[General] Being religious or not religious,which is better?

Do you prefere to be religious or not religious?


  • Total voters
    6
Status
Not open for further replies.

clevercells

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Morocco
Current Location
Morocco
There are people who have been raised religious and remained like that but there are also others who have chosen to be free.
I'm just trying to figure out the reason why both of them adopted such a way of living.

I believe that everyone is free to chose whatever pleases her/him but sometimes it makes you curious to know the reason why people do one thing and not another.
Thanks all in advance first for your contributions.
 

Kätzchen

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
Other
How can one be better than the other?
If someone strongly believes in a god and it helps him through live that's great for them, but if someone just doesn't believe in a god that's great too.

For me, I haven't been raised very religiously at home, though some religion tends to be mandatory in nursery school. But even then it never seemed quite feasible to me, a almighty guy sitting around somewhere in heaven, seeing everything, judging everything by some arbitrary rules he just made up for some reason, expecting us to believe in him without giving us prove. Didn't seem logical to me. The scientific explanations always made a lot more sense to me, so I'm an atheist.
Of course I can't be certain there is no god, but I rather believe in a well thought-out theory, then in a per definition unprovable god.
 

clevercells

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Morocco
Current Location
Morocco
Hi Kätzchen, how are you?
What I understand from your post is that you choose not to be religious because it was not proved to you rationally,that's right but I think even science changes its theories,a theory is not eternal,it's like a baby :comes to life,grows,matures then die.

Let me give you an example, the theory of human evolution had so called facts that the origin of man is evolutional, the human phylum has its evolutionary origin in other animal phyla; and within the human phylum, humanity has adopted genetically and evolutionally distinct forms until it has arrived at present-day man, this theory was adopted for decades but nowadays groups of scientists have proven that it's not right and the theory started to loose its credibility simply because the origin of man is not in another animal.

So here even sciences you can not rely on then 100% because they will change someday and you'll finally find yourself without a proof.
 

Kätzchen

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
Other
But science doesn't changes, only it theories will be adapted or overthrown due to new evidence, and be replaced with new theories incorporating the newly found data. That's what sciences means.

But no, I did not choose to be not religious. As I said, I am an atheist, which means I believe in the non-existence of god without a prove of it's non-existence, just like religious people believe in god without a prove of it's existence.

I'm not wholly scientific in this aspect, since I am fully unable to acknowledge the possible existence of god as an agnostic should. If I could choose I would be an agnostic, because I know this is the most rational and logical position to take.
 

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Careful, folks! The poll's OK, but discussions arising from it come close to breaking the forum's rules. ;-)
 

clevercells

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Morocco
Current Location
Morocco
I respect your point of view, thanks for posting again !
 

Anglika

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Member Type
Other
But I do agree that it is not really feasible to say one is better than the other, either semantically or grammatically.
 

clevercells

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Morocco
Current Location
Morocco
But I do agree that it is not really feasible to say one is better than the other, either semantically or grammatically.
Hi Anglika,
Maybe the question was not formulated like it has to be, so it's not a comparison.
Let's say with which one people feel comfortable?
 

clevercells

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Arabic
Home Country
Morocco
Current Location
Morocco
Hi again Anglika,

If we say John is better than James. Grammatically is it correct or not?
 

mara_ce

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Spanish
Home Country
Argentina
Current Location
Argentina
The problem with this thread is the second part. Who is capable of judging that? Who am I to say whether believers are wrong or not?
It´s their decision, not mine. If they believe in God, it´s OK for me.

Everybody is happy!
My reasons... I don´t want to share them. :)
 

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Hi again Anglika,

If we say John is better than James. Grammatically is it correct or not?
It's incomplete. It means 'better at cricket' or 'better behaved' or something. The context often asks the implicit 'Better at what/in what way?' question. So you might hear a conversation like this:

A: Is John better behaved than James?
B: John is better.


There's a fine line between grammaticality and incompleteness. ;-)

b

PS There's another sort of 'better', meaning 'recovered from an illness'. This makes a statement like 'I'm better' ambiguous. When I use it, I sometimes change the stress, to emphasize that I'm not yet 'fighting fit': 'I'm better, but...'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top