Anyone religious on here

[lookin4areason]

I am Christian (Catholic) and actually my faith is very important to me. it means everything to me. it's the one hope I cling to, not so much for this life but for the next. all I really want to do is go Home. where I can finally find happiness and peace. a place where I can belong and be loved. In recent months I've been praying more as i'm preparing to hopefully go Home soon. I have to believe that His love and compassion will outweigh the "sin" of taking things into my own hands. I have to believe more in His love than His anger. I have to believe that He will accept me. If he doesn't, then there's no hope at all and I guess i'm screwed either way live or die. but for me my faith is a hope I hold onto for a much better life not of this world.

 

[Jenna]

I am Christian (Catholic) and actually my faith is very important to me. it means everything to me. it's the one hope I cling to, not so much for this life but for the next. all I really want to do is go Home. where I can finally find happiness and peace. a place where I can belong and be loved. In recent months I've been praying more as i'm preparing to hopefully go Home soon. I have to believe that His love and compassion will outweigh the "sin" of taking things into my own hands. I have to believe more in His love than His anger. I have to believe that He will accept me. If he doesn't, then there's no hope at all and I guess i'm screwed either way live or die. but for me my faith is a hope I hold onto for a much better life not of this world.

I was raised Christian and I could not have said this better. I believe he knows my heart. This isn't a fast decision and something I pray about often.

 

[gingerplum]

I am a staunch atheist. Agree with @GlowingCactus on reference to Russell's flying teapot, but I would say OPs statement would be more accurately reflected by Pascal's Wager.

 

[Lefty]

I was raised Catholic, but I'm agnostic now. From a scientific standpoint it would seem there is no God, but weirder things have happended. There could be anything out there in an infinite universe.

 

[Titania]

Yes, I am a Christian. It's hard to believe I guess that a Christian would be on a website like this because many of us are taught to believe that life is precious. So many are pro-life rather than pro-choice. We aren't perfect though. I've realized that for myself and been afraid to die by my own hands due to enternal punishment because as said in the Bible that we don't choose when we die. It's because our bodies are like a temple and we are creations of God. As much as I believe in my God, I feel much empathy for the people in here and people in the world who feel painful; feeling like they are suffering from illness or feel they don't have purpose. Im dealing with the same thoughts of wanting to die for the purpose of not suffering anymore and running away from the trials of life that are hard and don't feel worth living through.

 

[OfficerK]

I am a staunch atheist. Agree with @GlowingCactus on reference to Russell's flying teapot, but I would say OPs statement would be more accurately reflected by Pascal's Wager.

I agree. In my opinion, the problem with Pascal wager is that for all we know, God may actually be actively trying to confuse us into making the wrong decision - rather than rewarding those who follow him by granting them access to heaven, he instead does the opposite and chooses those who make the choice not to. This possibility, combined with the fact that you wouldn't know what religion to pick, makes his idea useless under current circumstances.

 

[gingerplum]

I agree. In my opinion, the problem with Pascal wager is that for all we know, God may actually be actively trying to confuse us into making the wrong decision - rather than rewarding those who follow him by granting them access to heaven, he instead does the opposite and chooses those who make the choice not to. This possibility, combined with the fact that you wouldn't know what religion to pick, makes his idea useless under current circumstances.

Thank you, @OfficerK. I enjoy your comments and wish you'd chime in more often.

I have often asked, what kind of god would use "trickery" as a test of faith? Furthermore, why would an omniscient god would accept "choosing" to believe out of fear that it's the best option? Wouldn't he know the difference between merely posturing vs actual faith?

It makes no sense.

Thomas Jefferson said:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

 

[waived]

I don't believe in gods because in my searches on the topic I haven't discovered any evidence that such things exist. What I did discover was human history including a lineage of various religions all tied to human, terrestrial happenings, specific to the era they occur in, and in how and why they are created and changed (by humans). Gods simply never make an appearance.

 

[gingerplum]

Agnosticism really is the only reasonable position. Nobody knows either way and and it's just an arrogant circlerjerk of opinions from both ends of some argument that ignores the infinite possibilities in between.

Respectfully disagree. I see Agnosticism as the fence-sitter's way of hedging one's bets, or the 'easy out' of pleading ignorance.

Atheism does not make a claim of "knowing". The prefix A means without; atheism is to be without theistic faith. The premise of atheism is to suggest that you lack a belief; it's not professing to "know" anything.

I think it's ridiculous to even have to state that I lack a belief in the face of zero evidence; I don't have to provide a similar explanation for alchemy or astrology because it's assumed that rational people have eschewed such beliefs.

How do I know? I don't. I just don't believe. That is a completely reasonable position. I don't know that there isn't a tiny polar bear living in the crisper drawer of my refrigerator, but I don't believe that there is.

On the other hand, when otherwise rational, intellectually honest people say, "I don't know, but I don't want to rule out the infinite landscape of beautiful possibilities," it's really worse in a way, because statements like that from religious moderates and apologists lend creedence to religious extremism.

Furthermore, I think that to be certain that the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipercipient creator of the universe has a vested interest in me--my existence, my importance, and my well-being-- is, by definition, the height of arrogance, especially in the face of the general human condition. That is simply jaw-dropping hubris to me.

What you're essentially asking is that I accept the possibility that the fevered dreams of scientifically illiterate people from over 2000 years ago are true, or partially true, despite an absolute lack of evidence. You might call that arrogance; I call it healthy skepticism stemming from critical thinking.

As Carl Sagan would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Misanthrope]

I am not religious myself. I don't particularly begrudge those who are religious either. If they are respectful of others then I am happy they have faith that is meaningful. Where that changes is when it is weaponised in some form, shaming others and violating others choices. Then it simply becomes my enemy like any other philosophy, ideology or faith, that behaves that way.

 

[gingerplum]

This isn't remotely true but it's what people who choose one belief or the other want to think. Acknowledging what one does not know or cannot know isn't "copping out". I am not hedging anything nor making any bets. I just do not know...and for some reason so many have a hard time saying that about anything. The easy way out is pretending you know something because it makes you feel safe or in control...and that goes for both ends.

I actually went to extensive lengths to explain that there's no claim in atheism to "know" anything. I also didn't use the verbiage "copping out," as it has a subtle but different connotation than an "easy out".

Reading really is fundamental.

 

[gingerplum]

Ok you are in one of those fighting moods again today. My mistake. I'm out.

I expected nothing less.

If you change your mind and want to pencil me in on any other thoughts, I'm cool with that.

 

[Salvacion]

I am Christian (Catholic) and actually my faith is very important to me. it means everything to me. it's the one hope I cling to, not so much for this life but for the next. all I really want to do is go Home. where I can finally find happiness and peace. a place where I can belong and be loved. In recent months I've been praying more as i'm preparing to hopefully go Home soon. I have to believe that His love and compassion will outweigh the "sin" of taking things into my own hands. I have to believe more in His love than His anger. I have to believe that He will accept me. If he doesn't, then there's no hope at all and I guess i'm screwed either way live or die. but for me my faith is a hope I hold onto for a much better life not of this world.

My sentiments precisely. I just know I am causing more grief for my loved ones that if I were gone.

 

[ParamitePie]

In my opinion, what we consider religion is nothing more than a school of philosophy which was sufficiently successful that it was granted a mandate of absolute truth by whole populations. The supernatural ethos of religions is generally present simply to entice adherents to act in accordance with teachings, and ward them away from acting against its teachings. If you commit an act contrary to the teachings of Taoism, bad things will happen to you, as you've strayed from the way, so don't do those things. Likewise, if you commit a sin according to Islam, you will be judged for knowingly committing an act which is harmful to yourself, and/or your community. People have problems accepting the fact that a philosophical school disapproves of their actions, but every belief system requires such parameters, as they're fundamentally useless without them. After all, what good is a law - even a moral one - without some degree of self-evident punitive measure attached to it?

With that said, you can only approach religion from the perspective of its philosophical nature, as only the most foolhardy religious practitioner pretends that theirs is a scientific discipline. It's a ridiculous idea that they should even try, as it's no different from scientists suddenly pretending to be arbiters of morality and ethics. While they might occasionally intersect, science and philosophy should not be expected to coincide all the time, as they're two completely separate disciplines. An example of what I mean might be this; "Equality is illogical and spurious, as individuals aren't biologically identical organisms. Since we have absolutely no evidence to support the claim of equality as a fact, we should therefore disregard it as a value." We'd all disagree with this as a value statement, but we can't really disagree with it from a position of hard science.

To wrap up, I'd argue that the universality of religious belief, across all cultures and time periods, indicates that people require a belief in something greater than themselves (even if it's a utopian materialist ideology, such as Communism) to continue thriving. Why people desperately feel the need to fling crap at others for following a school of philosophy which they don't particularly care for is beyond me, especially on a site like this one. Surprising as it might be, people find solace in the thought that something better awaits them after this hell on earth. I, for one, am unsure and unconvinced by the claims of rival schools, but I'd like it if one of them were correct.