I arrived at my beliefs through reason. (religious)
I chose it.
I was raised in a religion. (religious)
I arrived at my beliefs through reason. (religious)
I arrived at my beliefs through proselytization. (religious)
I arrived at my beliefs through a life changing event. (religious)
I arrived at my beliefs through other means. (religious)
I was raised without religion. (irreligious)
I arrived at my beliefs through reason. (irreligious)
I arrived at my beliefs through proselytization. (irreligious)
I arrived at my beliefs through a life changing event. (irreligious)
I arrived at my beliefs through other means. (irreligious)
I arrived at my beliefs through reason. (religious)
I chose it.
Last edited by Каие; July 25, 2010 at 10:53 AM.
Religious / irreligious - why are there no other options, say spiritual or agnostic? Also why does being raised "in a religion" rule out the possibility of "arriving at your beliefs through reason"? Funny poll, didn't find it vote-worthy though.
Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; July 28, 2009 at 02:39 PM.
I was raised Catholic and am still Catholic.
It is my great honour to have my poem Farmer in the Scriptorium here.
Pure agnostic is irreligious, spiritual is religious or irreligious depending on the precise nature of the belief.
There are no only two options: either you're religious or you're not. Agnosticism will only have to do with the extent to which you're sure about your choice, and spiritualism is distinct from religion altogether.
As for the second point, the two seem to be mutually exclusive. If you were raised in a religious fashion from when you're young, you might still be able to rationally analyse your beliefs, but you won't have arrived at it through reason, since... you already had it before you started reasoning about it...
I don't understand your concerns, really. I think it's a pretty good poll, although as I said, I think the results will be quite predictable. But that's just my pseudo-psycho-analysis of people
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
--- Mark 2:27
Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
--- Sam Harris
That's a very one-dimensional way of viewing belief systems.There are no only two options: either you're religious or you're not.
Presuming you can't appeal to young people's reason, which is a false assumption.As for the second point, the two seem to be mutually exclusive. If you were raised in a religious fashion from when you're young, you might still be able to rationally analyse your beliefs, but you won't have arrived at it through reason, since... you already had it before you started reasoning about it...
A belief system is either religious (meaning it centers around a central mythos or chronicle and foundation which governs the society of followers that it has) or irreligious (it is a personal belief which is not particularly reconcilable with any other set of beliefs people have, and it is not based on faith).
Agnosticism is never religious, ever. You can't, by definition, be a religious agnostic theist. You can however, be an irreligious agnostic theist.
Belief in a giant potato on mars is not religious, because only you believe in it, and it doesn't have any governing mythos or commands you must follow.
I came to my beliefs threw Reason, i have a family of 6 whom are all Atheists, But for awhile I was a christian, and i even came ot that belief threw the reasoning that strong atehism is IMO not only immplausible but immposible.
I am no longer Christian but i still profess to the believing in of a god.
There is no word to my knowledge for what i currently believe. What i belive is constantly changing though, what i belive today is actually very different than what i believed 3 months ago. But latley i have been using this little tidbit to explain my current belifs shortly:
God is an Inevitable.
For he is the Constant, whilst we are the Variable, In this equation we call the Universe.
I wanna lie, lie to myself, myself and someone else. Cause it’s the lying that hurts, and it’s the hurt that lets me know I’m alive.”
Grew up as a kid and whenever everything I got brief about with Christianity just went over my head as daft and implausable. I never, and will never, understand the concept of why a higher being would possibly care about humanity in any way, shape, or form. At that time i'd describe myself as a strong Atheist. Not a militant type or anything, nor was I ever one to get involved in any philosophical debate, but I was confident that God was definetly not very likely at all.I arrived at my beliefs through reason. (irreligious)
Eventually though as I got older I accepted that God (or indeed, Gods) become a perfectly viable concept when you consider that they don't care about humanity, and just serve as Creators. Hence i'd currently describe myself as Agnostic, although, i'm pretty convinced there's only two real ways for the universe to come about. Either something orientating around infinite universes that have existed indefinetly, or some Creator(s), whose priorities are unknown (and may not even have any). There's a ton of different theories I could think of, but almost all of them are just variances of those two. So basically, i'm Agnostic but totally anti-religious.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of the day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Errr, yes. That's because a beliefs system is one-dimensional by default.
"Do you have religous beliefs or not?"
That's a yes-or-no question. There is no maybe, there is no sometimes.
Does a 7-year-old get a rational analysis of the arguments and counter-arguments concerning the religious position he's growing up in? I've yet to hear of such a phenomenon.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
--- Mark 2:27
Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
--- Sam Harris
Can't you think of any other way? There are, just think.Errr, yes. That's because a beliefs system is one-dimensional by default.
"Do you have religous beliefs or not?"
That's a yes-or-no question. There is no maybe, there is no sometimes.
Err, yes he can. Just like you can teach him the basic of mathematics, you can teach him rational thoughts. Fun?Does a 7-year-old get a rational analysis of the arguments and counter-arguments concerning the religious position he's growing up in? I've yet to hear of such a phenomenon.
Last edited by Aldgarkalaughskel; July 29, 2009 at 05:54 PM.
OR... someone else convinces them, in which case it's also a matter of them being influenced. That's kind of why I don't totally agree with this poll, what to vote for is rather unclear and most people will have voted for "through reason" anyway.
Also, people may have different ideas on what reason is. To me, reason is linked to logic, and there can be no reason in the absence of logic. For others, this isn't the case. There are many who consider their religion to be above and beyond logic and who still consider that they've arrived at their conclusions through reason. (the point here being that we can say that about everything, we can say, about any other stupid/crazy/idiot/unreal system of ideas that it is above and beyond reason, and then there's no way left to determine which system is right and which is wrong - that's why I can't conceive of reason in the absence of logic; a similar reasoning goes for evidence; the huge number of existing and conflicting religions was part of my deconversion, although not one of the most important, but it did show me that pseudoarguments such as "above/outside of logic" or "doesn't need evidence/there are other ways to know than through evidence" are stupid, biased and wrong, and frankly, the mark of desperate people trying to hold on to their irrational faiths)
I'd say I have not had a religiously derived thought since I was 12 or 13. I was raised Episcopalian but never took to it much. Around 16 or so I started reading metaphysical works and that turned into reading the existentialists like Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Kafka. Somewhere along the way I was nihilistic. Generally that put me in my current philosophy of atheistic/agnostic. I do not ascribe to any church or read any theological works. I feel faith nurtures a human need for spirtuality and do not condone anyone who is religious. I despise proselytization and feel it to be an insult of my intelligence and cognitive volition. Maybe it is an overdeveloped ego or something but I put my beliefs under constant scrutiny. So my beliefs have been derived at through reason(irreligious).
Wow. So you just have to grunt "there are", to make a point. Debate over. Devestating stuff.
I think you're confusing the nature of belief systems again. It's the same as the distinction between deism, atheism, and agnosticism. Deism (with subset theism) and atheism are the only two possibilities. Agnosticism is not a belief system, it's a specification of the belief system itself.
Similarly, religious or irreligious are the only two possibilities.
The basis of mathematics? You must be joking. You learn the theoretical axioms and principles of geometry and algebra much later on.
1+1 is not the basis of mathematics, you know. The fact that the addition of numbers is commutative, for example (2 + 1 = 3 = 1 +2) is an axiom that you only learn much later. When you're seven, you have to accept it more or less 'on faith'.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a child is taught the possible logical contradictions that an omnipotent entity brings to the equation? Does he study the proofs of Aquinas? Does he get to listen to a debate between a prominent atheist and a theist?
Or does he simply get dragged to a communion (a ritual he doesn't understand) and told what to do, and he complies?
I know what it was in my case, I'd hazard a guess I know what's most likely for most as well.
Sure. Then you fill in "Religious. Arrived through my [current] belief through reason."
It doesn't even matter if you were raised religious, then dropped it, and then picked it up again. That would be, again, arriving to your [current] belief through reason.
The poll isn't asking you to sketch your entire religious or irreligious evolution.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
--- Mark 2:27
Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
--- Sam Harris
Again, a very limited way to view belief systems. There are several other ways to view and classify them, if it isn't obvious for you, that's sad.Wow. So you just have to grunt "there are", to make a point. Debate over. Devestating stuff.
I think you're confusing the nature of belief systems again. It's the same as the distinction between deism, atheism, and agnosticism. Deism (with subset theism) and atheism are the only two possibilities. Agnosticism is not a belief system, it's a specification of the belief system itself.
Similarly, religious or irreligious are the only two possibilities.
I guess you are referring to the US education, right? That is no standard for me.The basis of mathematics? You must be joking. You learn the theoretical axioms and principles of geometry and algebra much later on.
1+1 is not the basis of mathematics, you know. The fact that the addition of numbers is commutative, for example (2 + 1 = 3 = 1 +2) is an axiom that you only learn much later. When you're seven, you have to accept it more or less 'on faith'.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that a child is taught the possible logical contradictions that an omnipotent entity brings to the equation? Does he study the proofs of Aquinas? Does he get to listen to a debate between a prominent atheist and a theist?
Or does he simply get dragged to a communion (a ritual he doesn't understand) and told what to do, and he complies?
I know what it was in my case, I'd hazard a guess I know what's most likely for most as well.
Failure to state, insulting and arrogant. Good job! Unless you present those other ways which you talk about, your post is nothing more than an insulting statement which fails to make a point. My only regret is that there are idiots who actually fall for such crap. (usually, such idiots also use "arguments" with failure to state in them)
To show what failing to state does if we use it to other ideas: "It is obvious that god doesn't exist. If it isn't obvious to you, that's sad." Tada! There you go! That's a failure to state, just as your own post. If this last failure to state didn't convince you that there is no god, then you should realize that your own failure to state also shouldn't convince anyone of anything.
Me stating the obvious would deprive Tankbuster of the fun of discovering new ways of evaluating belief systems.
Yeah... and it would also:
- NOT be arrogant of you
- NOT be insulting him
- NOT be dishonest of you
- NOT make your post completely useless and irrelevant
Again, you've failed to state and you were arrogant and insulting. Your view is not supported, so in the discussion between the two of you, on that particular thread, Tank is currently the one with the valid arguments.
Woops, what happened to your statement that the distinction between religious and irreligious was somehow limited? Now you're backpedalling to "new ways of evaluating". While resorting to more hand-waving. As usual.
No. I would be surprised if the US education even knew about the theoretical axioms and principles that constitute the basis of mathematics.
Before you start dodging again, I'm referring to commutativity and anticommutativity, association, distributivity and linear and vector spaces. And then the links with multidimensional geometry and matrix-calculation.
Now, I don't know where you got your education, but that wasn't covered in seventh grade. In fact, this theoretical basis is exactly what I had to learn for my last exams at university, albeit expanded more.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
--- Mark 2:27
Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
--- Sam Harris
Now you're dodging again.