied history of religions, ancient history...or have some common sense for that matter, you should not believe in primitive beliefs that were manipulated by certain parties, religion undoubtedly served its purpose, but its now obsolete...but it still keeps billions with their eyes closed

[Harnu 0]

Other: Agnostic.

[cozza 16]

I'm nothin. I failed every religiuos subject at my old school and they didnt like me saying the lords name in a swearing mean. So now I'm a little junkie at public school

[iNeo 0]

Sure, religion's no longer necessary for most people, but a lot of things aren't and we still use them of various reasons. Like donnervogel said, religion is often a lot of philosophy, a way to look at life. IMO that's about all that religion can serve as today, while it in the early days was the way to explain things science couldn't.

I'm mostly an atheist but I am interested in Asatru, the ancient Norse mythology, and I feel much more kinship with it than with Christianity that was forced upon my ancestors, because it was theirs and it's my heritage.

[Llauma 0]

There's really no way to rule out a God or what ever you wish to call a higher being with science because if there's a God he/she/it could exist on a level which is nothing we can see, touch or measure. A deer can't see colours and it can't prove in anyway that colours exists but I doubt anyone of us would argue against the fact that different colours exists.

Religion on the otherhand is another question.. I doubt if there's a God that he would give a damn about if some moving pieces of carbohydrate would visit the church on sundays or not.

Faith can do alot of good things and it doesn't have to be true either if you just believe. If I would believe in God on my deathbed and I believe that I have lived a good life so heaven awaits, it really doesn't matter if it all ends up being just stories. When I die I might either be right and end up in heaven or the lights would just go out and I would never have the chance to regret my believes or get disappointed.

[raedor 8]

i'm a protestant christian.

i do it like i learnt in physics... ( ) i believe in the quantum theory until it is disproved. i believe in god until he is disproved.

[Bernadotte 0]

If there will ever be undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence of the existance of some higher power, then I'll believe it.

In other words, God is believable as soon as it can be defined by science and math and not just by religion.  I agree, but as soon as God meets all those conditions we will simply call it something else like aurora borealis, thunder, a burning bush etc...

Denoir, would you call the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence a religion because it seeks a higher power for which there is yet no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?  Or is there?

Do you believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there is no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?

Btw, I'm happily agnostic, but I would never claim that religion hasn't delievered anything.  I doubt that even scientific knowledge has affected our lives more that people's belief in God, regardless of whether God exists.

[denoir 0]

Denoir, would you call the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence a religion because it seeks a higher power for which there is yet no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?  Or is there?

While I havn't read it in detail, it seems to me more like they are naive idealist. I would not call it a religion.

Definition:

Quote[/b] ]

n.

1. a)Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b)A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Their hopes do not involve any supernatural powers, they seem to be just talking about a technological tool.

Quote[/b] ]Do you believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there is no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?

That's a difficult one. Do I believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Yes, I am inclined to believe so. Do I think it is a fact? No, absolutely not. I think it is a reasonable, but yet unproven hypothesis.

And again, it doesn't quite qualify as religion as it doesn't involve any supranatural powers. Also, unlike with religion, we have one very solid data point - Earth. While it isn't enough to extrapolate to the rest of the universe, it's a starting point. We know that life exists at least on one place in the universe. We know for observation that the laws of nature apply everywhere. So it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that like on Earth the conditions for life were good somewhere else. It's a very big universe and assuming that our models of how life is created are correct, the probability of the same conditions arising somewhere else is favourable.

[Llauma 0]

Do you believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe even though there is no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?

That's not really the same as believing in a God. It's more like a logical conclusion based of science. It's like if I would decide to close my eyes while driving from Stockholm to Gothenburg. Will I crash? That can't possibly be proven without me doing the test but I certainly believe I will.

[denoir 0]

There's really no way to rule out a God or what ever you wish to call a higher being with science because if there's a God he/she/it could exist on a level which is nothing we can see, touch or measure. A deer can't see colours and it can't prove in anyway that colours exists but I doubt anyone of us would argue against the fact that different colours exists.

The obvious question is then: if we can't feel it, touch it, taste it, measure it in any way, is it relevant?

If it can't be measured in any way, then it can hardly affect us or anything within our physical reality. And if we can't measure it, then we can't ever prove or disprove its existance. We can't be aware of it in any way. So is it relevant?

The problem with religions is that they often make claims that wander into the "measurable domain" - i.e they tell of gods interfereing with our very measurable physical reality. And that's easily disproved. The Bible claims that there was a great flood covering all of earth, but geological evidence says otherwise. The Bible also says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is obviously refuted by measurements.

Now of course, reasonable Christians have let their faith evolve in light of scientific discoveries - and brought it to a more abstract level. One should not read the bible literally and so on.. But that brings us right back to my first point - once it becomes completely abstract and not measurable in any way - is it really relevant? And I'm not talking about religion as a psychological motivation tool, but as a universal way of explaining the universe.

[Kegetys 2]

Also, unlike with religion, we have one very solid data point - Earth.

Don't we also have a much larger solid data point - our universe and this dimension. Thus wouldn't it would be reasonable to assume that other universes, and other dimensions with totally different "laws of nature" exist? How could we ever observe a world using scientific means with no concepts such as matter, time, energy, etc.? Wouldn't it also make some sense to think that our universe, which has this thing we call "time", would originate from a world where time doesn't exist because time requires some sort of starting point. I think many religions say their gods are "infinite", so they might exist in such alternative dimension.

Quote[/b] ]The obvious question is then: if we can't feel it, touch it, taste it, measure it in any way, is it relevant?

It seems to be as otherwise we propably would not be having this discussion here  

[Harnu 0]

If it can't be measured in any way, then it can hardly affect us or anything within our physical reality. And if we can't measure it, then we can't ever prove or disprove its existance. We can't be aware of it in any way. So is it relevant?

Sorry for going slightly off-topic here. But one of the things I've wondered was kind of sparked by this. We have five senses, we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. Is there a sixth, seventh, or more definable senses we simply o not have? Such as, can a person who's been blind since birth comprehend what sight really is? What about something that simply does not have eyes or any way to see. Is there something we're missing and because so we cannot even comprehend, effecting how we may measure our physical reality?

Anyway, just a little off-topic thing that's been rattling around my head for years.

[Bernadotte 0]

Denoir, would you call the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence a religion because it seeks a higher power for which there is yet no undisputable, verifiable and repeatable empirical evidence?  Or is there?

While I havn't read it in detail, it seems to me more like they are naive idealist. I would not call it a religion.

They work in anticipation of man being able to create something with greater intelligence than man. Theoretically, whatever they create would then be able to create something more intelligent than itself and so on... and so on... It is the unknowable product of such an endless cycle that they fear and hope to control. Unlike the creators of the atom bomb, the singularity theorists have no idea where this could lead.

It all just reminds me of early religions that whorshipped dieties out of fear of the unknown at a time when things like rainfall were considered supernatural phenomena.

[Bernadotte 0]

Such as, can a person who's been blind since birth comprehend what sight really is?

Interesting. Some fellow on the BBC was just saying that most adults who are blind from birth and then somehow gain their eyesight later in life regard the experience as quite awful and terrifying.