# Are you religious?



## James_au (Dec 15, 2006)

I've always presumed that the Weight Gain Community has few religious members. However it would be interesting to find out for sure.


----------



## comperic2003 (Dec 16, 2006)

Your definition of agnosticism is flawed. Agnostics believe there is not enough substantial evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, or a higher power. We certainly have an opinion on the matter.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm not religious. I'm fatlane. Religious hasn't posted in, like, _ages._


----------



## Spanky (Dec 16, 2006)

Where's the box for "atheist but loves to listen to Jack Van Impe late at night and will probably convert on the deathbed when it REALLY matters"?

And that guy above isn't Fatlane, only Fatlane would have a real avatar.....maybe he is religious. Looks like a religious avatar to me. Real existential-like.


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

comperic2003 said:


> Your definition of agnosticism is flawed. Agnostics believe there is not enough substantial evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, or a higher power. We certainly have an opinion on the matter.



If you do not have enough information to form a conclusion on a subject how can you have an opinion on it? You have an opinion on whether or not there is enough substantial evidence or not, but you have no opinion on whether or not there is a higher intelligence due to your answer to that question. Whether there is enough substantial evidence to prove the existence of a higher intelligence is a closely related question but different to the one I have asked.


----------



## Observer (Dec 16, 2006)

In any event your assumption that this community is essentially non-religious is proving to be flawed by the survey - as well as by the vigor of periodic discussions on religious-related topics. We have numerous members of various faiths here, as well as those whose faith is science or in themselves..


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

Observer said:


> In any event your assumption that this community is essentially non-religious is proving to be flawed by the survey - as well as by the vigor of periodic discussions on religious-related topics. We have numerous members of various faiths here, as well as those whose faith is science or in themselves..



Firstly, if you saw a poll in a newspaper with less than 20 responses would you even consider trusting it? No one in their right mind would, because a sample this small proves nothing except for the views of the first people to respond. Until there are many more responses it not even close to scientific.

Secondly, I did not place the poll in this board, which I consider outside the Weight Gain Community as many people who are not in it take part in the discussions here. I have appealed to have it moved back to the weight board, because that is the only board where it makes sense to ask a question specifically to the Weight Gain Community. For the Dimensions community in general you may be correct, but that is not contrary to what I stated in my initial post.

Only if this poll is returned to the Weight Board can it prove something.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Dec 16, 2006)

Why have you presumed that?

I personally am metaphysical undecided, but I think that figuring out a belief system that more or less defines right, wrong, and the true nature of the universe is a decision that merits some deliberation.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm nominally religious. I get to church once a month if I go.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 16, 2006)

Can we get the thread moved to Hyde Park if we start naming who's gonna burn in hell?

I'm pretty sure Mini's goin' to hell, as he look-a-like th' debbull in his picter.


----------



## Mini (Dec 16, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Can we get the thread moved to Hyde Park if we start naming who's gonna burn in hell?
> 
> I'm pretty sure Mini's goin' to hell, as he look-a-like th' debbull in his picter.



You were sayin' I was hell-bound well before I changed my picture!


----------



## fatlane (Dec 16, 2006)

Well, you may already be there, what with them flames in the background.


----------



## Observer (Dec 16, 2006)

Thread hijack detector activated - this poll is now back on the board where its creator intended, so please play nice.

I would llike to know why the poll creator feels those who frequent the weight gain forum would differ greatly in their religious beliefs from he Dimensions general community or society in general?

And with 24 responses (four above your stipulation) at this writing the initial exit poll trends of earlier are holding firm. That is why I was willing to project when I did - incomin data conformed within acceptable deviation to expectations.


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

I am very grateful that my poll is back on the Weight Board.


----------



## Tina (Dec 16, 2006)

I would be interested in an answer to that question, too. Danny?


----------



## fatlane (Dec 16, 2006)

OK, I'll stop hijacking off...


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

Perhaps my presumption is incorrect, but it seemed on the rare occasion religion has come up on this board that arguments have been very one sided. Someone, I think it may have been Ned, stated that a board which was sexual in nature, such as the Weight Board, a place to discuss weight gain fantasies, would be an odd place for religious types to frequent.

Please take into account as well that a few votes were made by people who may not be part of this community as this thread was sitting on the "Lounge" board for a little while.


----------



## Observer (Dec 16, 2006)

Ned is entitled to his opinon. 

Actually Jesus was quite the gourmet. His first miracle was turning water into wine. On the day before his crucifixion he held a supper for His disciples. Churches ever since have been having potlucks and fellowship breakfasts. He was called a winebibber and a glutton by His critics. On two occasions He perfomed miracles that fed thousands and no one went away hungry - making him arguably a most benificent type of feeder. 

So why would His followers be uncomfortable here? I'm not.


----------



## philosobear (Dec 16, 2006)

In response to the poll, none of the above. I've seen all those terms and been round and round the dichotomies they represent before. In my view, those forms of language aren't up to the job. Right, now I'll read the thread!


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

Observer said:


> Ned is entitled to his opinon.
> 
> Actually Jesus was quite the gourmet. His first miracle was turning water into wine. On the day before his crucifixion he held a supper for His disciples. Churches ever since have been having potlucks and fellowship breakfasts. He was called a winebibber and a glutton by His critics. On two occasions He perfomed miracles that fed thousands and no one went away hungry - making him arguably a most benificent type of feeder.
> 
> So why would His followers be uncomfortable here? I'm not.



In my last post when I said "religious types" I meant someone who frequents a place of worship at least once a week or the type who abstain from sex till marriage. But so far in this poll there seems to be a fair few I consider very religious anyway.


----------



## philosobear (Dec 16, 2006)

I don't think fatlane ever hi-jacks. He throws subtle light and shade on the issue with the cunning use of childishness.


----------



## James_au (Dec 16, 2006)

philosobear said:


> In response to the poll, none of the above. I've seen all those terms and been round and round the dichotomies they represent before. In my view, those forms of language aren't up to the job. Right, now I'll read the thread!



I know not everything can be properly categorized into these groupings, such as pantheism, some Buddhist sects and many others, but I was worried about over complicating the poll and confusing people.


----------



## philosobear (Dec 16, 2006)

...and when talking about the meaning of life we would hate to do either of these things, of course! I'm going to butt out now, as if I do there's a chance you'll get some answers in the form you're looking for...


----------



## James (Dec 16, 2006)

comperic2003 said:


> Your definition of agnosticism is flawed. Agnostics believe there is not enough substantial evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, or a higher power. We certainly have an opinion on the matter.



I totally agree... Agnosticism is certainly not the absence of an opinion... 

Maybe its better described as an absence of faith..? or perhaps being genuinely open-minded...

I would consider myself agnostic, i.e. I dont have a belief but I also dont think that belief (either Atheist belief or Religious belief) is ridiculous, or that I would rule either out if my perspective of the world and faith were to change...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 16, 2006)

I feel like I have "made my peace with God" a long time ago even though I gave up the religion itself. 
To the OP, I actually attended two different churches as a girl/teen in the southeastern USA (bible belt). I hold onto a belief in a higher power, mainly the God I was taught to believe in, but do not embrace any religion or practices (outside of prayer or meditation). 
I have been chubby to fat since puberty. Do you think the fat acceptance community is "godless" because you see a lot of democrat/liberals on here? That seems like a slanted/misinformed basis for an opinion if that is the case. 
I voted/sided with the democrats even during my religious spell. I know a married couple who are both Ministers that are Democrats, too. 
Please correct me if my ponderings about your thought processes are wrong.


----------



## James (Dec 16, 2006)

ok... with *zero *wish to flame i have an observation...

Ok, I'm british, so I probably dont get it... but from my viewpoint it almost seems that the fervour with which some people back democrats or republicans kinda seems nearly like a religion in itself... 

some of the avatars and signitures on here (for instance) seem pretty full on.... I cant work out if its pride or just baiting the "opposition"...


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 16, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> In my last post when I said "religious types" I meant someone who frequents a place of worship at least once a week or the type who abstain from sex till marriage. But so far in this poll there seems to be a fair few I consider very religious anyway.



Christianity is not the only religion, you know.

ETA: (Neither is born-again Christianity, for that matter. And I KNOW I'm not the only one thinking what I'm thinking.)


----------



## fatlane (Dec 16, 2006)

I prefer Macs to PCs and Windows to Unix.

People can get crazy about that sort of thing, too.

Personally, I'm getting into Daoist writers right now. They're quite cool and modular: one can tack them on to any other religion or philosophy one might have handy.


----------



## philosobear (Dec 16, 2006)

James and Blackjack...well done, both of those points had to be made. Shit, there I go posting again. I don't know what's good for me, do I? 

Danny, it's a blow for science (let's face it, that's long gone anyway) but I think I want to know your hypothesis. I've done some social research before, and I reckon this is time to switch to more qualitative methods. A quantitive analysis is totally hopeless on most fronts in this situation. This discussion would get a lot more creative and less paranoid if people knew what you were thinking. If you read Anne Marie's early post, I think you'll see that the wily web-vixen saw that one coming. Pay heed to the lady.


----------



## Jay West Coast (Dec 16, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> Are you religious?





Yes. Why?


----------



## treesntrees (Dec 16, 2006)

Observer said:


> Ned is entitled to his opinon.
> 
> Actually Jesus was quite the gourmet. His first miracle was turning water into wine. On the day before his crucifixion he held a supper for His disciples. Churches ever since have been having potlucks and fellowship breakfasts. He was called a winebibber and a glutton by His critics. On two occasions He perfomed miracles that fed thousands and no one went away hungry - making him arguably a most benificent type of feeder.
> 
> So why would His followers be uncomfortable here? I'm not.



And Jesus did afterall break the sabbath rules to take a bunch of folks out to a field and eat (Luke chapter 6). Ending hunger was one of his most primary tenants perhaps why so many his followers have traditionally been involved in feeds for the homeless.


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 17, 2006)

I've never at all been religious. I absolutely believe in a higher intelligence except I don't know if it's higher or inside or outside and I don't know if it's "intelligent" or just is.


----------



## formerking (Dec 17, 2006)

The higher intelligence does not explain anything but is merely another term for the great unknown. My reasoning is as follows: The universe by definition is all there is. Therefore, if there is a higher intelligence must be part of the universe. But something which is part of an unexplained greater cannot explain that greater. So perhaps the universe has self-awareness. If that were the case would man ever be able to understand or even be able to communicate with this mind? In my lifetime I surely will not know and that is why I am an agnostic.


----------



## William (Dec 17, 2006)

Oppppps

I answered the poll and I am not a feeder or gainer!!!

William




dannyz_au said:


> I am very grateful that my poll is back on the Weight Board.


----------



## panhype (Dec 17, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Personally, I'm getting into Daoist writers right now. They're quite cool and modular: one can tack them on to any other religion or philosophy one might have handy.



Geeeze... that's what i'm getting from not paying nuff attention ... Instead of Daoist i was reading Dadaist  Comes quite handy since Dada stood up as the ultimate post-religious, post-all-isms perspective. But not in the sense of frowning upon religions or isms (at least not in its general approach) and thus marking the ultimate PANorama of vision respectively "The Last Loosening" (Walter Serner)


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 17, 2006)

The poll isn't really clear and is pretty limited. What about people who attend church and don't believe? What about pantheists? What about polytheists? What about Taoists? 

More importantly, how do you mean this, Mr. OP? What's the point? I mean, while we're asking personal questions, why don't we throw out questions about political persuasion or sexual orientation?

No, none of these things are embarassing, but it seems to be a question that could only be sparked by a precise motivation with such cut and formed answers and a heavy implication sitting right in the middle of the question. So I guess what I'm saying, is feel free to explain.


----------



## UncannyBruceman (Dec 17, 2006)

Can someone tell me why this is in the Weight Board and not The Lounge?


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 17, 2006)

Cause he requested that the thread be here, since he wants to specifically know the religious makeup of the gaining community.


----------



## ciaobella (Dec 17, 2006)

I think OP should explain why he wanted to know this...I find it somewhat offensive that he should assume a member of the weight board is not religious!


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I feel like I have "made my peace with God" a long time ago even though I gave up the religion itself.
> To the OP, I actually attended two different churches as a girl/teen in the southeastern USA (bible belt). I hold onto a belief in a higher power, mainly the God I was taught to believe in, but do not embrace any religion or practices (outside of prayer or meditation).
> I have been chubby to fat since puberty. Do you think the fat acceptance community is "godless" because you see a lot of democrat/liberals on here? That seems like a slanted/misinformed basis for an opinion if that is the case.
> I voted/sided with the democrats even during my religious spell. I know a married couple who are both Ministers that are Democrats, too.
> Please correct me if my ponderings about your thought processes are wrong.



No, I do not think the "Size Acceptance Community" is godless. This is not a size acceptance board. Please read my earlier posts.


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

OK, I am not going to answer anymore questions or take part in this discussion anymore. I am getting very sick of stupid repeat questions and statements as I have answered them earlier in this thread and I am getting rather annoyed. Before you ask a question read ALL of my posts!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Dec 17, 2006)

Direct me to the posts where my questions were answered. Then, I suggest you find the biggest chill pill and swallow.


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Dec 17, 2006)

I went to church today  And I really enjoyed it. Feels nice to be able to say that. And Tina, remember that conversation we had that the Dims dinner? About the movie Stigmata? I still think that movie has a great message in it  I just watched it the other day.


----------



## Littleghost (Dec 17, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> If you do not have enough information to form a conclusion on a subject how can you have an opinion on it?


HA! People do that all the time. Obviously, you're new to this whole human race thing.  

The more I know, the more I realize I know nutzing.





--Littleghost


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Dec 17, 2006)

I'm struggling with the definition you've applied to "atheist." The problem lies in the "deny" part of the definition. There's almost an implication in the way it's worded, that god does exist, and atheists are simply "denying" him/her. I found an example while searching for a definition of theist as to why it rubs me the wrong way. "Theist - A theist is someone who denies that God doesn't exist" (skepdic.com) It puts the "default assumption" back at "no god."


Regardless, I understand why you might think that there would be a larger percentage of a-religious people here. Despite the fact that it's certainly not a scientific poll (as if a scientific poll could be conducted here) an atheist quotient of nearly 25% added to the agnostic quotient of 10% yeilds a much higher than normal percentage of the a-religious. In fact, it has been estimated that currently, 10% of US citizens are agnostic/atheist, which means that we have roughly 3.5x the percentage of agnostic/atheist on this board. 
It certainly seems like the hypothesis has merit based on the results so far, but, in order to truly tell, other "board" populations would have to be sampled. It could be that those who have on-line lives are simply more likely to be agnostic/atheist. Or it could be strictly age based, with the older population, who are not on-line as much being heavily skewed towards the religious side. 
All these possibilities aside, it makes sense that a place steeped in sexuality would not be particularly religious, particulary sexuality that falls clearly in the crosshairs of the "seven deadly sins."


----------



## Littleghost (Dec 17, 2006)

James said:


> I totally agree... Agnosticism is certainly not the absence of an opinion...
> 
> Maybe its better described as an absence of faith..? or perhaps being genuinely open-minded...
> 
> I would consider myself agnostic, i.e. I dont have a belief but I also dont think that belief (either Atheist belief or Religious belief) is ridiculous, or that I would rule either out if my perspective of the world and faith were to change...


Yeah, the root of agnostic is 'no+special knowledge'. Gnostic christians claim(ed) they have special knowledge that there is a God/Jesus. Agnostics vary in their beliefs, but claim their is no special knowledge for proof of any supernatural belief. Generally agnostics are on a never-ending search for inner and outer knowledge. Sounds a bit like Kung-Fu, the TV series...

--Littleghost


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

Littleghost said:


> HA! People do that all the time. Obviously, you're new to this whole human race thing.
> 
> The more I know, the more I realize I know nutzing.
> 
> ...



Yes, but agnostics don't have an opinion for that reason.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 17, 2006)

So, since you refuse to answer any of the questions posed to you and instead choose to repeat over and over again how agnostics can't possibly have an opinion on what you believe...

I'm just wondering why you shouldn't be considered a troll.


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> So, since you refuse to answer any of the questions posed to you and instead choose to repeat over and over again how agnostics can't possibly have an opinion on what you believe...
> 
> I'm just wondering why you shouldn't be considered a troll.



So you're going to start name calling? This is getting very childish. You can clearly see I'm not a troll. I think you just want irritate me for your own amusement. I was annoyed because of the people weren't reading previous posts and wasting my time. Littleghost posed a very good point that people in general do jump do to conclusions and since he had taken the time to actually read my posts, which many couldn't be bothered to do or wanted me to find them for them I believed he deserved a response and so I clarified my earlier post for him. I have responded to pretty much every question at least once, which proves you are not telling the truth. A troll would not have bothered with answering any. Maybe you're the one whose intentions aren't quite so noble.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 17, 2006)

You still haven't answered any question about why you would think that members of the weight gain community would or would not be religious. Having read through your posts in this thread, I still find no clear response, only arguments about the actual definition of "agnosticism" or what "religious" really means.

Now you claim that everything is explained in earlier posts when, in fact, you have talked much and said very little.


----------



## Mini (Dec 17, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> You still haven't answered any question about why you would think that members of the weight gain community would or would not be religious. Having read through your posts in this thread, I still find no clear response, only arguments about the actual definition of "agnosticism" or what "religious" really means.
> 
> Now you claim that everything is explained in earlier posts when, in fact, you have talked much and said very little.



My assumption is his hypothesis, if you can call it them, is based around the Catholic notion that gluttony is a sin; ergo, strict followers of Christ would be less likely to congregate on a board dedicated to it.

Something like that, anyway. Could be totally off base, but I realise that I don't much care either way.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 17, 2006)

Mini said:


> My assumption is his hypothesis, if you can call it them, is based around the Catholic notion that gluttony is a sin; ergo, strict followers of Christ would be less likely to congregate on a board dedicated to it.
> 
> Something like that, anyway. Could be totally off base, but I realise that I don't much care either way.



I had figured as much, but the poll results seem to disagree with his theory.

Then again, "religious" apparently only applies to the OP's own ideology, and not any other ones that people might follow.


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> Perhaps my presumption is incorrect, but it seemed on the rare occasion religion has come up on this board that arguments have been very one sided. Someone, I think it may have been Ned, stated that a board which was sexual in nature, such as the Weight Board, a place to discuss weight gain fantasies, would be an odd place for religious types to frequent.
> 
> Please take into account as well that a few votes were made by people who may not be part of this community as this thread was sitting on the "Lounge" board for a little while.



For god's sakes Blackjack! If you had actually bothered to read through my posts I don't see how you could have missed this one.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 17, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> For god's sakes Blackjack! If you had actually bothered to read through my posts I don't see how you could have missed this one.



All it said was that topics concerning religion "seem one-sided". It offered no real explanation as to why that would relate to the weight gain community, of which this board is a varied and small sample.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 17, 2006)

Your post was in the Lounge for less than 2 hours around midnight the night it was posted... so enough with that. 

If you don't want to elaborate any further on their questions, fine, but no reason to be so nasty about it and tell people what they should be doing and how they should be reading. You brought up a discussion about religion, it would be completely asinine to assume that wouldn't provoke a wide variety of responses - especially since you chose to include definitions that can certainly be open to interpretation. 

If you're going to bring up potentially heated topics, get a thicker skin.

And, in case you're really worried about it being moved from here, you should keep in mind that with your hostile attitude toward many of the respondents in your thread (who are asking you perfectly valid questions) the next stop for this thread is Hyde Park.


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> All it said was that topics concerning religion "seem one-sided". It offered no real explanation as to why that would relate to the weight gain community, of which this board is a varied and small sample.



You must be kidding me. I pointed out in that post how sexual fantasies, in which weight gain fantasies usually come under are not something "church-going people usually like to discuss.


----------



## James_au (Dec 17, 2006)

AnnMarie said:


> Your post was in the Lounge for less than 2 hours around midnight the night it was posted... so enough with that.
> 
> If you don't want to elaborate any further on their questions, fine, but no reason to be so nasty about it and tell people what they should be doing and how they should be reading. You brought up a discussion about religion, it would be completely asinine to assume that wouldn't provoke a wide variety of responses - especially since you chose to include definitions that can certainly be open to interpretation.
> 
> ...



You are completely wrong about me. I had no problem with people disagreeing with me such as Observer and I responded every time. I was only upset because people were being critical without bothering to have a look at the full picture by not reading my previous posts and I have responded to pretty much every question. I had a valid reason to be upset and Blackjack had no right to treat me like he did. If should be telling him off for being nasty not me.

I don't know why you brought up the lounge, I even thanked the moderator for bring this thread back in a previous post. So I have been very courteous about it.


----------



## Blackjack (Dec 17, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> I had a valid reason to be upset and Blackjack had no right to treat me like he did.



All I did was call you on your refusal to give valid answers.

...as per the moderator's wishes, however, I'm ceasing this argument. From my end, at least.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 17, 2006)

I wasn't saying the content upset you, but the simple interaction and the way you feel people "should" read and behave has. 

You need to dial it back a notch or two, that's all. 

This is not the post of a calm guy who's just having a discussion with people. 



> OK, I am not going to answer anymore questions or take part in this discussion anymore. I am getting very sick of stupid repeat questions and statements as I have answered them earlier in this thread and I am getting rather annoyed. Before you ask a question read ALL of my posts!



That's all I'm saying.... just take people as they come and stop acting like you're having a little tantrum. It doesn't exactly make people want to interact.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 17, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> All I did was call you on your refusal to give valid answers.
> 
> ...as per the moderator's wishes, however, I'm ceasing this argument. From my end, at least.



Thank you very much, it's appreciated.


----------



## Tina (Dec 17, 2006)

BigCutieSasha said:


> I went to church today  And I really enjoyed it. Feels nice to be able to say that. And Tina, remember that conversation we had that the Dims dinner? About the movie Stigmata? I still think that movie has a great message in it  I just watched it the other day.



Ah, yes, I remember, Sasha: the Gospel of Thomas. Beautiful.  This is an interesting website regarding the Gospel of Thomas and how it has been translated by many different people.

_Jesus Said:
I am the Light
Which illumines all men.
I am the All.
The All came forth from me
and the All ended up in me.
Split some wood, I am there.
Lift a stone,
you will find me there._​
_"Jesus said: If your leaders say to you "Look! The Kingdom is in the sky!" then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather, the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you."_


----------



## Leonard (Dec 17, 2006)

Well, dannyz_au, you've caused quite a stir. Welcome to the forum.

Before I begin I'd like to say that I've read every single post on this thread. Compelling reading. But I guess that's what happens when you choose to bring up one of the two topics one is advised not to discuss in polite company.

The poll is useless, man. Mark Twain was right. By placing it in the weight board you assume that it will be answered solely by feeders and feedees. Well, I've never been a feeder and I frequent this board all the time. I go on the BHM board too and I'm not a BHM or a FFA. God help you if you create a poll there. I may take part in feeding in the future, but that's not why I'm on this forum. I'm on this forum because I support the size acceptance movement. 

Now, from what I've read, you seem to think that the lifestyle of a feeder or feedee is not compatible with a religious lifestyle. This has lead you to believe that this board will not be frequented by many so-called "religious types". You define a "religious type" as someone who attends chruch at least once a week and abstains from sex before marriage. I think these parameters are pretty superficial, but I can understand why someone would not.

What I want to know, dannyz_au, is do consider youself a feeder? You've already explained what you hoped to learn from your poll; I want to know why you hope to learn it.

*100th post*


----------



## BigCutieSasha (Dec 17, 2006)

Tina said:


> Ah, yes, I remember, Sasha: the Gospel of Thomas. Beautiful.  This is an interesting website regarding the Gospel of Thomas and how it has been translated by many different people.
> 
> _Jesus Said:
> I am the Light
> ...



Thanks Tina, its great to read that. But the site didnt work. I got a small picture in the corner of the browser of a man. I appreciate it anyway.


----------



## Tina (Dec 17, 2006)

Heh. Whoops!! Try it now.


----------



## NFA (Dec 18, 2006)

Though I'm not part of the community you are trying to poll, I'm pleased that you've already been called out for your self-serving definition of agnostism. Its genuinely an inaccurate definition and your justification only betrays your bias rather than being an actual rebutal of the complaints.


----------



## ClickFa (Dec 18, 2006)

I have read all the posts in this thread. I don't fit into any of your pigeonholes. 

Along with other posters, I especially don't like your definition of agnostic. By your definitions, a person who reads, studys, discusses, and thinks deeply about whether God exists is 'not religeous' and someone who 'believes in ... uh ... God and stuff' is. 

BTW... I don't think you're a troll, but you need to grow a thicker skin.

John


----------



## James_au (Dec 18, 2006)

Leonard LePage said:


> Well, dannyz_au, you've caused quite a stir. Welcome to the forum.
> 
> Before I begin I'd like to say that I've read every single post on this thread. Compelling reading. But I guess that's what happens when you choose to bring up one of the two topics one is advised not to discuss in polite company.
> 
> ...



A non-practicing one I suppose. I was just curious whether people were or weren't.


----------



## James_au (Dec 18, 2006)

NFA said:


> Though I'm not part of the community you are trying to poll, I'm pleased that you've already been called out for your self-serving definition of agnostism. Its genuinely an inaccurate definition and your justification only betrays your bias rather than being an actual rebutal of the complaints.



What is the bias that I have betrayed?


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 18, 2006)

NFA's saying your use of the definition "You have no opinion on whether there is a higher intelligence or not." for agnosticism tells him that you're anti-agnostic, since that's an inaccurate definition.


----------



## James_au (Dec 18, 2006)

Wagimawr said:


> NFA's saying your use of the definition "You have no opinion on whether there is a higher intelligence or not." for agnosticism tells him that you're anti-agnostic, since that's an inaccurate definition.



Well I'm not. Many of the smartest people I know are agnostics, they just don't believe there is enough evidence to form an opinion. I think that is very sensible. So If he thinks I am anti-agnostic obviously I have not betrayed any such bias.


----------



## Leonard (Dec 18, 2006)

dannyz_au said:


> Many of the smartest people I know are agnostics, they just don't believe there is enough evidence to form an opinion. I think that is very sensible.



Your phrasing did not seem to suggest this at all. Next time, be more careful when handling such volatile subject matter.

Danny, it would seem this thread has been reduced to you defending yourself against the rest of the forum. The thread doesn't seem to be serving it's intended purpose, and I suggest we give it a rest.

Agreed?


----------



## NFA (Dec 18, 2006)

Telling me I don't have an opinion because of the opinion I have formed is just telling me that you don't respect my opinion. Agnostism isn't the Switzerland of the religious world. It is an opinion in its own right, and telling me I don't have an opinion just displays the bias you hold against my conclusions on matters of faith. Instead of respecting the thought and consideration I put into my beliefs, you dimiss me as an "undecided". Its fundamentally inaccurate and it shows that you really don't understand agnostism and clearly don't care to given the self-important manner you've responded to all of those who've raised these concerns in this thread.


----------



## James_au (Dec 18, 2006)

Leonard LePage said:


> Your phrasing did not seem to suggest this at all. Next time, be more careful when handling such volatile subject matter.
> 
> Danny, it would seem this thread has been reduced to you defending yourself against the rest of the forum. The thread doesn't seem to be serving it's intended purpose, and I suggest we give it a rest.
> 
> Agreed?



Well it's hard to sometimes to predict how volatile subjects are going to become, but I did clarify it earlier. I was just trying to make a poll that was easy to answer. I assure you I didn't mean to offend anyone and if I could change the wording in the poll I would. If everyone else stops debating so will I.


----------



## James_au (Dec 18, 2006)

NFA said:


> Telling me I don't have an opinion because of the opinion I have formed is just telling me that you don't respect my opinion. Agnostism isn't the Switzerland of the religious world. It is an opinion in its own right, and telling me I don't have an opinion just displays the bias you hold against my conclusions on matters of faith. Instead of respecting the thought and consideration I put into my beliefs, you dimiss me as an "undecided". Its fundamentally inaccurate and it shows that you really don't understand agnostism and clearly don't care to given the self-important manner you've responded to all of those who've raised these concerns in this thread.



I have made it very clear that I respect agnostics it makes perfect sense that having an opinion on on thing can prevent you from having an opinion on another, there is nothing negative about that. If you want to continue to tell me how supposedly "biased" I am for what ever reason there is nothing I can do about it, however you have not made it clear how my statements are disrespectful at all and therefore I see your argument as lacking any substance.


----------



## isotope (Dec 18, 2006)

While this thread rages on, Kenzie's belly awaits in another thread.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

PS, I'm buddhist.

PPS, Just so i'm semi on topic.

PPPS, Happy Holidays.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Dec 18, 2006)

I can't believe you guys are so offended because you feel you've been slandered by a poll.
Would you feel better if he reissued the poll with the thousands of arbitrary options that you feel are necessary? 
In reality, it breaks down like this
Are you theist, agnostic or atheist?
If theist, are you monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, etc
If agnostic, are you (not sure about the different kinds of agnostics)
If atheist are you a "strong" atheist, or a "weak" atheist?
If monotheist, are you Christian, Jewish, Muslim, 
If polytheist, are you...
If pantheist are you...

He simply stated the three options at the base of the tree and then asked for a measure of strength on the theist option. Given the multitude of options obviously available, the 4 options he chose were pretty decent and the definitions, although not perfect, were acceptable. 

Chances are you would not feel better about it, as the heart of the matter seems to be that "feederism" is immoral when practiced, and immorality is clearly inconsistent with most faiths. "But I don't practice, blah blah blah," I hear the general outcry coming. Well, tolerance of this practice is also inconsistent with many religious doctrines. Being here makes you more than tolerant, it almost makes you complicit, unless you state that you are here for fantasies' sake, and/or you believe that most people are here for fantasies sake. (This is what I believe, personally). Of course, this kind of sexual fantasy would also be no-no in many faiths. But, if you can rationalize it, I don't see why you should be offended.


----------



## FreneticFangs (Dec 18, 2006)

I'm an atheist.
I don't think there's a tie between the fat community and not being religious... other than it takes guts (no pun intended) to be open about either. I remember dating thin guys, denying being bi, and saying I believed in God back in junior high because of peer pressure.


----------



## chubscout (Dec 18, 2006)

Blackjack said:


> Christianity is not the only religion, you know.
> 
> ETA: (Neither is born-again Christianity, for that matter. And I KNOW I'm not the only one thinking what I'm thinking.)



I see Blackjack is once again displaying his special brand of welcome for another Dim newcomer. And would that thing you are thinking have the initials HFC?


----------



## chubscout (Dec 18, 2006)

James said:


> I totally agree... Agnosticism is certainly not the absence of an opinion...
> 
> Maybe its better described as an absence of faith..? or perhaps being genuinely open-minded...
> 
> I would consider myself agnostic, i.e. I dont have a belief but I also dont think that belief (either Atheist belief or Religious belief) is ridiculous, or that I would rule either out if my perspective of the world and faith were to change...



Count me as another agnostic who doesn't agree with the definition given by the OP. However, I do not agree with those who consider his definition as evidence of him having something against agnostics, just a poor choice of words or whatever. I consider myself someone who really wishes I could be a believer but I simply can't because I am also a born skeptic. For the same reason, I am sure I could never be hypnotized. But by all means I have a strong opinion that religion/faith can be a good thing. I certainly believe in the concept of a benevolent God. Unfortunately, organized religion has often been a source of a lot of strife in this world.  

As far as the connection between feederism and religion, I think maybe the real question is whether feederism is morally wrong. Because those us of who may not be religious still follow the same moral values as taught by organized religions so we don't even need to bring religion into it. *shrugs*


----------



## olly5764 (Dec 18, 2006)

Well, i'm Christian, Church of England to be exact!


----------



## GunnerFA (Dec 18, 2006)

I am Christian and have been all my life. Like what BC Sasha said, church is enjoyable and I find it makes me feel better everytime I go.

This question could be a whole new thread but I'm wondering what branch of Christianity some of the Christians here belong to.

I'm Greek Orthodox.


----------



## Still a Skye fan (Dec 19, 2006)

I try to live a good life and be decent to others.

Religion is a non-issue with me.


Dennis


----------



## Laina (Dec 19, 2006)

1. Higher intelligence? Like, am I gonna drink the Kool Aid? (I can't be the only one who read this and thought "aliens"!)
2. What if one is religious but one's religion does not have a "place" of worship--Wiccans who practice solitary, those whose circles practice at a different location every month, etc? Do they not count?
3. I can't post here because I'm not a feeder, and this is Serious Business.
4. This post brought to you by my disinterest in writing my paper on marketing conservation. Thank you, and good night.


----------



## lemmink (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm religious, but by this poll's standards I'm atheist. Rockin'.

Didn't someone put up a link somewhere that mentioned that religious people were generally heavier because churches put on a really good spread at all their functions?


----------



## Laina (Dec 20, 2006)

lemmink said:


> I'm religious, but by this poll's standards I'm atheist. Rockin'.
> 
> Didn't someone put up a link somewhere that mentioned that religious people were generally heavier because churches put on a really good spread at all their functions?



Yeah, but I think it varied from church to church.

If we're both atheists, can we run off together and raise heathen mud worshipping babies?


----------

