What Religions Are Y'all Here At Thaivisa?

[Westerner]

Another agnostic.

[Mosha]

Athiest Jedi. May the force of beer be with you.

[OlRedEyes]

There is no way to prove that something does not exist. Therefore anybody who is agnostic simply because "you can't prove God doesn't exist" should also be on the fence about the flying spaghetti monster, superman and santa clause for the same reasons.

Yes, but most people in the world do seem to show signs of faith in a deity of some kind. So as an agnostic, speaking for myself and probably others, we might wonder if we are missing something, lacking the faith gene, kind of like asexual people, they don't feel it but see that most people do.

I also feel fine showing some respect to people who do believe, as long as they are not the kind that try to push their beliefs on others. Recently, a relative of mine had a health crisis and she is a believer, so I told her that I am praying for her recovery, as I know she would appreciate it. It was a white lie because I wasn't praying at all, but I was deeply and sincerely HOPING for her; what's the diff anyway?

Fear breeds faith. No fear, no faith required. Maybe agnostics are risk averse investors. Hedging bets.

The 'can't prove that god doesn't exists' argument holds no water.

I can respect people's right to believe in whatever they want. But I can never respect the belief itself if it cannot be substantiated by at least some logic or plausible theory, if not proof. The demand by religion that their beliefs be respected is ridiculous and totally arrogant.

Edited September 6, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[OlRedEyes]

The fact that even the meanings of words describing persons who are not part of the mainstream religious obsession are defined in terms of that obsession (atheist: doesn't believe in god; agnostic: doesn't have a firm position on the issue of god) shows how our socialization traps those who would escape into modes of thinking that, as Nietzsche would have said, make them at best apostates of systems from which they are not actually yet free.

Very much agreed. The reason why I don't think of myself as an atheist. I won't be forced to play their, IMHO, stupid game.

Edited September 6, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[dominique355]

The differences between atheists and agnostics intrigues me. I admire atheists for their certainty but I don't understand the rationale of being so sure there is or is not a God. In a way, the certainty of atheists seems quite the same as the certainty of believers. Agnostics won't commit to either side of the coin, so you could say they believe in nothing. You can't prove there is a God, but you can't prove there isn't either. In any case, I understand when atheists call agnostics wusses. Religious people tend to group them together, but they really are very different points of view. At this early stage of the poll, the non-religious are the most numerous. I am not surprised by that at all.

We are all Atheists to a certain extent. There are some gods nobody believes in anymore, such a Zeus, Apollo, Manitou, Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. We choose to believe in one particular god and do not believe in other gods. That makes us all partial atheists, right?

Doesn't that make the whole "believer" thing purely arbitrary, i.e. depends on where and when you were brought up, not on a clear choice you made?

For your problems about Agnostics, I would like to suggest reading "The God Delusion".

As for me, I am an Atheist and I am not shy to say so.

[chavy]

you forgot to add in Scientology

Welcome to the forum Tom

[LooseCannon]

you forgot to add in Scientology

Welcome to the forum Tom

There should have been a 'Cult' option for all the Scientologists & Heaven's Gate (surviving) members.

[sassienie]

Life would be so boring without Jingthing`s threads on ThaiVisa.

Guaranteed aggressive, heated discussion and edge of the seat tension, building up to a climax of orgasmic proportions.

I can remember a similar thread about religion some time ago; it progressed into a battle between, Jingthing and Mike-Rad, Mike -Rad being the archenemy of Jingthing. It was nail biting tension and was compelled to keep viewing, waiting with baited breath to see which one of these goliaths of goodness; defenders of righteousness would win the battle. It finalized in a stalemate, which was disappointing as I was taught that good always prevails against evil.

Those claiming to be Atheists, wasn’t it said that the last words the greatest Atheist in the world muttered on his deathbed was, God help me?

As for a survey on the religions of Ex Pats living here, is it really that important to create a thread on the subject and does anyone really give a toss?

[mizzi39]

quote: As for a survey on the religions of Ex Pats living here, is it really that important to create a thread on the subject and does anyone really give a toss?

Some people give a toss. I don't think that this survey is all that bad. I have seen much worse here on TV. Politics and religion are great topics to discuss and debate , but often times these discussions go nowhere, because they are both based on ones strong beliefs which are just overglorified opinions. Forums are setup for people to share there opinions, so it is really irrelevant as to whether the topic is considered important or not.

OK, back on topic. I voted ________! I will keep my practice to myself thank you. It is better to embrace all religions as far as I am concerned.

Belief: A feeling that something exists or is true.

Know: Being aware of as a result of asking, observing, or being informed.

Edited September 6, 2008 by mizzi39

[thatguy]

http://www.subgenius.com/

http://www.venganza.org/

But only Bob offers guaranteed salvation for a donation of $1 or triple your money back.

[Jingthing]

I can remember a similar thread about religion some time ago; it progressed into a battle between, Jingthing and Mike-Rad,

I don't remember this Mike-Rad or such a thread. You sure you didn't have a religious fantasy?

Doesn't that make the whole "believer" thing purely arbitrary, i.e. depends on where and when you were brought up, not on a clear choice you made?

I find this point irrelevant. Obviously, one person isn't going to be believe in all faiths, or dead faiths, or faiths that are diametrically opposed. Comparative religious scholars will probably tell you that all faiths share alot of commonalities. Anthropologists will tell you that you will find faiths in every culture, so it is a part of being human. Of course, that doesn't prove the reality of these deities, it just shows there is something about our species that needs to explain the unexplainable. With the emergence of science, there is now a more rational way to explain things, so I don't think its a coincidence that non-belief is on the rise in our age. But that doesn't eliminate the fear of death, which obviously is a big part of the human need for religion.

I can respect people's right to believe in whatever they want. But I can never respect the belief itself if it cannot be substantiated by at least some logic or plausible theory, if not proof. The demand by religion that their beliefs be respected is ridiculous and totally arrogant.

Whoever said human beings are perfectly logical? We would be boring that way, like machines, machines that work. It isn't always safe not to show respect to religious people. What does it hurt? They feel strongly about it and how can you judge them? Where I personally lose respect for religious people is when they judge non-believers and try to convert them. Sadly, this is widespread.

Fear breeds faith. No fear, no faith required. Maybe agnostics are risk averse investors. Hedging bets.

Alot of truth to that. Maybe we go to purgatory? Could be worse.

[toptuan]

Not one believer has claimed his system to be the only way. Good.

Wishful thinkin' there PB. You of all people should know that orthodox Christianity, by definition, is an exclusivist religion.

Exhibit A (the Founder's own words): "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can get to God (the Father), except through Me." (John 14:6)

Pretty hard pill for the world's majority of inclusivists to swallow. In other words, that's been the thorn in the side of every non-Christian observer who truly understands the basic tenets of historic Christianity. It's also been the cause of untold thousands of deaths of the adherents of Christianity--their refusal to embrace eclectic or inclusive religious models.

Edited September 6, 2008 by toptuan

[IMA_FARANG]

Prior to moving to Thailand I would have considered myself a Buddhist - in fact this was the main thing that interested me about Thailand.

What I believe in though is a bit different than a lot of what the local Buddhists believe so I see myself more as just a follower of the Buddha's teachings - although it doesn't really matter to me what you call it at the end of the day.

Interesting. You are probably the closest person I've seen that responded to this poll so far.

I waas raised a protestant "Christian" (United Church of Christ) as a child in U.S.A., have been to Saudi Arabia and actually studied Islam, but ended up as a Buddhist, although most Thai Buddhists have a different Buddhist "flavor" than I do. Thai Buddhisim is too regimented and too closely controlled for me.

I don't really know if there is or isn't a "God", and actually I don't consider that a very important question. Buddhism just offers a ethical system and a moral system (Right thought, Right action, compassion for yourself and others) that I can relate to. I'll leave the heavy stuff about who, what, or how is God questions to others that want to fight about such things, and I'll just take care of my own garden and grow my own flowers.

I guess I'm just a left over 1960's "Peace and Love" hippie.

[PeaceBlondie]

Not one believer has claimed his system to be the only way. Good.

Wishful thinkin' there PB. You of all people should know that orthodox Christianity, by definition, is an exclusivist religion.

Exhibit A (the Founder's own words): "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can get to God (the Father), except through Me." (John 14:6)

Pretty hard pill for the world's majority of inclusivists to swallow. In other words, that's been the thorn in the side of every non-Christian observer who truly understands the basic tenets of historic Christianity. It's also been the cause of untold thousands of deaths of the adherents of Christianity--their refusal to embrace eclectic or inclusive religious models.

Sorry. Let me stand corrected or clarified. I was referring to this thread on ThaiVisa. Yes, technically, a number of religions have claimed exclusive knowledge of truth, salvation, right and wrong, etc. As for the untold thousands of deaths by Christians, my faith condemns those sins to hel_l. Jesus gave nobody a license to kill, and St. Paul forbade Christians to pass judgment on non-believers.

[DanaDeLuxe]

"It is the duty of every human being to think god out of existence."

Rolf te Heer "Bad Boy Bubby"

The concept of Free Thoughts works for me as well.

[OxfordWill]

Conscience - everybody has got one.

Mine is developed enough so that I know right from wrong.

I have no need of any religious dogma, which I believe to be the antithesis to free thought.

In resonse to OxfordWill...

"But why is it not reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of a supernatural and personal God?" - very reasonable to do when 'god' is lumped in with aliens, little green men & all the other mumbo-jumbo, just because billions of people believe 'something' does not make it right or true.

I voted for 'agnostic' simply because it is "a regrettable position to take and one that almost deserves our scorn". Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to be 'almost' scorned by zealots (religious or otherwise). So sure that they are correct in their own beliefs, they arrogantly disdain any contrary views.

"It is the easy way out; a lazy and ill thought out conclusion to reach." - equally applicable to any belief or opinion held on any subject whatsoever, especially if you don't agree with said opinion.

JingThing- great subject. I hope TV have the decency to pay you at least 1 satang per click.

Yes what I wrote is deliberately inciteful but you only responded to the emotive bits and ingnored the actual argument, which is not surprising as the actual argument is water tight and there is no valid retort to the postulation that agnositicism about god is a silly position to take. If you dont mind being silly, that's fine.

[Jingthing]

Wasn't it Harpo Marx who said, "The silly shall inherit the earth?" I guess it makes sense that atheists can be as dogmatic as God believers. BTW: I rather like being silly.I wonder if I can start a religion based on silliness and rake in the big bucks. Carry on, true believers.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Jingthing

[siamamerican]

"It is the duty of every human being to think god out of existence."

Rolf te Heer "Bad Boy Bubby"

The concept of Free Thoughts works for me as well.

Isn't that the antithesis of free thought?

It is the duty of every human being to allow others their beliefs. I believe the world would be a better place without religion, but to each his own.

[LooseCannon]

Yes what I wrote is deliberately inciteful but you only responded to the emotive bits and ingnored the actual argument, which is not surprising as the actual argument is water tight and there is no valid retort to the postulation that agnositicism about god is a silly position to take. If you dont mind being silly, that's fine.

Quote: "Agnostics - Universal Fence Sitters" ... must be an emotive part.

Quote: "Agnostic - The term was invented by T. Huxley around 1890. He himself admitted fully that the term carried no creed with

it, not even a negative one: "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed but a method. The essence of this method lies in the application

of a principle: Follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard for other consideration. Do not pretend that

conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."" ... a bit of a history lesson & a brief definition.

Quote: "Agnostics tend to make up the greater portion of people who have doubts about the existence of a supernatural and personal

God." ... throw in some meaningless & irrelevant waffle.

Quote: "There are some things that it is perfectly reasonable to be agnostic about. The existence or otherwise of Aliens in outer

space, for example, is a good thing to be agnostic about." ... you acknowledge that agnosticism is a valid concept, but only about

certain 'things'. This of course is only your opinion which you are perfectly entitled too. Feel free to pick & choose the 'things'

that are convienent to you.

Quote: "But why is it not reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of a supernatural and personal God?" ... here we go, at

last a question that begs for some supporting argument.

Quote: "Agnosticism, as a method, can be invoked rationally when a situation with two possibilities - such as something existing or

not existing - has an equiprobable probability involved." ... equiprobable - having an equal logical probability - an arbitrary

condition imposed by yourself to determine whether agnosticism can be invoked rationally. Agnosticism make no claims about a level

of probability that a 'thing' exists, but rather that it's existence can neither be disproved or proved.

Quote: "What does this mean? It means that if it is just as likely that something exists as that it does not exist, then

agnosticism over that thing existing is entirely sensible." ... based on the false premise that agnostics consider some 'things'

existence/nonexistence to be equiprobable.

Quote: "We can safely say that there is an equal amount of evidence on both sides of the debate." ... maybe you can, but there

would be plenty of people who would disagree. When debating the existence of a 'thing', what constitutes evidence or a lack thereof

is open to interpretation. It is at this point, according to you, that the argument becomes irrational due to an imbalance of the

'evidence'.

Quote: "This is not the case with the existence of a supernatural and personal God." ...bold statement, but let's see what happens

next.

Quote: "Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever for his or her existence." ... couldn't agree more, absolutely no evidence that I

can find whatsoever,but this does not discount the possibility that evidence does exist. On the other hand, there is absolutely no

evidence to prove that God does not exist (interestingly, it fits your equiprobability criteria for rational argument). Very hard

to prove a negative, maybe even impossible, but as an agnostic it is not my position to prove anything, just hold the belief that

God's existence is inherently unprovable.

Quote: "It could be argued that it is far more probable that God does not exist, but it is certainly true that there is no equal

probability either way." ... of course it can be argued this way, but you cannot prove it. Equiprobability has already been

discounted as being irrelevant.

Quote: "For this reason, and others, many leading Theologians, Philosophers and Scientists over History have considered Agnosticism

over God a regrettable position to take and one that almost deserves our scorn." ... who cares what they think, the lass working at

my local fish n' chip shop thinks that all atheists should be castrated. Totally irrelevant.

Quote: "It is the easy way out; a lazy and ill thought out conclusion to reach." ... throw out an insult to bolster a weak

argument. I would suggest that your argument is particularly lazy - no evidence therefore no existence - no thinking required.

Who knows, maybe being deliberately inciteful, but always irrelevant.

Quote: "People who consider themselves liberal will find it a comfortable position to employ given that it suggests they are open

minded to all possibilities and that they want everyone to believe whatever they want to believe." ... condescending, patronizing,

more emotive drivel. Irrelevant.

Quote: "This is a naive stance to take on something so powerful and influential as religious beliefs." ...poke with sharp stick.

Quote: "One can never prove that God does not exist." ...always interesting when people say 'I can't prove it, but I know I am

right".

Quote: "One can never prove that a flying pig does not exist, but to be agnostic about the existence of a flying pig is exactly the

same as being agnostic about the existence of God - irrational.God is in the same position." ... refer to Jingthing's post #47, no

point rehashing this piece of extraneous tripe.

Your argument is full of holes & sinking fast.

We can only hope that the 'Oxford' part of your moniker does not refer to any association with the world renowned Oxford

University, but rather to the Oxford Trailer Park, Oxford, Alabama.

[OlRedEyes]

Doesn't that make the whole "believer" thing purely arbitrary, i.e. depends on where and when you were brought up, not on a clear choice you made?

I find this point irrelevant. Obviously, one person isn't going to be believe in all faiths, or dead faiths, or faiths that are diametrically opposed. Comparative religious scholars will probably tell you that all faiths share alot of commonalities. Anthropologists will tell you that you will find faiths in every culture, so it is a part of being human. Of course, that doesn't prove the reality of these deities, it just shows there is something about our species that needs to explain the unexplainable. With the emergence of science, there is now a more rational way to explain things, so I don't think its a coincidence that non-belief is on the rise in our age. But that doesn't eliminate the fear of death, which obviously is a big part of the human need for religion.

I can respect people's right to believe in whatever they want. But I can never respect the belief itself if it cannot be substantiated by at least some logic or plausible theory, if not proof. The demand by religion that their beliefs be respected is ridiculous and totally arrogant.

Whoever said human beings are perfectly logical? We would be boring that way, like machines, machines that work. It isn't always safe not to show respect to religious people. What does it hurt? They feel strongly about it and how can you judge them? Where I personally lose respect for religious people is when they judge non-believers and try to convert them. Sadly, this is widespread.

Fear breeds faith. No fear, no faith required. Maybe agnostics are risk averse investors. Hedging bets.

Alot of truth to that. Maybe we go to purgatory? Could be worse.

Faith has little to do about explaining the unexplainable IMHO, but everything to do with fear.

Never said, thought or expect most humans to be logical. On average they fear too much to face reality.

It isn't always safe not to show respect to religious people.

More fear, for which the world has paid dearly through the centuries, and is still paying. Time to stand up squarely to this crap, else it will continue to consume the world. There is more empirical evidence of the destructiveness of religion than you can shake a stick at. At best it is an anchor that prevents us from developing, and keeps the masses mindless and controlled, at worst it is the major driver in mass destruction.

Edited September 7, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[OxfordWill]

loosecannon, you misunderstood the definition of agnosticism, you misunderstood that it is not my definition, you misunderstood that it is not up for interpretation, you misunderstand that my opinion has anything to do with it, you misunderstand that it is not the ontology of a thing which agnosticism concernes itself with, only the probability of two options (not three, not one, not six). Logic does not even concern itself with the world, only bits, bytes, and other variables such as sentential, deviant, modals... and so on. You're confusing logic with english reading comprehension, the latter of which allows you to piss all over something to confuse the subject. You're making a fool of yourself trying to argue that agnosticism is not a declaration of equiprobable probability between two potential options. My post is not an argument against god, or faith (got 30 000 words on those subjects though if you're interested ho ho), it is an argument against agnosticism. Have you ever actually examined the position in any detail, or just assumed because many other people say they are agnostic, and they seem like reasonable people, its safe to do so also?

Also very telling is your comment on how its "maybe" impossible to prove a negative. Hmm.

Edited September 7, 2008 by OxfordWill

[JetsetBkk]

No religion for me, just the "Golden Rule": treat others as you would hope they treat you.

No need for anything else.

[eyebee]

I'm an atheist - or probably, as Douglas Adams put it, a radical atheist. The three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in chronological order) say "I am right, you are wrong". They can't see that their religion has as much chance of being wrong as the other guy's. And while it's impossible to prove a negative (that God doesn't exist), I'd rather put my faith in science (which can be provable) than in religion (which is all about faith).

For those interested, I'd highly recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God Is Not Good" by Christopher Hitchens - they put it much better than I could ever hope to do.

[HorseDoctor]

I'm extremely suspicious of people who need to believe in patriarchal myths in order to be coerced into doing the right thing or following a code of conduct.

I think they are morally deficient to begin with.

Also, it seems clear to me that the big three Islam , Christianity, Judaism are really about controlling women's sexuality because if it wasn't shamed and controlled,

we women would have ALL the power.

(btw; Women is a term I notice is rarely utilized on this forum - it means grown up females that have an intrinsic value outside of their perceived sexual attractiveness .)

[NaaiGuwnTheen]

No religion for me, just the "Golden Rule": treat others as you would hope they treat you.

No need for anything else.

What if they slapped you?

[HarryHacker]

For those interested, I'd highly recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God Is Not Good" by Christopher Hitchens - they put it much better than I could ever hope to do.

Strongly agree regarding Professor Richard Dawkins, 'The God Delusion' by the way it was the best seller over the Christmas period when it was published

I have not read Hitchens yet, its on my list 'to do'

[kiakaha]

If there were no humans, there would be no religion.

I therefore choose to worship eels.

[Dustoff]

If there were no humans, there would be no religion.

I therefore choose to worship eels.

That sounds reasonable enough. At least we can prove their existence.

As I wrote earlier, the human imagination is indeed profound.

This entire thread is a testament to that undeniable reality...

No religion?

Edited September 7, 2008 by Dustoff

[libya 115]

I think a lot people like to boast that they are an atheist because belief in God is considered de trop at the present time.

I suspect that many, having posted as atheist are in fact deist or indeed would prefer to be considered pantheists if they were intelligent enough to understand the meanings of such belief systems.

Agnostics are just lazy or stupid. The very word means 'not knowledgable' which is a pathetic admission.

[garro]

In relation to God I would say that my position is one of agnosticism, ' I just don't know'. To claim a definite position seems illogical and a little bit ignorant/arrogant in my view.

It seems to be zeitigist to say that you are 'atheist' at the moment due to recent popular books which have caught the popular imagination, but it seems a rather extreme position. I suppose it's attractive to people who may have been brought up in a culture of 'there is only one way of seeing the world'- so for many there position on the universe hasn't really changed and they continue to believe that they know the ultimate reality and that others don't know it.

I find the techniques found in Buddhism to be very useful in my life, but only those which I can verify with experiences and are rational to me. If a god began to talk to me then my first thought would be to question my sanity because this would seem a more rational explanation.

Edited September 7, 2008 by garro