Reply to Re: What are your views on religion?
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Hrm. I guess I'd have to answer that I find it kind of silly. Though that's not me saying I think someone is silly for being religious. I just personally can't see the benefits of believing in any religious form. I do however find all natures of philosophy interesting. It's quite possibly the only parts of history I can actually enjoy(probably because it's impossible to tell whether or not any aspect is fictitious or not).
Blaise Pascal created a very convincing argument in support of religion though. I believe it's because of his wager that I don't completely throw religion away as nonsense- in fact I often take it very seriously.
I have deep conflictions over religion because I don't find some traditional religion - say christianity - any less ridiculous than something like pastafarian. Now then, since I see each religion on the same level I know that there can only be one that's "true". What I mean by "true" is that whatever it happens to claim ends up being true. There cannot be more than one as they' end up conflicting each other. However this doesn't mean that one religion out that is "true". More likely none of them hit the mark- not even atheism.
On the topic of atheism, I find it just as silly as the rest. Though to be fair it can't really be classified under religion as it's the polar-opposite. Atheism is the anti-religion. I hear atheists claiming to be synonymous with realists, but that's an just empty claim. While there is no evidence to prove the existence of a God, there is just as little evidence to disprove it. This is why when I see some atheist pointlessly arguing about the existence of God with a believer I can't help but to facepalm.
If I had to claim to be a religion, I guess I'd be forced to say agnostic. If you wish to whole-heartidly believe that there is/isn't a God, go for it. I however will believe that one can't know for certain of the existence of God, so it's best to just accept the unknown.
Blaise Pascal created a very convincing argument in support of religion though. I believe it's because of his wager that I don't completely throw religion away as nonsense- in fact I often take it very seriously.
I have deep conflictions over religion because I don't find some traditional religion - say christianity - any less ridiculous than something like pastafarian. Now then, since I see each religion on the same level I know that there can only be one that's "true". What I mean by "true" is that whatever it happens to claim ends up being true. There cannot be more than one as they' end up conflicting each other. However this doesn't mean that one religion out that is "true". More likely none of them hit the mark- not even atheism.
On the topic of atheism, I find it just as silly as the rest. Though to be fair it can't really be classified under religion as it's the polar-opposite. Atheism is the anti-religion. I hear atheists claiming to be synonymous with realists, but that's an just empty claim. While there is no evidence to prove the existence of a God, there is just as little evidence to disprove it. This is why when I see some atheist pointlessly arguing about the existence of God with a believer I can't help but to facepalm.
If I had to claim to be a religion, I guess I'd be forced to say agnostic. If you wish to whole-heartidly believe that there is/isn't a God, go for it. I however will believe that one can't know for certain of the existence of God, so it's best to just accept the unknown.
