Which best describes your theological views?

Post Reply New Topic

And there is a possibility that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth an Mars, but, just like God, there is no evidence for it.

Yes, there are many many possibilities. What one takes as evidence ends up being the question there though and that falls back to assumptions. If we reduce away all assumptions then there is no evidence for anything. The more assumptions we make, the more we can possibly see. Apparently he may have made an assumption that demanded a deity. You didn't. Oh well, there is no evidence that religion is even important or a lack thereof is even important.

That is my point. I agree there is no evidence (or at least that there may not be evidence).

It was a decision, more than an assumption. I actually try to make very few assumptions. (I am a nominalist.) My belief was simply a choice or preference. I admit I might be incorrect in any of my assumptions.

As to religion, there is no such thing. It is simply a word - defined variously and then applied to social constructions which conform to the definitions.

You decided to assume the existence of a deity. The major difference that you point to is that you are claiming you assume to assume rather than you assume because you are led to assume. Either way we are probably beating around the bush.

You must be really fun at parties given that you attempt to translate every phrasing using some postmodern gobbletygook. I really don't care for this postmodern trash though. The social constructions we refer to when we state "religion" exist, therefore, because "religion" stands for these social constructions, it must exist. Or in other terms, if we define X as being equal to something, then if we refer to X then we refer to this something or vice versa. Really though, this is just some foolish debate and I don't think I will reply to any counterargument as I don't see how your point, if it exists, has anything to do with knowledge.

My belief in a Deity is nonrational (not irrational).



I know you don't like it. However, I have no problem being called a "postmodernist," though I prefer poststructuralist or social constructionist.



IMO, you exist, and I exist. Concepts are simply collections of names or words we use to construct our experiences.

I choose pantheism. It was hard to pick between agnosticism and pantheism. I really needed another option: Mysticism.

mYsticism has appeared in all religions I ever heard of. It is present in Native American and other aboriginal religions. It is present in all the great world religions. I am aware of agnostic mystics. Is it possible that some atheists are mystics too.

There must be something beyond the event horizon, something that travells faster than the speed of sound. Even in quantum mechanics, physicists have notieed "particles" being in two places at the same time. I would like to have some sense of what that mysterious "other" is. My religion does't help me. I have probably looked at yours--it doesn't help me either. Mystics know something, I don't know what it is. Maybe its not "something" maybe its "something else" But I want in on it!

Is there a "Mysticism" topic in therse forums? Does anyone want to start one? Should I start one?

i now fully consider myself agnostic

The Buddhisms (including Zen Buddhism) are, for the most part, atheistic or nontheistic.

I would describe myself as a naturalist, which is bit of a stronger statement than atheist, but one always has to look on what level such questions are asked.
Epistemologically: Agnostic, since I agree that the question or supernatural forces/being can never be fully resolved.(Only as far as I'm agnostic about the already mentioned Russell's teapot or the FSM)
Practically: Atheist. I agree that there's no verifiable evidence suggesting the existence of any supernatural power, so I don't think that such a thing exists, so I voted for atheist.

Agnostic/atheist. (Shortshort post, wow. But how much am I supposed to say here? Still, I feel dirty...)

I put down monotheist. I have some really traditional beliefs, along with some really modern ones. I still believe in science though.

I put pantheism because it's all confusing. I don't really consider myself agnostic anymore. I believe many relgions share a common view of god when it comes to monotheism. What gets me is a lot of us know that science is involved in everything yet we tend to keep that seperate from spirituality. Science is used by seeing or trying to manipulate what's in front of us and to find out how it all works. I've asked myself for a long time, what's behind all of this science, nothing? Why scientifically, is there a need for any life to sustain? This is why I think religion has been debated for so many years because we can't answere this question. Religion I think is different than spirituality. Religion is what faith you were brought up from. It is institutions to express belief in a divine power. Spiritaulity for me is the faith in something greater beyond are comprehension and understanding. I don't believe there is a right or wrong but it makes me wonder why ppl try to disprove by science or approve by a written book. Again, I don't think there is a right or wrong.

You know I noticed agnosticism and atheism are the highest.

Agnosticism and monotheism are the highest. Atheism is a close third.

I would say "pantheism", although I consider the difference between "pantheism" & "atheism" a mostly semantic distinction.

After all, what's the difference between "the universe is one giant mind" (the pantheist position) and "the universe is one giant computer" (the atheist position), when you really look at the implications?