Poll: Your religious beliefs

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

Thats all us atheists want. Give us something to apologise for. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, but IMO, if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us.

Acording to Riddley Scott and Prometheus, we are the degree's Final Project of some aliens.

Agnostic-atheist here.

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed" - Carl Sagan.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Whilst I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, I think there's probably no such thing. Therefore agnostic-atheist. Science/psychology has pointed in the the direction of God being nothing more than a man-made concept.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us.
[/QUOTE]

Brilliantly put. Probably the most clever and accurate thing you've ever said here.

[QUOTE] [b]Day dop wrote:[/b] Agnostic-atheist here. "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed" - Carl Sagan. Seems reasonable enough to me. Whilst I cannot prove that God doesn't exist, I think there's probably no such thing. Therefore agnostic-atheist. Science/psychology has pointed in the the direction of God being nothing more than a man-made concept. [/QUOTE] Bang on. Speaking of brilliant scientists, behold the excellence and accuracy:

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

I have an appreciation for Buddhism as Buddhists do not worship a deity, its about the inner self, it is very intriguing. But they believe in re incarnation and that fucks it all up :-([/QUOTE]
Buddism evolved out of Hinduism, and like Hinduism (in its earliest form), Buddha formulated his philosophy on the basis of his observations and mediatational experiences.
While the "father(s)" (we don't even know who exactly - its that ancient) of Hinduism concluded there is a Supreme deity, Buddha concluded there is none.
While Hinduism teaches that ultimately the aatma becomes one with the universe (moksha), Buddha taught we are reduced to nothingness (Nirvana). The way I see it, different interpretations of the same experience. And I am Hindu because I am more convinced by Hindu philosophy (being born in a Hindu family helped, ofcourse).

Coming to re-incarnation (common to both Hindu and Buddhist faith systems), maybe you have a incorrect understanding of this because you think about it from a mythological or maybe an Abrahamic view-point.
If you think of it like energy changing forms, it may make more sense. The aatma (not to be confused with soul- aatma does not go anywhere to "rest in peace" when you die) is the "energy" which changes its form in this case.


[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]

What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?[/QUOTE]

That makes you a deist, similar to Jefferson.[/QUOTE]

Actually, thats is what I have come to belive as well. And it does not conflict with my Hindu beliefs.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

if after all this time - with famine, disease, war, natural disasters and the like - some deity finally decides to show itself, it won't be non-believers who owe an apology to that deity but that deity who owes an apology (and an explanation) to all of us.
[/QUOTE]

Brilliantly put. Probably the most clever and accurate thing you've ever said here.[/QUOTE]

Thought provoking, indeed. I'm gonna save that quote.

Atheism doesn't entail that the individual is certain a higher power doesn't exist - it just means they see nothing that gives them any reason to believe it does.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

[QUOTE] [b]Jefffabiano wrote:[/b]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. [/QUOTE]


Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

Nukes are better

[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

I have an appreciation for Buddhism as Buddhists do not worship a deity, its about the inner self, it is very intriguing. But they believe in re incarnation and that fucks it all up :-([/QUOTE]
Buddism evolved out of Hinduism, and like Hinduism (in its earliest form), Buddha formulated his philosophy on the basis of his observations and mediatational experiences.
While the "father(s)" (we don't even know who exactly - its that ancient) of Hinduism concluded there is a Supreme deity, Buddha concluded there is none.
While Hinduism teaches that ultimately the aatma becomes one with the universe (moksha), Buddha taught we are reduced to nothingness (Nirvana). The way I see it, different interpretations of the same experience. And I am Hindu because I am more convinced by Hindu philosophy (being born in a Hindu family helped, ofcourse).

Coming to re-incarnation (common to both Hindu and Buddhist faith systems), maybe you have a incorrect understanding of this because you think about it from a mythological or maybe an Abrahamic view-point.
If you think of it like energy changing forms, it may make more sense. The aatma (not to be confused with soul- aatma does not go anywhere to "rest in peace" when you die) is the "energy" which changes its form in this case.


[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]pittrek wrote:[/b]

What am I if I think (think does not equal believe) that this all was created by a higher intelligence, but I don't believe that somebody is still controlling it?[/QUOTE]

That makes you a deist, similar to Jefferson.[/QUOTE]

Actually, thats is what I have come to belive as well. And it does not conflict with my Hindu beliefs.

[/QUOTE]


You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe.

See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle.
The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state.

For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there.
The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell.

[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]

You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe.

See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle.
The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state.

For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there.
The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell.
[/QUOTE]

I find all of this (and the previous posts) fascinating, truly. But I'm left feeling as I usually do, that since no one knows what, if anything, exists beyond this life, then it's this life we need to live. No guilt about not behaving as we're told some invisible entity would have us behave, not harming others for believing something different or for not believing at all, not living for the ever-after reward but for the moment and for the pleasures of the here and now. It's so sad to think so many people spend this life thinking about the next when, for all they know, this is all there is... and then all the stars will be wasted...

[QUOTE] [b]Doga wrote:[/b]
You'll be surprised between the concept of reincarnation of Buddishm and the theory of Cyclic model of the Universe.

See, for eastern religions, time is cyclic, ''a circle'', it always returns to the same point, over and over, thing changes but the time return to the same spot. It reborns in a neverending cycle.
The cyclic model says after the big bang, the universe expand till certain point, at that point, gravity will make the entire universe return to the initial state.

For western religions, like Christianism and Judaism, the time is a line, not a circle, that means nothing can return to previous states, there is no reborn, after life, souls go to the afterlife (heaven, hell, purgatory) and stay there.
The Big Freeze theory says exactly that, Universe is in evolution spreading itself from the starting point, in the end, the universe will be a place without light, and without heat, the whole universe will have a temperature of zero absolute, and all the stars will be wasted, in other words, a hell.
[/QUOTE]
The way I understand it, re-incarnation is different to the cyclic model of the Universe/time.
Re-incarnation deals with only the aatma (which is present only within living beings) while the Universe is not restricted.
Maybe I can surprise you by saying that Hinduism already has a theory on the Universe/time being cyclic. Hindu scriptures divide time into 4 parts known as Yugas, which together cover billions of years, and at the end of the fourth Yuga, the cycle repeats again.

And, I guess you'll also find it interesting to know that Hinduism does not have a Garden of Eden or a dramatic "Let There be Light" moment, but it does hint towards evolution-

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mUPIlZOgHRk/UNXitQBqtBI/AAAAAAAAAw8/AdEl0NFNjqo/s1600/390298_304352723004672_420127606_n.jpg

The above graphic tells about some of the various "avatars" in which Lord Vishnu appeared in this universe at critical points in time.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]
I find all of this (and the previous posts) fascinating, truly. But I'm left feeling as I usually do, that since no one knows what, if anything, exists beyond this life, then it's this life we need to live. No guilt about not behaving as we're told some invisible entity would have us behave, not harming others for believing something different or for not believing at all, not living for the ever-after reward but for the moment and for the pleasures of the here and now. It's so sad to think so many people spend this life thinking about the next when, for all they know, this is all there is... and then all the stars will be wasted...
[/QUOTE]
This is where the Indic religions (Hinduism and its off-shoots -Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc) are different. There is no judgement day, no after-life, fear of heaven or hell. Hinduism even has had the concept of Atheism within its various schools of thought, believe it or not.
What we do have, is the here and now; and that is the most important concept in Hinduism - Karma.