<p>I'm Lutheran (ELCA). But many of my ideas of God and faith don't match exactly with any specific church. I'm also what you would call either a very very liberal republican who would have voted for Kerry if I was old enough or a semi conservative democrat. I guess politics and religion don't always have to "match". I like the bumper sticker that says "God isn't a republican or a democrat!"</p>
<p>That's what pis.ses me off. If there was no religion, no concept of God, etc., there would essentially be no Republican party. Of course, something else would likely be in the place of religion and different conflicting situations would most definitely arise, but it just irritates me that so many Christians are Republican simply because Christians are almost suppose to be Republicans. I have several friends who clearly have quite liberal viewpoints on some of todays most controversial issues (i.e. abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.), yet still declare themselves as belonging to the Republican party -- a party which overall does not support any of the aforementioned issues. In my opinion, politics would ideally be completely separate from the influences of religion -- staying true to the entire "separation of church and state" matter. Of course, that is ideally. Religion will always have an influence over almost all affairs in one way or another, seeing as religion is a part of people.</p>
<p>*I think that religion and the concept of God is something humans made up completely on their own. * Thinking that there might be some higher power watching out for us all is simply comforting, and comfort is something we as humans need, particularly when in desparate situtations, which is where it all originated.</p>
<p>Yacityack: Your answers are circular arguments that beg the questions. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>"Masters are also supposed to show love and compassion to their slaves." There were compassionate slavemasters during the pre-Civil war period. Does that make slavery any more right? How can you possibly consider any form of slavery "humanitarian"? Religion was used to justify slavery and the inferiority of dark skinned individuals in general (Ham's punishment for seeing Noah naked, marked with darker skin and announced: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren."). Like the question stated, under no circumstances is slavery an acceptable institution in society (especially in one where the individuals preach compassion for all). Based on your argument, so long as reverence was expressed, slavery should still be an allowed function of society today.</p></li>
<li><p>If the happiness in heaven is unfathomable and a place where you can be with god, why do say for instance, people praise god when they survive a car accident? Is that not his way of punishing you by making it that much longer that you cannot truly be with him?</p></li>
<li><p>I don't need to refute this argument since you already highlighted the flaw presented in the very question: "The consequence of not following God is in fact eternal separation from him, which is probably the best example that we have of what Hell is like." This fear of hell is utilized as a tool by churches: they claim you have free will, but any view that opposes their view (and some even claim that ONLY their view is correct) is a one way ticket to hell.</p></li>
<li><p>If you were a mass murderer today but repented all your sins, you're supposedly allowed to go to this "heaven." god is merciless to grant these individuals the time to repent but this same merciless god does not show some compassion for kids who in their innocence as youths, called a "prophet" bald? Why not send bears today to murder serial rapists? Are their crimes not worse than kids' words?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The list goes on and on but I'd like to jump to the last point:</p>
<ol>
<li>You've only provided support for the argument presented. Wars are fought on religious basis all the time. Even look at the current war in Iraq that perpetuates the notion that the Orientals, specifically Muslims/Arabs, are inferior and backwards and can't achieve democracy on their own. The rhetoric that Bush constantly repeats, how democracy must be "forced" on these individuals and how they're incapable of doing it on their own is a condescending approach rooted in history of the idea that Westerners, who are predominantly christian, are superior to their backwards Islamic counterparts who have in their history represented a latecoming challenge to Christianity-Edward Said (Islam and the West).<br></li>
</ol>
<p>On a side: Does anyone love how individuals have profited off of a societys devotion to a belief and taken religion to Hollywood? More so today in Kanye Wests jesus walks song and Gibsons passions movie, for instance, which local churches around my neighborhood arranged meetings to watch collectively?</p>
<p>I personally choose to believe in reality and live for the moment, not for the possibility of some hypothetical reward offered supposedly to those who follow in the archaic words concocted by some individuals who lived in the time of kings and emperors. I reject the social construct of religion.</p>
<p>im an athiest, i have no religion.</p>
<p>How is this different from agnosticism? I know there are subtle differences but this sounds like agnosticism's overriding philosophy.
Anyone else find it interesting that someone who argues from the perspective of "not a theist or atheist... but from a completely neutral position", using logic, adopts the position of agnosticism? (refer to my large block of text a page or two back =P)</p>
<p>Yeah, this does seem very much like agnosticism, huh? On the surface it is, but there is a distinction that separates it. This is where I think the faith argument comes in. Notice that I said that there is no way to logically prove the existance or non-existance of god... well there isn't, but for someone with faith (one way or the other), it is almost as good as fact. There is certainly no argument for the belief, but one can believe it nonetheless.</p>
<p>And second, I really dislike unluckycharms' definition of agnosticism (google isn't a dictionary ;))... e.g. it isn't so much a philosophical belief as it is a theological one, and I think that whole "insuperable limitations" stuff is a bunch of bs. An agnostic is, in the general sense, one who is not committed to believing in either the existance or non-existance of a god. And as I pointed out above, my statement is not at all agnosticism.</p>
<p>* they claim you have free will, but any view that opposes their view (and some even claim that ONLY their view is correct) is a one way ticket to hell.*</p>
<p>I would just like to say to this that religion is not fundamentalist protestantism.</p>
<p>And on the slavery issue - just by the simple fact of mentioning slavery, the Bible is not advocating it. Of course slavery was as wrong then as it is now, but those were different times, and slavery was acceptable.</p>
<p>But the bible was used to support slavery and the very idea that the English had prior to their first encounters with Africans that they were the inferior race. It was given based on the notion that the bible passed on- that servants would be labeled through darker skins. Did the people then not support the same god, pray to the same god, revere the same god as you do today? Why are these darker skin people a part of mainstream society in defiance of the bible- the words of god? Are they not cursed to become servants as the descendants of Ham's generation- who bore mixed children? Why are there dark skinned bosses and teachers in our society- that is not a position of servitude, especially when they are the bosses and teachers of white individuals.</p>
<p>So what if the Bible was used to support slavery? Religion has been used to support many immoral things throughout the course of history - doesn't mean that the religion is actually teaching those things.
And why do the actions of people disprove the existance of god? It may prove their own stupidity or immorality, but nothing else.</p>
<p>Because I am agnostic, I face much intolerance. Last night, they burned a question mark in front of my house.</p>
<p>But if the bible is the word of god, then the issue of slavery should not even be questioned as right or wrong, it should be an accepted norm of society- these dark skinned people are in defiance of god by rising beyond the position of servitude- should we as a society rise up against them and place them back in the position that they belong because this is not how god wanted things? Why should man be blamed for merely continuing the path and listening to the ideals that god has bestowed unto them via the bible?</p>
<p>Everyone here is entrenched in their own beliefs and I don't think anyone will change their beliefs based on the words of strangers on an online forum that's suppose to be about colleges in general. Religion has both its high and its low point and in the end, its how you perceive and utilize religion that ultimately matters. Some desire the comfort that religion provides for the unknown. Others desire evidence before taking a leap into faith, and don't need religion as an explanation or a tool of measurement to know whats right or wrong. Religion has its low points. For instance, former secretary of interior, Watts, advocated pollution on the grounds of religion (he argued pollution didn't matter because Jesus was coming back to destroy earth anyways). Religion has its high points also. It has a way of bringing society together and provide humanitarian aid, like helping out the local homeless people with free lunches. Looking at the bigger picture, everyone will have their own position, whether they support the idea of a greater being to justify their meaning or whether they reject the notion because it has so much of a hypothetical base, and no one group will know which is more right than the other. I think the intent of the OP was to see if religion has any correlation with academic success and to that the answer is no.</p>
<p>Interesting post to read... I'm agnostic and enjoy hearing the arguments on both sides. If I were to have a religion it would probably be deism. I don't think I could ever believe in the Christian god. </p>
<p>Anyway, this post has actually kept the logic and debate and not fallen into the who's arrogant and who is ignorant speel. Who-hoo everyone! See, I think you all have proven some original posters wrong. I think there is value in debating even the things that can not be proved.</p>
<p>Keep philosophizing!</p>
<p>Hinduism by faith, agnostic by nature.</p>
<p>i'm agnostic/atheiest (i know that kind of contradicts)</p>
<p>but i belive MORE in evolution than creation, not necessarily 100% of either side
so, i guess i'm agnostic :)</p>
<p>ok ok, I think each side needs to make some concessions. Yes, Religion has caused a lot of suffering, but it was the fanatical followers not the religion itself. Yes, it is unfair to think that just because someone was born in some small village in Africa that they will burn in hell for all of eternity when it isn't their fault that they weren't born within a reasonable vicinity of a christian church. Also different religions are never represented the same way, I know overzealous christians who are very in your face about their beliefs and unassuming christians who are not. While a potential convert may be turned off by the obnoxious fundamentalist, that same potential convert may have been intrigued by the not so obnoxious christian. So again, it is all up to chance whether or not an individual will be a believer. With such different cultures and situations it is naive to believe in one faith to unite the world. On the other hand, arrogant atheists who attack believers are usually making huge generalizations about their beliefs. There is no difference in assuming that all muslims are terrorists than in assuming that all christians are right wing nut jobs who pray for peace yet endorse war. Things are not that black and white. Not every christian is fundamentalist closed minded, in fact by the true nature of the christian religion, no believer should be. Politics do not correlate to religion and those who make the assumption that they do demean religion and portray believers as those who cannot think for themselves. This is not the case, you do not have to be a "flaming liberal" if you are an atheist and you do not have to be a "right wing nut job" if you follow a religion. Besides, the true spirit of every religion that I know anything about is of peace and tolerance.</p>
<p>As a Non-Christian myself, I've always wondered whether a person who leads an extermely moral and ethical life and devotes himself/herself to the good of others, but does not necessarily declare some sort of faith in God or Jesus, is supposed to go to heaven or hell. Here in the south, it seems that the only thing people are taught that opens the door to heaven is to accept Jesus, so it seems this type of person is supposed to go to hell. What do you guys think?</p>
<p>I am supposed to be a Catholic, but I deviate from the doctrine. Since the exposure to Christianity is not always equal, I do not see how God would damn someone to hell who had lived a life of service to others even if he hadn't been a believer. It seems so unfair that some people are born on to this self proclaimed "path to righteousness" while others have never even seen the path. I don't know if I am making any sense, but I don't believe in "fearing" God, he is supposed to be merciful and so I don't think that a religious hypocrite who doesn't live to better the lives of others would be accepted into heaven just because he went to church every sunday. I also don't think that a non believer would be denied eternal happiness when he had worked his whole life to improve the life of his fellow man.</p>
<p>I'm Catholic. We had a debate about evolution vs. creation in World History last month. Didn't go very well since people (both sides) were making personal attacks on people and stupid crap like that.</p>
<p>I do not see how God would damn someone to hell who had lived a life of service to others even if he hadn't been a believer.</p>
<p>This isn't Catholic doctrine - the Catholic Church actually teaches that one does not necessarily have to be Christian/Catholic to gain salvation. I have a lot of respect for the CC - from a theological perspective, it has grown with science and human thought (in ways other relgions and certainly other Christian denominations have not) without abandoning its doctrines. It also takes the most reasonable, hermeneutical approach to the Bible, in that it is not always a literal document, and that it needs to be taken into account considering the time in which it was written.</p>
<p>"And second, I really dislike unluckycharms' definition of agnosticism (google isn't a dictionary )... e.g. it isn't so much a philosophical belief as it is a theological one, and I think that whole "insuperable limitations" stuff is a bunch of bs. An agnostic is, in the general sense, one who is not committed to believing in either the existance or non-existance of a god. And as I pointed out above, my statement is not at all agnosticism."</p>
<p>I was just more lazy than anything else... it wasn't actually Google, Google just automatically links to a bunch of other dictionaries and pulls up the most relevent solution. </p>
<p>Here's the defintion from dictionary.com (which I assure you, is a dictionary ;))</p>
<p>" 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
"</p>
<p>We've just gotten into semantics at this point... to me, your statement is the (first) definition of agnosticism. You claim agnosticism is the second definition. Whatever. <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>And, while I'm at it:</p>
<p>"I do not see how God would damn someone to hell who had lived a life of service to others even if he hadn't been a believer."</p>
<p>"This isn't Catholic doctrine - the Catholic Church actually teaches that one does not necessarily have to be Christian/Catholic to gain salvation. I have a lot of respect for the CC - from a theological perspective, it has grown with science and human thought (in ways other relgions and certainly other Christian denominations have not) without abandoning its doctrines."</p>
<p>I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school... and the only path they said there was to heaven was through Catholicism, and nothing else. <em>shrug</em> As far as being more liberal in interpretation... I must highly disagree there. In fact, Catholicism is often criticized by other protestant religions as being too restrictive and too literal. (Not to mention too focused on worshipping Mary, the Saints, and idols, etc. etc.) I've even met some people who refuse to call Catholicism a form of Christianity at all.</p>