(POLL) What Is Your Religion?

^^ Omnipotence, omniscience, the ability to change the laws of physics, the ability to create the universe yet be outside of space and time, the ability to be causally active in every area of the universe at the same time without having physical form, etc. All of these are absolutely absurd propositions.

 

So if they are absurd and logically flawed why are you not 100% that god doesnt exist?

 

Because science is just as absurd and logically flawed. I do lots of mathematical calculations here at the engi university and I can tell you the amount of approximations are ridiculous.

 

Logic is not the same thing as science.

 

Don't ever use DMT.

 

For conversation's sake, I would say I am agnostic, but more specifically I'm an empiricist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

There are limits to my senses, but the senses are pretty good to make any truth claim about what's here.

 

Being an agnostic is irrational unless the God in question does abide by the laws of logic.

 

I'm agnostic simply because I do not have the time nor energy to put into devoting my life to a higher power. I see evidence for both theist and atheist, but not enough to want to put faith in either. That's how I see my agnosticism.

 

You are an apatheist...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
There can not be evidence for both theist and atheist...imagine there being evidence for both dinosaurs and evidence against the existence of dinosaurs...evidence is not the word to use in this context...arguments or claims is better. Indeed, there are arguments from both sides but they are not equal in their validity and soundness.
Faith is required when you don't have evidence/reason...

 

I don't think the claims from either side are more valid or sound than the others because they are simply claims or opinions.

Neither side is supported with fact. Evolution, the Big Bang, etc. do nothing for the argument that God does not exist. The bible does nothing for the argument God exist. Either way, I still believe that either one could be true just as much as Buddhist teachings and Scientology.

They all have equal ground to me. I enjoy learning about them all. No belief system is unequal in my eyes.

 

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence --- it's just the probability of absence. Since there are limits to human knowledge, I only make truth claims in terms of the likelihood of being true in accordance with currently held scientific knowledge and logic.

I am a conditional atheist and metaphysical agnostic. Atheists that demand I call myself an atheist irritate me for the reasons that 1. they want to tell me what I think, when they can only live in their own heads and 2. ignore the logic by which I came to the conclusion of an agnostic position. Militant atheists, we call them.

Science has no dominion of any why of the basic foundation of existence currently, but plenty of hows.

Until that point, any metaphysics is up for conjecture, hypothesis, and theory. No truth claim can be made unless something can be testable, falsifiable, and repeated.

I am comfortable with ambiguity in the absence of evidence. That is something atheism and theism have in common --- discomfort in ambiguity. They want things to be certain.

 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is supossed to be there and it isn't.

 

True

 

If you had no sense of smell, and your house was filled with natural gas because you left the stove on, there would be plenty of evidence for absence, but you would be wrong.

There are limits of human senses than can prohibit a rush to judgment. Things are not always as they appear to our nervous systems.

 

My friend said he was able to visualise a cube from all six sides while tripping on DMT — at the same time.

 

Not being able to smell is not plenty of evidence...it is poor evidence...good evidence would be having a good measurement device.

 

We were also not able to measure quantum particles or X-Rays until recently, they did not suddenly hop into existence once we constructed the mechanisms to observe them --- they were present all along, or, beyond the capacity of our senses before we could detect them.

 

I am Catholic.. trying to be a better catholic

 

Who did you hear making such a ridiculous argument?
We don't reject God on the basis of our senses. That is the childish argument which Christians will often make to rebut the atheist position...no thinking atheist is that stupid.

We don't need to search the whole Universe or to unlock every mystery there is in order to know that there are no spheres with corners.
God is not like X-ray, God given the attributes that theists give him is a square circle.

 

Which ones? Give me some examples...

So you believe that there is no way in which one can determine truth from falsehood?