So what am I ?

iMax

Baptised a Catholic, stopped going to church in my teens, only went at Christmas & possibly easter, more for the athmosphere than anything.

Haven't been in a church (apart from weddings or funerals) for years. Recently came to the conclusion that I don't believe in a God or the Bible or anything which I may have learned in school etc. & "Came Out" absolutely to my parents as a non believer. By that I mean I told them what I've just posted above. They understood & are open to individual beliefs.

I believe there has to be something, an energy if you will, but without the rules & regulations & mumbo jumbo.

Here's the rub, I'm flip-flopping over the final stages (count me out) because I have kids. They're baptised because my wife is a catholic (non practising, but has her beliefs). They'll go to the local catholic school (because it's the only one around) & get their biased religous education there. However we will be instructing them about all other religions (& non religions) as they grow up.

I'm a member of a gym who never goes but they still count me as a member. I believe in something but not religion. What am I ?

Ickle Magoo

You believe there has to be something but not the RC god? Theism just means belief in a god, it doesn't specify which, you could label yourself theist, deist or spiritual...but do you really have to put yourself in a box?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

iMax wrote: »

I believe there has to be something, an energy if you will, but without the rules & regulations & mumbo jumbo.

You'd agree that there should be rules - because you wouldn't/couldn't agree with a society where everyone does as they please. Mumbo Jumbo is a bit non specific: perhaps you mean RC Religious incantation and machine-gun issued HailMarys and the like?

Christianity (the non-religious variety) doesn't involve rules you must obey (if saved you'd be going to 'heaven' quite aside from how you live w.r.t. God's law). Rather, God's indwelling let's you see the beauty of the law (eg: love others) and the ugliness of sin (murder others) and enables you to follow same.

I'm a member of a gym who never goes but they still count me as a member. I believe in something but not religion. What am I ?

It sounds to me like you're a lost nominal Catholic whose about to become a lost nominal agnostic.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christianity (the non-religious variety) doesn't involve rules you must obey (if saved you'd be going to 'heaven' quite aside from how you live w.r.t. God's law).

Yeah, I was amused when some of this spam came through my letterbox once. Christianity isn't a religion because there are no rules. All you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour and live according to his will.

Cognitive disconnect much?

robindch

iMax wrote: »

I believe in something but not religion. What am I ?

If you believe there is a non-specific conscious agent out there somewhere who is actively guiding things, but one that does not match the description of any deity you're aware of, then you're probably a deist. However, be aware that there's a cognitive issue amongst many people in which an agent is perceived, despite the agent not actually existing. The issue extends from the completely normal and benign mistake of, say, seeing human faces in ink-blots or toast, through mild religious beliefs, into schizotypal disorder and finally into full blown schizophrenia. The issue has been identified relatively recently and hasn't quite developed a consistent name yet, but try googling for "intentional misattribution", "agency misattribution" or hyperintentionalism to get an idea of what this is.

Alternatively, if you believe that there are abstract principles out there, and ones to which we can freely choose to adhere (ie, "I believe in the power of co-operation, law, etc"), then you're probably a straightforward atheist.

iMax

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm not really wanting to be in a box. I do believe in a person's right to religion (as long as they don't try to force it on me), I believe in be nice to others. I just don't buy into the whole organised thing.

Some diety created everything & then sat around for fourteen million years before putting man there ? Doesn't work for me. I guess it's the whole "Why are there no dinosaurs in the bible" arguement.

Does anyone know if me defecting is going to make things arkward for my kids in terms of schooling & events in their lives in the future ?

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yeah, I was amused when some of this spam came through my letterbox once. Christianity isn't a religion because there are no rules. All you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour and live according to his will...

Cognitive disconnect much?

Who said "have to.. live according to his will"? I didn't.

Read what's written much?

antiskeptic

iMax wrote: »

Does anyone know if me defecting is going to make things arkward for my kids in terms of schooling & events in their lives in the future ?

I can't really see the point of defecting to be honest. You're not a believer but happen to have membership in an organisation that smooths out the path for your childrens education. If I was you, I'd simply play the game to your best advantage. Nobody asked to be placed in the game but seeing as we're all in it we might as well keep going.

If you really felt that you should make a statement such as countmeout then you'd have to be weighing up the desire to publically express your convictions vs. advantages of game playing.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who said "have to.. live according to his will"? I didn't.

Read what's written much?

The spam that came through my letterbox did. But generally I find the suggestion that Christianity isn't a religion to be amusing.

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The spam that came through my letterbox did. But generally I find the suggestion that Christianity isn't a religion to be amusing.

Retraction accepted.

Perhaps you could elaborate(?)

If Religion is considered a term to describe a belief system that centres around keeping g/God's laws in order to obtain a "favourable afterlife outcome" - and Christianity doesn't centre around keeping God's laws in order to obtain a favorable afterlife outcome, why would you be amused by the claim that Christianity isn't a Religion?

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

It sounds to me like you're a lost nominal Catholic whose about to become a lost nominal agnostic.

Explain.

Erren Music

iMax wrote: »

Recently came to the conclusion that I don't believe in a God or the Bible

You are an Atheist

iMax wrote: »

I believe there has to be something, an energy if you will, but without the rules & regulations & mumbo jumbo.

Here you are talking about an energy that is over 13 billion years old, which has nothing to do with god, or religion or any form of deism.

iMax wrote: »

Here's the rub, I'm flip-flopping over the final stages (count me out) because I have kids. They're baptised because my wife is a catholic (non practising, but has her beliefs).

Your wife is not catholic.

Erren Music

iMax wrote: »

Some diety created everything & then sat around for fourteen million years before putting man there ? Doesn't work for me. I guess it's the whole "Why are there no dinosaurs in the bible" arguement.

billion years

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

billion years

It's an irrelevant correction, considering that most modern interpretations of God have him existing in a timeless state.

robindch

iMax wrote: »

I'm not really wanting to be in a box.

Shouldn't have asked "What am I?" then

iMax wrote: »

I do believe in a person's right to religion (as long as they don't try to force it on me), I believe in be nice to others. I just don't buy into the whole organised thing.

You're mixing up belief in abstract principles of societal living (laws, cooperation, money etc) and the (christian-derived) belief that some deity has created the universe, created the rules and demands group-admiration on a regular basis.

Wouldn't get too upset at that though -- a lot of people get the two mixed up -- it's one of christianity's central claims that the two are the same. Which they are not.

iMax wrote: »

Does anyone know if me defecting is going to make things arkward for my kids in terms of schooling & events in their lives in the future ?

I haven't done it yet, since I may have to get my kid into a school which is controlled by one religion or another. Once my kid does start school, I'll be filling out my form prontissimo.

antiskeptic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Explain.

From the Christian perspective the OP sounds like he occupies the status of a lost person (as opposed to found). This might not be the case (antagonism against God is something lost people have and the OP might need to be probed a bit to cause this to surface, if he is indeed lost).

But assuming he's indeed lost, all we've to deal with is worldy labels. He is clearly a Catholic considering exiting Catholicism (intellectually/spiritually at least). And he doesn't appear to have anything to provide concrete support to the notion of a god/energy. It's the kind of fuzzy, hazy belief that sounds like it will lead to agnosticm, to me.

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's an irrelevant correction, considering that most modern interpretations of God have him existing in a timeless state.

...which neatly nobbles his position as 'creator'. If one is "timeless", then how can one go from a state of something not-existing, to a state of existing? Makes no sense.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

antagonism against God is something lost people have

Antagonism?

Not for me -- I find the the christian deity, as presented by christian believers, by turns weird, silly, menacing, homicidal and may other adjectives. But most frequently, it's just plan hilarious!

checkyabadself

Q), So what am I?


A)....worried about societies social pressure to not make a fuss and tow the PC line.

You are also an Atheist and your wife is possibly Deist is not possibly an Atheist also.

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

From the Christian perspective the OP sounds like he occupies the status of a lost person (as opposed to found). This might not be the case (antagonism against God is something lost people have and the OP might need to be probed a bit to cause this to surface, if he is indeed lost).

But assuming he's indeed lost, all we've to deal with is worldy labels. He is clearly a Catholic considering exiting Catholicism (intellectually/spiritually at least). And he doesn't appear to have anything to provide concrete support to the notion of a god/energy. It's the kind of fuzzy, hazy belief that sounds like it will lead to agnosticm, to me.

Hmm, I think you are slightly disrespectful (underestimating?) of the agnostic position, to be honest. I am quite firm in my position that one cannot know whether a god/s exists, making the truth statements of the religious and (some) atheists alike, misguided at best, and at worst, outright dishonest.

My schema was:

Indoctrinated Catholic Child-->Atheist-->Agnostic

Agnosticism isn't some waiting room for the bewildered.


(I may have misread your meaning, apologies if I have)

Erren Music

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's an irrelevant correction, considering that most modern interpretations of God have him existing in a timeless state.

Ah yes, but it is the big bang thats being referred too.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Retraction accepted.

Perhaps you could elaborate(?)

If Religion is considered a term to describe a belief system that centres around keeping g/God's laws in order to obtain a "favourable afterlife outcome" - and Christianity doesn't centre around keeping God's laws in order to obtain a favorable afterlife outcome, why would you be amused by the claim that Christianity isn't a Religion?

But Christianity does describe a belief system that centres around the supplication to and worship of a creator god, in most people's cases to obtain a favourable afterlife outcome. And if there are no rules, what are those ten whatyoumaycallits for?

Erren Music

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hmm, I think you are slightly disrespectful (underestimating?) of the agnostic position, to be honest. I am quite firm in my position that one cannot know whether a god/s exists, making the truth statements of the religious and (some) atheists alike, misguided at best, and at worst, outright dishonest.

My schema was:

Indoctrinated Catholic Child-->Atheist-->Agnostic

Agnosticism isn't some waiting room for the bewildered.


(I may have misread your meaning, apologies if I have)

I think we need to sort this out once and for all.

I believe religious teachings and stories about god are BS.

This has no bearing on whether something created our universe 13.72 billion years ago. If something did we will never know.

BUT it has nothing to do with the religious idea of god ok.

Agnostic = sitting on a fence = ditherer's = can't make a decision

Erren Music

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

But Christianity does describe a belief system that centres around the supplication to and worship of a creator god, in most people's cases to obtain a favourable afterlife outcome. And if there are no rules, what are those ten whatyoumaycallits for?

As I said before

slagging god off = commandment 2

murder = commandment 5

this tells you what god is worried about.

also be thankful that we got rid of the jewish belief with their 600+ commandments

checkyabadself

Flamed Diving wrote: »

My schema was:

Indoctrinated Catholic Child-->Atheist-->Agnostic

Agnosticism isn't some waiting room for the bewildered.

Thats a great point. I often thought of that myself, but whilst I agree that nobody can know if there is a god/creator or not, I call myself an Atheist with regard to not believing in any of the god figures throughout history (abraham yaweh zeuz thor jesus etc).

I technically agree with you about having to be considered agnostic so as to be impartial to any unknown possibilities, but I think the term Atheist covers the nonbelief in the "known" or publicly accepted versions of god.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Antagonism?

Not for me -- I find the the christian deity, as presented by christian believers, by turns weird, silly, menacing, homicidal and may other adjectives. But most frequently, it's just plan hilarious!

Antagonism takes many forms. It need not be naked and personally directed.

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

I think we need to sort this out once and for all.

I believe religious teachings and stories about god are BS.

This has no bearing on whether something created our universe 13.72 billion years ago. If something did we will never know.

BUT it has nothing to do with the religious idea of god ok.

Agnostic = sitting on a fence = ditherer's = can't make a decision

No offence, but based on what posts I have seen of yours, you just seem like one of those "angry atheists" who haven't truly thought much about their position, or anyone elses. For example, you think that agnosticism has something directly to do with religion. But it is merely a position on the existence of a creator/s. My suggestion is that you calm yourself down, take your mind off hating the Catholic Church so much and try to educate yourself on what atheism and agnosticism actually represent.

Who knows, you might learn something.

Ickle Magoo

In order to be antagonistic towards god, people would first have to believe there is something to be angry or in conflict with. The opposite to faith in god isn't antagonism, it's apathy.

Erren Music

robindch wrote: »

Antagonism?

Not for me -- I find the the christian deity, as presented by christian believers, by turns weird, silly, menacing, homicidal and may other adjectives. But most frequently, it's just plan hilarious!

I find the idea of ANY religious deity hilarious

Erren Music

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Who knows, you might learn something.

There are no religious gods.

Religion is made up fictional fantasy.

What else do I need to learn about this.

antiskeptic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hmm, I think you are slightly disrespectful (underestimating?) of the agnostic position, to be honest. I am quite firm in my position that one cannot know whether a god/s exists, making the truth statements of the religious and (some) atheists alike, misguided at best, and at worst, outright dishonest.

Are you saying that you think that God (if he exists) cannot demonstrate his existance to someone?

My schema was:

Indoctrinated Catholic Child-->Atheist-->Agnostic

Agnosticism isn't some waiting room for the bewildered.


(I may have misread your meaning, apologies if I have)

There was no dissing intended. Agnostics sound the more considered/less dogmatic to me. And that was the flavour of the OP's tone. S'all.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

In order to be antagonistic towards god, people would first have to believe there is something to be angry or in conflict with. The opposite to faith in god isn't antagonism, it's apathy.

I disagree. IF God THEN influence by God exerted possible THEN antagonism against that influence possible. It's the same thing really, as being able to believe God without believing in God.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I disagree. IF God THEN influence by God exerted possible THEN antagonism against that influence possible. It's the same thing really, as being able to believe God without believing in God.

I have no idea what that first bit means...

How can anyone believe god speaks or does something if they lack belief in god?

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

There are no religious gods.

Religion is made up fictional fantasy.

What else do I need to learn about this.

That this has little to do with agnosticism, perhaps even atheism.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no idea what that first bit means...

How can anyone believe they don't god speaks or does something if they lack belief in god?

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you saying that you think that God (if he exists) cannot demonstrate his existance to someone?

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

It depends on how you define your god. But if this god is powerful enough to create an entire universe, then it is only logical to assume that even if he/she did attempt to communicate with us, we would not be able to comprehend this. There is a quote that I like which may metaphorically sum up what I am saying:

Wittgenstein: if a lion could speak, we could not understand him.

Erren Music

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

So why invent one then.

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

WTF

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

So why invent one then.

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

We cannot test for dark matter.

Erren Music

Flamed Diving wrote: »

We cannot test for dark matter.

OK ...

hopefully cern will provide us with answers in 2 or 3 years

BUT

I don't see dark matter churches, or dark matter commandments. I don't see or hear delusional DM madmen telling me that I will go to hell if I do not follow DM rules,



....... while all the time DM was fcuking our primary school kids behind our backs

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

OK ...

I don't see dark matter churches, or dark matter commandments. I don't see or hear delusional DM madmen telling me that I will go to hell if I do not follow DM rules,



....... while all the time DM was fcuking our primary school kids behind our backs

Either you are dodging my point or you accept that your logic of:

If we cannot test for a god then logically there is no god

is wrong then?

I have already explained to you why agnosticism has nothing to do with your above rant. I don't feel the need to cover it again.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider. If goodness is something that is an attribute of God and you're anti-goodness on some issue or other then you are antagonistic against an attribute of God which attempts to influence you to goodness.

Which is effectively antagonistic regarding what God stands for. Which is antagonism against God.

What?

Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

The Mad Hatter

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What?

Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

A fairyist would say yes.

5uspect

iMax wrote: »

What am I ?

You're Brian and so is your wife!

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote:

antiskeptic wrote:

antagonism against God is something lost people have

Antagonism? I find the the christian deity, as presented by christian believers [...] plan hilarious!

Antagonism takes many forms. It need not be naked and personally directed.

And it should not be invented where it is not present.

Gregor Samsa

iMax wrote: »

Here's the rub, I'm flip-flopping over the final stages (count me out) because I have kids. They're baptised because my wife is a catholic (non practising, but has her beliefs).

Your kids are already baptised, so the usual conundrum of "but what about sending my kids to school" doesn't apply in your case. If you want to go the "count me out" route, then it won't and can't have any bearing on your children's chances of getting into a catholic school. If they ask for a baptism cert for your kids, you have them - they're can't base your childrens' enrollment on your relationship (or lack of it) with the church. so antiskeptic's comments on "playing the game" are a bit off here (ref: post #9). You've already played that game regarding your kids - what you do yourself has nothing to do with the schools.

From a strictly personal point of view, I don't see "count me out" as a final stage of anything. I was baptised, communioned, confirmed, and now I don't believe in god, and don't involve any church in the affairs of my life (my child is not baptised, I had a civil wedding, and I've requested a non-church funeral). That's it for me. I don't' see the church as having the authority to declare me "defected" (not that I have defected to anything).

Officially, I'm still a member of the Desperate Dan Fan Club since joining at 6 years of age. Now, I no longer feel the need to say "... but I'd rather have a cow pie" after every statement, but equally, I don't feel the need to let them know that I officially don't regard myself as a member any more.

That said, kudos to the Count Me Out people for making the information available and bringing the issue into the public domain, and if it is for you, then go for it. It's just not for me, I'd rather have a cow pie (doh!).

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What? Atheists aren't against anything regarding god, there is no god in the atheist equation. There are no attributes to stand against or godly influences attempting anything...I can't be antagonistic against something that doesn't exist. Are you antagonistic towards faeries or leprechauns?

Assuming God exists (here we go again ) then atheists not believing in God wouldn't alter the fact of God's existance, nor would it alter the fact that God exerts and influence on all men (by way of conscience). This influence is railed against by sinful man - the result being sinful behaviour.

Do you suppose not believing in gravity alters a persons interaction with gravity?

antiskeptic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, what I mean is that we cannot possibly test for a god, but I will try to answer your question.

Okay. I was putting the onus on God to arrive at us, not us to arrive at God.

It depends on how you define your god. But if this god is powerful enough to create an entire universe, then it is only logical to assume that even if he/she did attempt to communicate with us, we would not be able to comprehend this.

There is a quote that I like which may metaphorically sum up what I am saying:

Wittgenstein: if a lion could speak, we could not understand him.

What if we became like order with God? Children say? Could we understand him then?

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming God exists (here we go again ) then atheists not believing in God wouldn't alter the fact of God's existance, nor would it alter the fact that God exerts and influence on all men (by way of conscience). This influence is railed against by sinful man - the result being sinful behaviour.

Do you suppose not believing in gravity alters a persons interaction with gravity?

The biggest difference being gravity is demonstrable, it's not something that it's really feasible to lack belief in - which is the problem with what you are saying. IF god existed and atheists chose not believe in a god that clearly exists then it could be called antagonism but as things stand, atheists have as valid a base to lack belief in god as theist have to claim belief in the positive, so a term suggesting active resistance just doesn't really fit...

Flamed Diving

antiskeptic wrote: »

What if we became like order with God? Children say? Could we understand him then?

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of language here. Could you rephrase?

antiskeptic

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of language here. Could you rephrase?

A lion is a different order of creature to us, with different experiences and different outlooks than we have. Therefore communication is suggested as impossible between it and us - unless we project human conceptualizations/experiences onto the lion (just as we often do with our pets behaviour). I gather you implying this at least.

But what if we are made the same order as God (or, in his image and likeness). Doesn't the above problem disappear? Or to put it another way: suppose God created men from himself (thus like order) and they Fell from that position and are (some of them at least) restored to that position. Wouldn't that permit communication?