What is your religion?

[ziggybabie]

Agnostic. Atheist about all wordly theistic religions, but agnostic about the possibility of some unknown higher being, whether it's good natured, "evil", completely indifferent, or something totally beyond our understanding.

As far as the original "Satanist" comment, though, honestly a lot of people have a major misconception. LaVey Satanists are atheists. It's a non-theistic (no gods) religion, much like Buddhism or Taoism. More of a philosophy.

They do not believe in a devil or "boogeyman". The devil is just a metaphor for the things Christianity calls "sins". LaVeyan Satanists say things like "lust", "gluttony" and "pride" ("Tha DEVIL, Bobby Boo-shay!") are only human nature, and love should be shared for those who deserve it, not ingrates or enemies who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Instead of turning the other cheek or letting yourself be walked all over, seek vengeance. It's all about balance and moderation of these things.

Personally, some of it's a bit TOO abrasive for my tastes. I'm not big on vengeance, for example, or fighting, or the sort, unless it's a last resort. I'd be more with the passive aggressiveness of Buddhism on things like that. But, I do think a lot of things about the "religion" Anton LaVey created make sense. I respect philosophy over theology, but even that said, many theistic religions are still cool mythologies with some good lessons.

I'm not exactly an expert on anything though. My life philosophies are a random mishmash of things I learned from google searches or pop culture, mostly. lol

IF there is a truly loving God, I think being a good person should be enough to pass his/her "judgment". Sending Gandhi to hell for picking the "wrong path" (with little to no evidence to guide him since every religion is equally valid according to "blind faith" sans facts), but letting in a serial killer because he asks the "correct God" for forgiveness sounds like very flawed morals to me.

[chrisraid3]

i am just agnostic, too much of a historian

[Mel Asher]

Conventional Christian upbringing & background - fairly liberal. Totally disillusioned about hierarchical Religion which has repeatedly been abused in a quest for power, and as a consequence shamelessly exclusive. From my background I have been left with a deep conviction that God exists ( The Numinous ), a strong feeling that Gnosticism & Buddhism have found much of the path to oneness with the Creator, and a growing interest in Zoroastrianism and Taoism. ( The journey is long but the paths are many )
Otherwise I am an almost total Hedonist !

[TracyCoxx]

Atheist.

The universe and everything within it (and everything outside it?) runs entirely according to natural laws.

[nmlss]

I am 100% proud atheist and I've never been baptized. I believe in ME and my decisions.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Atheist.

The universe and everything within it (and everything outside it?) runs entirely according to natural laws.

There would seem to be a contradiction in the paradigm that you espouse as your belief. I would assume that you claim the title of "atheist" based largely on a materialist ontology that relates to the alleged superiority of logical empiricism in Western culture. (Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption, but it seems to be the statistically most popular claim to atheism, so grant me some leniency if you arrive at the atheistic paradigm through routes other than classical.)

Herein is the problem of your statement, it relies on a materialist and empirical ontology and then assumes a dualist (?) ontology perhaps? You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang. What then, if not natural law, guides this realm outside of the universe? (Various ontologists have referred to this realm as the "atemporal" in exploring these possibilities.)

So, by admitting a possibility of existence beyond the universe, you have to admit possibilities beyond the materialist and natural law-bound. You would perhaps better refer to yourself as an agnostic than an atheist, as you seem to have some leniency regarding your paradigm. No offense friend, I've met very few truly hard-core atheists, as the underlying architecture of their view does not in fact exclude the possibility of God. Alas, much of this discussion devolves into a matter of semantics of how we define words such as "atheist" and "agnostic," so I mean no offense if you care to disagree on semantic grounds.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang.

You make too many assumptions. Current science cannot describe what happens at a singularity. But current science does not define what the actual natural laws are. It is only our best educated guess at what it is. I see no reason to believe that natural law (not our version of it) reigns everywhere. There are theories that suggest that our universe is one of a countless number of universes. They possibly work differently then ours. You might suggest that they work according to a different set of laws, but I believe that there is a superset of physical laws that you can derive the laws of any universe from. When a universe is born, physical constants are possibly set, such as the speed of light, charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc. But there is a physical law superset that enables this to happen.

I'm not saying there are multiple universes, but it's a possibility. We've thought that our planet is the only one, only to be proven wrong. Same with our solar system. Our galaxy. Maybe our universe too.

There are two possibilities. Our universe (or whatever spawned it) came from nothing. And by 'nothing' I mean nothing - no energy or matter at all, no space/time, absolute nothingness. Nothingness could only be defined as a complete lack of any attributes because anything else used to describe it would be something.

The other possibility is that our universe came from something, or whatever spawned that, which has always been.

Either possibility seems shocking to me. But to say our universe came from God seems even more shocking. Because you'd have to ask where did God come from? Nothing? That's even more shocking that a god capable of creating the universe could have come from nothing. I don't think we will ever really know which of the two possibilities happened. But I would at least like to see plausible theories that explain, without any holes, how it possibly could have happened. But like I say, I doubt we would be able to test it.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You make too many assumptions. Current science cannot describe what happens at a singularity. But current science does not define what the actual natural laws are. It is only our best educated guess at what it is. I see no reason to believe that natural law (not our version of it) reigns everywhere. There are theories that suggest that our universe is one of a countless number of universes. They possibly work differently then ours. You might suggest that they work according to a different set of laws, but I believe that there is a superset of physical laws that you can derive the laws of any universe from. When a universe is born, physical constants are possibly set, such as the speed of light, charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc. But there is a physical law superset that enables this to happen.

If you employ the anthropic principal, we as an observer will always be subject to those physical constants necessary for our own existence. Granted, this principal leaves open the possibility of other types of existence outside of our own, but by its own premise, we the observer can never be subject to anything other than our original premises of existence. The fact that natural law devolves to a degree at a singularity also suggests that our ability to act as an observe similarly degrades. This to me makes the concept of observational and empirical science a moot point when arguing things like the anthropic principle...Other types of reality MAY exist outside of our observational realm, but by the same logic, we can never observe these realms, so they remain hypothetical entities...Much akin to the idea of "God."

Similarly, the hypothetical ideas of multiverse theory lack any sort of observational or empirical evidence. At best, they can make certain predictions within a mathematical construct, but the larger theory is not falsifiable based on the devolution of physical constants at a singularity. Within a materialist paradigm, I see NO material evidence to suggest that multiverse theory is even remotely more plausible than the standard big bang model. The latter is backed up by observational evidence, thus if you apply Occam's razor, what seems more likely, just when discussing cosmology? The more complex theory (lacking true empirical evidence) of a multiverse, or the standard big bang model (which is backed by observational evidence)?

I'm not saying there are multiple universes, but it's a possibility. We've thought that our planet is the only one, only to be proven wrong. Same with our solar system. Our galaxy. Maybe our universe too.

There are two possibilities. Our universe (or whatever spawned it) came from nothing. And by 'nothing' I mean nothing - no energy or matter at all, no space/time, absolute nothingness. Nothingness could only be defined as a complete lack of any attributes because anything else used to describe it would be something.

The other possibility is that our universe came from something, or whatever spawned that, which has always been.

I would agree, I will admit the possibility of a multiverse, based on the same logic that I would admit the possibility of some notion of "God." As I said, I fear I may have offended you on the linguistic difficulties associated with words like "atheist" and "agnostic." If the word "atheist" is dissected to mean "opposed to theism," I ask on what grounds. I have never met an atheist that can definitively prove the non-existence of God, and one of the fall-back arguments for an atheist is that science does not seek to prove a negative. Burden of proof shifts to assertions. Much of the semantic debate then falls onto what the default position of this thing called "science" should be??? This is an interesting question, but I in my interpretation, if science can admit possibilities that MAY not be falsifiable on observational evidence, things such as multiverse theory, it can equally admit possibilities of theism. How do we KNOW (beyond doubt) that there may not be some litmus test for the existence of a "god-like" force far in the future and assuming great scientific advances?

Ultimately, I think we agree. I think it remains a question for the ages, and one that science and empiricism will NEVER ultimately answer. It just perturbs me within the semantics of such discussion, that what is often called "atheism" is more often used to support the logical assertion of what amounts to an agnostic paradigm.

Either possibility seems shocking to me. But to say our universe came from God seems even more shocking. Because you'd have to ask where did God come from? Nothing? That's even more shocking that a god capable of creating the universe could have come from nothing. I don't think we will ever really know which of the two possibilities happened. But I would at least like to see plausible theories that explain, without any holes, how it possibly could have happened. But like I say, I doubt we would be able to test it.

Your proposition here makes certain assumptions about causality. As I stated earlier, some arguments in ontology and cosmology employ two words to describe the dichotomy between the manifest world that is governed by natural law and the unmanifest world that existed prior to the singularity of the big bang. The manifest world is called temporal, the unmanifest is called atemporal. If the entirety of physics (as we understand it) breaks down at the singularity of the big bang, does causality apply to the atemporal realm? I would argue, not necessarily, and this at least seems a cogent argument against "God" having to have a "beginning." "God" is beyond the duality of beginning, end, and temporal concepts such as causality.

Now to wager against myself, I will employ Occam's razor. What is more probable regarding conceptions about complexity? Here, I'm utterly clueless. The hypothetical existence of "God" obviously adds degrees of complexity to our view...But does not the existence of a multiverse? Which is more complex? Which is more likely? And ultimately, if you defer to things such as statistics, which is statistically more likely? And more importantly, WHAT is even used to evaluate probabilities that exist outside of our observational realm?

[GRH]

Originally Posted by ziggybabie

As far as the original "Satanist" comment, though, honestly a lot of people have a major misconception. LaVey Satanists are atheists. It's a non-theistic (no gods) religion, much like Buddhism or Taoism. More of a philosophy.

They do not believe in a devil or "boogeyman". The devil is just a metaphor for the things Christianity calls "sins". LaVeyan Satanists say things like "lust", "gluttony" and "pride" ("Tha DEVIL, Bobby Boo-shay!") are only human nature, and love should be shared for those who deserve it, not ingrates or enemies who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Instead of turning the other cheek or letting yourself be walked all over, seek vengeance. It's all about balance and moderation of these things.

Personally, some of it's a bit TOO abrasive for my tastes. I'm not big on vengeance, for example, or fighting, or the sort, unless it's a last resort. I'd be more with the passive aggressiveness of Buddhism on things like that. But, I do think a lot of things about the "religion" Anton LaVey created make sense. I respect philosophy over theology, but even that said, many theistic religions are still cool mythologies with some good lessons.

Quite right in your initial description of LaVeyan Satanism. As a person who has read, studied, and owned much of LaVey's published work, to me, it boils down to little more than a mystified and ritualized form of secular humanism. Personally, (regardless of the mysticism and ritual) the secular humanist perspective cuts too close to nihilism, and both philosophies leave me a bit empty at the end of the day. In my estimation, Anton LaVey would have made a more effective argument for his philosophy on life if he left out the obvious mockery of Christian ritual. I think I understand his motives in this, but by making a ritualized religion he accomplished two things: 1) He attempts to parody the predominant religion of the West, which is Christianity; 2) He succumbs to some of the same flaws of the regimented ritualism of contemporary religion. In this sense, I think the philosophy fails, it would have been more successful being espoused as a type of secular humanism, sans the symbolic ritual.

Even with that said, the premises of secular humanism I find, like you, to be a bit too abrasive in regards to the conclusions that follow. As I stated above, I find a Hindu metaphysical construct to best address some of the problems of duality of phenomenon, the nature of "good" and "evil," etc.

[DL_NL]

I've been brought up te be a roman catholic, but like my parents I've given up on religion.

It's great that we've put down some basic rules for living like a good person, but I really dislike the judgment over others that seems to come with religion and the fact that the people who shout the loudest are those who break most of their own rules.