Religious Preference?

[Rowdyboy]

[jedicord]

1. Deist

eom

[Solly Mack]

2. None for me, please

I'm full

[Cornus]

3. Just curious

Three of the first eight votes are for *other*....what's left. Maybe an explanation by the other posters?

[sui generis]

12. maybe not a religion

secular humanist -- doesn't require faith in the unseen

[Gore1FL]

81. well there is

Unitarian
Unaffiliated
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Community of Christ (formerly RLDS
Seihk

There are many many many many more



On Edit -- added more

[Tweed]

4. Catholic

If there is any belief that upholds the ideas of protecting the poor, holding up peace, saving the world, and the majority of the other Democratic party beliefs, it's the Catholic faith.

Not saying that it's impossible for a non-Catholic to hold such ideals, just saying it's natural for me to be a fervent believer of both.

[realisticphish]

7. yeah

I'm evangelical Lutheran, which really isnt that far removed from Catholicism; some difference as to confessions, priesthood, and the focus on the Virgin Mary, but other than that, fairly similar. I like to think of us as laid back catholics :)

[Rowdyboy]

9. Add protecting women's rights and gay rights and you get

Episcopalians "Catholic-lite" or "God's frozen people"

[TeacherCreature]

16. except the right of women to control their reproduction

Which is a belief of the majority of democrats.

[Monte Carlo]

28. My differences with the Church aside, I couldn't bring myself to leave...

... officially. I'm not the best Catholic, but there are parts of the teachings of the church that I find to be incredibly endearing: forgiveness, non-violence, compassion.

[truthspeaker]

86. that loyalty is what they're counting on

there are plenty of other faiths and philosophies that teach forgiveness, non-violence, and compassion. Catholicism did not invent them nor does it have a monopoly on them. (Nor, historically, has the church practiced any of them consistently).

[Tweed]

95. You confuse the church with a couple of bad apples who have risen up

the ranks due to their ambition. But yes, often too many have followed the word of those troubled men. Catholicism is more then just philosophies to boot.

[truthspeaker]

102. one of those bad apples is the pope, and he claims to have authority

over all Catholics.

[supernova]

5. Liberal Protestant

I don't talk about it unless the subject comes up. "Liberal" here means theoligically liberal as well as poltiically liberal.

[Spazito]

6. The way I look at it is...

there is faith and then there is religion. To me, faith is what I hold to be true to me such as "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "do no harm". Religion is following a set of precepts put forward by an organization and only their precepts are accepted as "gospel".

I, therefore, have faith but not religion.

[Political_Junkie]

18. Agreed, Spazito.

Though my faith tends to waver sometimes, I don't need anyone else's dogma.

[Hoping4Change]

24. Well said. I put myself in that catagory too.

[ulysses]

8. militant agnostic

I don't know and neither do you.

;-)

[libhill]

52. Amen to that

The existence/non existence of a Deity of any sort is unknown and unknowable to mortal folks. That's all there is, there ain't no moe.

[blurp]

74. So, agnostic atheist, or agnostic deist?

"What do you believe" is a different question than "what do you know" or "what can you prove".

It seems to me it's quite possible to claim both that you believe or don't believe in a god, and that you can't prove it.

[ulysses]

85. I'm not big on faith, if that's what you mean.

Beyond that, I don't really sub-categorize. I agree with tx.lib in that the nature of the deity, including the question of its existence, is unknowable to us. Experience leads me to the belief that we ourselves are more than the sum total of our chemical reactions, and so I've entertained a sort of diluted Gnosticism from time to time, but I don't go any further than that.

[porphyrian]

87. The definition of agnosticism...

...is the belief that the existance or non-existance is unknown and probably unknowable, so your question here is moot. I am also agnostic, somewhat secular humanist as well, and my rationale is as follows: there's no way to prove or disprove the existance of a god or gods (or goddesses, for that matter) at this time, and a god (gods, goddess, etc.) would understand this and how I came to it, so it is better to focus on what good can be done here in the knowable than to miss opportunities to improve life speculating about an afterlife.

[gpandas]

89. there is also no way to prove...

that invisible wild pigs fly out when someone farts.

[ulysses]

90. nor is there any way

to disprove such. :)

[gpandas]

93. so, i make my life decisions based on observable...

realities, not some pre-babylonian myth.

[ulysses]

94. fair enough.

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

97. That's not true.

Unless they are incorporeal or microscopic, invisible flying pigs would wreak havoc in someone's pants, and cause considerable anal trauma to most people.

[gpandas]

111. that's right-microscopic LOL

[Swamp Rat]

10. What's up with all these posts on religion lately?

I'm not complaining about this particular post, which is just fine, but with this stupid amendment bill coming up (the one where gay folks are made into second-class citizens). It is upsetting to see so many people trying to mix church issues with state issues. I sense that X-tians are trying to re-mold DU into a religious board, hence the X-tian flame-bait threads going on at this moment.

Perhaps "religious issues" should be given its own forum?

[Political_Junkie]

14. Good idea, Swamp_Rat.

I've been seeing quite a few religious posts lately too.

[TeacherCreature]

26. It's the anti-choice folks

they aren't trying to change DU. They are trying to change the Constitution to conform to their religious views. If it weren't for those threadsm the only religious threads would be the one started by people who are anti-christian or anti-theist.

[Swamp Rat]

30. I welcome anti-Christian or anti-theist posts, but perhaps in another

forum where folks can hash out their religious differences. I'd like to see a separation of church and state issues here at DU that mirror our constitution. Why must minorities have to suffer the oppression of the X-tian majority's religion in the GD forum? Some folks come here to GET AWAY from religion.

[knitter4democracy]

47. That's a really good idea!

That way we can't get into nasty fights unless we really want to . . . Oh, wait . . . ;)

[libhill]

54. It's really too bad -

that so called "Christians" can't follow the advice of their God. Such as, "Judge not lest ye be judged", or, "let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone". In other words, don`t be bashing gays, when you don`'t even have your own frikkin' house in order.

[starroute]

11. Making it up as you go along

At the moment, if you backed me into a corner, I might admit to being a holistic pantheist agnostic. But that's just this week. My only real article of faith is "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao."

[Snow]

50. Hey, I'm a Quaker, too!

Glad to meet thee, Friend.
;-)

[derby378]

96. Hey, Snow

Was that meant for starroute or for me? ;)

[Snow]

99. *chuckle* already knew about you - just giving starroute

a little grief, here. He/she may be one of those "quakers who don't know it yet" that we're always talking about.

[Selwynn]

13. Other, because labels are lame

[Political_Junkie]

15. Other,

agnostic bordering on atheism.

[shanti]

17. spiritual, but not religious

a pan-deist/pantheist, if you will.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Yep.. sounds good to me. Whatever floats yer boat so long

as you don't harm others.

[Atlas Mugged]

19. gAyTheist n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

29. But wouldn't a "gaytheist" be....

....someone who didn't believe in the existence of homosexuals? :shrug:

[Atlas Mugged]

34. My! Ain't we picky!

Actually - it was just some word play. I'm a fan of William R. Espy. But, back to your question, no. A theist is the opposite of an atheist, which would negate the intention of my lame, little joke.

[Walt Starr]

35. No

that would be one who believes homosexuals are gods and goddesses.

[Endangered Specie]

20. Skeptic.

Science is the way and light everlastin ;)

[TransitJohn]

Well, since I don't see

an option for "Buddhist-Christian who has interacted personally with space aliens," I guess I'll just check other.

[funkybutt]

22. i really like this thread

wish i had thought of it...very interesting

[MrBenchley]

23. Atheist and proud of it

[iverglas]

51. oh, okay

I'll say it.

Me too.

[bigbillhaywood]

57. One thing we can agree on.

[InvisibleTouch]

25. Atheist, but...

...I respect the belief systems of others if it gives them comfort in their lives - and as long as they don't try to force it on me!

[Momgonepostal]

31. I think that's a very healthy and considerate...

way of looking at things. The world needs more people like you. :-)

I'm religious, but I figure it costs me nothing to be respectful of other people differing beliefs.

Some of the snide anti-religious posts bother me because I take them personally, but then again I don't like listening to holier than thou religious people either.

[Straight Shooter]

27. "Other"

Because what you call it makes no difference; it's what you do with it that matters.

[Az]

32. Technicalities

I am an atheist. I am also a Unitarian Universalist. I also happen to be a Secular Humanist. I am also a Taoist. And on occaissions I also am a Discordian.

None of these are in any way exclusionary to the other. Atheism is not a religion. It is simply an acknowledgement of a particular belief or lack of belief. Just as knowing a person is a theist does not tell you exactly what their religious beliefs are knowing a person is an atheist does not give you a complete picture of the individual.

Unitarian Universalism does not advocate any particular Dogma. It is a structure for similarly dispositioned people to gather together and share in this journey called life. They encourage tolerance and inquiry. They welcome theist and atheist alike. They form the basis of my social connectivity in philosophical matters.

Secular Humanism is a means of determining a ethical stance in this world using reason and our nature. It forms the basis of my moral approach to the world around me.

Taoism is a teaching the nature of the interacting world around us. It has caught glimpses of things we do not yet have the means to describe and some things we have figured out. It has the ring of truth to me in many ways. And though I am not a follower of it I find that I walk the same path as it seems to advocate. So it is useful to me.

When faced with a wall of overwhelming certainty in others beliefs Discordianism often presents a means of bringing about inner examination in others. By tripping others up it forces them to look where they have been stepping. This may be the insite they need in order to see their own beliefs in a new light.

I bring these up because it is unlikely that you can define any one person by a singular belief. We are an amalgamation of our experiences. There may be dominant themes but we are all each and every one of us a chorus reflecting our unique journey through this world.


On Edit: Hail Eris! Fnord!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Indifferent agnostic.

I always figured that if there is a God, He/She/It must have better things to do than fretting over whether pipsqueeks like us believe in He/She/It.

Also, any Deity that requires constant praise and applause needs some serious help with narcissism.

[Jokinomx]

58. Your Siggie of Mark Twain is so appropriate...

I feel religious organizations have a purpose.. but just like school.. there comes a time when you graduate. You live your life Doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.. not because your afraid of punishment... or because someone interprets scripture and insists you live this way or that...

I have outgrown the need of religion... I wish more people would graduate. Live your life the best that you can with the knowledge you have ... then you die.. and go home.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

36. Other - Candomblé

[DaveSZ]

37. Kick

.

[knitter4democracy]

38. Eastern Orthodox

You left out a whole third of Christianity: the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes, we have our smaller, ethnic groups, but we are all under the Orthodox Church. The Catholics split off of us (and vice versa) in 1054 AD, so we're not Catholic, and we never had a Reformation, so we're not Protestants. Please don't leave us out.

[derby378]

42. Hey there!

You got a great point. How did the Orthodox get left off the poll?

[Rowdyboy]

44. Wish DU had provision for more than 10 answers....

As it is, Protestant includes everyone from Quakers, Episcops and UU's to Pentacostals/Seventh Day Adventists etc.

Just wanted to get some ballpark figures of where the membership of the board stands in general.

[knitter4democracy]

46. What would be interesting is

a poll on the area of religion: fundamentalist, evangelical, traditionalist, things like that. You can be those things in any religion.

Thanks for explaining how we got left out. I got all mad at a local news station awhile back when they called to do a poll and did the same thing: no Eastern Orthodox option. I had to settle for Other Christian, which lumped me in with Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventists, and many others I have almost nothing in common with, faith-wise.

[elfwitch]

39. Reform Jew...

Some would say an EXTREMELY Reform Jew.

[Trajan]

40. Atheist ....

EX-Catholic ....

I once took an online 'religion test' which declared I was UU and/or Quaker/Buddhist ..... but nah: I'm not ...

I have lost every shred of faith ...

I have hopes, dreams, ideas, wants, needs, desires, impulses, cravings, wishes, yens, itches and fantasies ... but not a whit of faith ...

[Az]

43. Actually

UUism does not require any faith. It is a religion with no dogma. Believe whatever you wish. Its only real advocacy is for tolerance.

[derby378]

41. Quaker - and skeptic

Skepticism is more of a philosophy than a religion, though - but it actually shares a lot of ideals with Quaker theology, especially the more liberal Hicksite traditions.

[SoCalDem]

45. Thanks, but no thanks.. been there, done that...n/t

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I Put "Atheist" because...

given an either-or choice between believing in a supreme diety-- of any fashion-- or not, I fall firmly on the side of "not". And in the context of generalized political discussion in the USA, which rarely rises above metaphysics 101, for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist, and a secular humanist to boot.

However, I am by no means a strict materialist, rationalist, or anything of the sort.

My philosophical leanings tend towards Taoism or Buddhism, but my interpretation of those two do not contain, again, a supreme, separate entity along the lines of "god".

The closest I come to such a thing is a general sense that all consciousness in the universe is, essentially, one-- that we are all, in essence, drops that are part of a larger ocean.. If you want to call that ocean "god" (for instance, if that sort of semantics help you accept the tenets of a 12 step program) I suppose that's reasonable, but in my view that means we, too, are "god". Which I believe, in a sense. The difference, in my opinion, between the eastern, Buddhist strains of inquiry, and the western ones, is that the western ones posit the source of truth "out there", i.e. an invisible man in the clouds. Buddhism, as I understand it, conjectures that the truth can be found within. Which, at the very least, clarifies where to look. I don't know if "god" exists, but I'm fairly certain that I do.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Discordian.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Every second thursday I chuck it all to hell and worship the goddess of Discord. Hail Eris!

[Az]

60. Fnord!

Hail Eris etc

[psychopomp]

63. What I'd like to know is

what is so "chaotic" about proclaiming association with a group who share the same principle?

[Warren DeMontague]

64. there is implicit order in real chaos...

witness the humble broccoflower.

anyway, consistency is the mind of small hobgoblins.

[psychopomp]

80. Ah, yes, Emerson

One of the great shining stars of American thought.

I wonder if you can provide more insight on your statement. Is that what the mathematicians tell us? BTW, nice picture.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Well, I'm about as good a mathematician as I am

a philosopher, which is to say, admittedly weak.

However, as I understand it, "chaos" isn't always the same thing as totally random noise. Or, even when it is totally random noise, the levels or paramaters within and by which the noise is random tend to generate ordered patterns of a sort.

Fractals, Fractals, Fractals, is what it's all about as far as I'm concerned, but I have a much better understanding of them from an aesthetic standpoint than I do trying to sit down and explain the formulas that generate 'em. I'm a visual guy- so there are ideas that I can visualize, that I can't so easily put in words.

Like, look at this picture of the Earth from space:



There's chaos there, but certainly order, too.

Now, if you get a chance, look at the thumbnails of these free pictures of mud. No, really. Like me, you probably never realized mud could be so gul-durn interesting. But it is. (I found some cool sites trying to come up with these examples- man, I love the internet!)..

http://www.mayang.com/textures/Nature/html/Earth%20and%20Dirt/Soil%20Dust%20Sand%20Mud

Each of those pictures are chaotic, but they also have levels of order, as well. The cracking mud, for instance, is cracking randomly-- but also in a pattern that is mathematically describable. The individual cracks may be random, but generally you have a large crack, with smaller cracks bifurcating off of it, and smaller ones off of that. Trees do the same thing. Trees are all different, and random, but they still share some similar mathematical rules that describe how they form.

James Gleick can explain it a helluva lot better than I can. There have been lots of books written about Chaos math and fractals since that one, but it's pretty much the seminal work, I think.

And, for the visually minded, the infinite fractal loop is always good for killing a few hours.

Philosophically, my own take on it is, there really isn't any such thing as pure "order" or pure "chaos" in the world, much like communism and capitalism never exist in their pure, idealized forms. all order contains a little bit of chaos, and all chaos contains some form of order.

Like the yin-yang, Everything contains a kernel of it's own opposite.... Although, come to think of it, if that means there's a tiny little eety beety republican inside of me, I want off this thought-train, pronto.

[Dukkha]

53. I'm all about Satan here!

:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[malachibk]

55. Yes to God, No to organized religion!!

[blurp]

75. No to god and yes to organized religion.

People need something to help guide them. Even as an atheist I believe that. They need inspiration and some advice or hint about how they ought to behave.

I would love to see a religion with the principles of good living, inspiring words, but without the idea that there is some sky-daddy watching over everything.

Call it religion without a god.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. I prefer Christians boiled, and all others BBQd

tastes like chicken

[Cobalt Violet]

59. Wow!!! Soooooooo many other atheists!!!!!!!

:party: :bounce: :hi: :loveya::grouphug:

[jukes]

61. jukes is atheist

might have mentioned it a time or two.

[cease_fire]

62. Jedi. eom

[LittleApple81]

65. I AM A CHURCH OF ONE - Boy, finally could copycat the army slogans.n/t

[Solon]

66. Selftheist...

Worship me dammit!!!! :evilgrin:

[Lizz612]

67. Agnostic but....

Parents were raised Catholic, grandparents and aunts uncle cousins et al are mostly Catholic, went to conservative Catholic school for two years, but have met many nice liberal Catholics since and conversion has more than flitted across my mind. The obvious disagreements with Church teachings are hard for me to swallow, and the miracles and transubstantiation are hard for my brain to accept, but still, I'm very drawn.

[gpandas]

116. drawn by the ritual...

in an experiment, investigators found that the area of the brain that is most active in subjects who meditate is the same as ones who were attending church services. further investigation showed that it is the ritual, not religion, that is so attractive to people. almost every good athlete has a ritual that they do before they play. it was theorized, since the area of the brain that reacts with ritual is very close to the area that enables us to differentiate ourselves as seperate from the rest of the world, the feeling of 'being one with the universe', or 'being one with god' or 'connectedness', or 'in the zone'is the result of disrupting this area due to the ritual. we are longer aware of ourselves and all the attendant problems we have, thus clearing our minds. this feeling is very pleasant, so much so that it has been sought throughout the ages. the first, and usually only, ritual that western man performs is the ritual of the church, and he attributes his good feeling to the church. most eastern people are taught that the truth is within them, and needs to be found there. therefore, much more meditation, and self-introspection that leads to 'enlightenment' is a chief characteristic of eastern thought. i believe this results in the duality of western man. i'm practicing to write a short form of this story, so i can post it. there is much evidence to support this theory, none online that i know of.

[RebelYell]

68. Atheist

nt

[GoneOffShore]

69. Raised Presbyterian

but when I was 7 was fascinated by Superman comics. I figured he was a better guy than Jesus. Got sent to 'Bible School' by my mom, but got taken to the fire station on Sunday mornings by my dad, who was a sort of reluctant Congregationalist. Never really was sure if he was truly religious or not.
Flirted with Catholicism, then became a Unitarian. Got out of that when I moved to the UK and then after a number of years and a lot of reading and thought, decided that there just wasn't 'out there'. Been an enthuiastic atheist ever since. This does not mean that I don't adhere to ethical and moral principals.

And I love your sig line.

[Zen]

70. Couldn't you put one for "Christians who hate organized religion"

I believe Jesus had some good things to say, I don't believe any of the popular organized religions follow his teachings. Did I miss it or was Unitarian also missing? How about the churces based on the "Thomas Bible" - I only consider the more logical ones worth considering, the "pro wrestling" Catholic and Protestant churces are simply out of touch dictatorships.

[kiahzero]

71. Pagan Deist (n/t)

[Rowdyboy]

72. I want more numbers....

:kick:

[OnionPatch]

73. I had to pick OTHER

Because although I am a Christian, I'm not a Protestant or a Catholic. I belong to the Christian Church of OnionPatch. Which means, I interpret the meaning of the teachings of Jesus Christ for myself.
Funny, my interpretations don't seem to fall in line with any of the so-called Christian churches out there.

[Rowdyboy]

76. Kick

:kick:

[JSJ]

77. no religion- above us only sky n/t

[Angelus]

78. Lutheran, baby!

[Gore1FL]

82. Which kind?

MO synod
WI synod
ELCA

I wnet from English Synod, to Missouri Synod, to AELC to ELCA -- all in the same church!

I no longer attend and am probably closest to a Unitarian at this point, myself.

[Protected]

79. I'm currently a disgruntled Catholic

I can't believe the hypocracy of the church supporting a "War President" so blatently yet crying about abortion at the same time.

[tjfreeman]

83. other...

There is no adequate category for my preference.

I wouldn't say "atheism" for that says too much--though I like Stendahl's joke that Nietzsche loved so much:
"God's only excuse is that he does not exist."

I wouldn't say "agnosticism" for that says too little--its not, for me, a matter of not "knowing," though I, too, would claim not to know whether God exists or not.

For me the question of the existence or non-existence of God has got to be the most overrated and irrelevant question ever posed in human history.

It's not what one believes that counts but rather the consequences of what one believes.

The same belief can have many different consequences.

Thus, if there were a truly loving God I can't imagine why it would matter what anyone believed.

I like the line in Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors by the old Jewish philosoper who says something like: "we are still trying to understand the concept of a truly loving god"

Or Zarathustra's sharp riposte to Christianity: "Whoever praises him as a god of love does not have a high enough opinion of love itself" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Perhaps I'm closest to Buddhism (you could have at least spelled it right!) where the question of God's existence or non-existence is irrelevant. But Buddhism also means so many things that it says too little to label myself "Buddhist."

I guess I like best that Zarathustra who tells his followers: "Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you."

[OpSomBlood]

84. Agnostic.

I believe in God, but I don't pretend to understand Him.

[flaminbats]

91. Not only do I believe that we understand God...

but I believe we created God in our favorite image. O8)

[OpSomBlood]

104. On the sixth day, God created Man in his own image...

...a few thousand years later, Man returned the favor.

[lukasahero]

88. Voted pagan/wiccan

although I suppose more accurately UU, Neo-pagan, firm believer in the teachings of Jesus (you know the ones about the peacemakers and that "do unto others" bit...) Throw in some Buddism, Taoism, Secular Humanism and Pantheism and that pretty much sums it up. Not a fan of organized religion in general but faith and spirituality have little to do with that in my opinion anyway.

More importantly, I believe even more strongly in the separation of church and state.

[Athame]

100. me, too

:hi: lukasahero!

I would like to start a thread sometime exploring the differences in the Pagan/Wiccan/pantheist/Bright labels.

I consider myself a UU pantheist, NOT Wiccan, and not Pagan in the sense that I do not worship any diety, but I do believe the study and understanding of all forms of worship/spiritual practice are important.

I also STRONGLY advocate the separation of "church" and state.

Great discussion. Wish I didn't have to go off to work.

Ma

[lukasahero]

115. Hi back at you "Ma"!

Sorry you had to run off to work as well. Just thought I could add some clarification (Pagan as a word is so laden with assumptions and suppositions that the specific intentions of the speaker often need clarification). Some quotes about the basis of Paganism/Neo-Paganism that support why I selected that as my vote:

"Paganism...refers to a range of spiritual paths which are Earth centered -- involving their members living in harmony with the Earth..."

"The primary basis for Pagan ethics is the understanding that everything is interconnected, that nothing exists without affecting others, and that every action has a consequence."

"Pagans feel they are the caretakers and not the dominant force of the earth...To damage the earth is sacrilege."

"Pagan religious systems hold that theirs is a way among many, not the only road to truth."

For anyone interested in various world religions, this is a great resource: http://www.religioustolerance.org

The more I read/learn about the different religions of the world, the more I realize they are all (supposed to be) based on the same principles and not that different after all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. All religions combined: 134. Agnostic+Atheist: 134. Dead heat!

Amazing!

[RebelOne]

103. Just counted them. 137 and 137. Still dead heat.

[redqueen]

101. Raised catholic, but now no label

I hate dogma... absolutely loathe it.

Seems to me dogma is the way man has perverted anything and everything spiritual.

[Geo55]

105. Started my own relig when I was a young boy...

Casabamellonism....did quite well....made the dogma up as we went along.

[arwalden]

106. Raised Christian... Doubted Christianity At 16... Gave It Up At 28.

It was one of the most LIBERATING decisions of my life. I don't know why I was making myself miserable by hanging on to the myth of gods and Jesus.

I'm much happier and much better off now.

-- Allen

[Hubert Flottz]

107. My 30+ year old dog tags read::::::::::::::::::::::

"No Religious Pref."

I don't think mixing church and state has EVER led to peace!

[SaveElmer]

108. Unitarian Universalist...nt

[TahitiNut]

109. UU/Buddhist/Taoist

I eschew dogma and 'organization' - regard spirituality as an individual experience.

[dumpster_baby]

110. only 5-10% of Americans claim atheism. We are anomalous!

Whereas Europeans are generally 30-40% atheists.

This is a major symptom of what is wrong with America, when compared to the other western nations. It speaks to why we have a lower standard of living than them, and why we live shorter lives.

[Az]

112. The word atheism has been domonized pretty effectively

There is a great deal of confusion over the word as well. When examined it is not the aggressive stance that many believe it to be.

Consider the word theist. It simply means someone that believes in god or gods. You cannot tell much beyond this simple fact. They could be a christian or a pagan. They could be a jew or a zorastoran. Knowing they are a theist tells you nothing other than they believe in god or gods.

The prefix 'a' generally means without. And thus atheist simply means someone that is without a belief in god or gods. Again it tells us nothing about the other aspects of their beliefs. They could be an advocate of Ayn Rand or they could be Buddhist. They could be a secular humanist or they could be a Lavay satanist.

A further complication is the word agnostic. Again if we look at its core we find a path to understanding. Gnostic means someone that knows the truth. This is not some simple level of they heard someone mention the truth. This is a deep philosophical knowledge of the absolute truth. A gnostic for god is someone that Knows God. They have direct knowledge of the existance of god.

Thus applying the prefix 'a' again an agnostic is someone without this level of knowledge of the subject. Thus an agnostic can be an atheist or a theist. The agnostic/gnostic issue addresses whether they know their belief is accurate while the theist/atheist split describes what it is they believe at the current moment.

A person cannot both believe in and not believe in god. Conversely they cannot lack a belief in god and believe in god. The positions are exclusionary. A belief in something does not mean you can explain it. You may vary in what you believe wildly in a short period of time. But at the given moment you either do or do not believe there is a god. What you know is an entirely different question.

[tjfreeman]

122. I disagree

I like your discussion but challenge your conclusion. Theism or Atheism? At the moment I neither believe there is a god nor believe there is no god. (see comments above) A few years ago I realized that is a false dichotomy. The question is irrelevant so I don't have to pick either horns of the dilemma you offer. It seems to me that it would be one significant step for humankind if we could get past that illusory fork in the road.

Theism :think: Atheism

Neither one! the middle path! Ahh!

[tjfreeman]

126. "The Grand Inquisitor"

I like the story "The Grand Inquisitor" in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. Christ comes back during the worst days of the Inquisition, the day after a hundred heretics have been burned at the stake. Though he never says a word the people recognize him and a great commotion ensues. The old cardinal, the "Grand Inquisitor" who presided over the previous day's bonfire, looks out his window and recognizes him too. He then promptly has Christ arrested and thrown in the dungeon where he then proceeds to interrogate Christ. Basically, he tells Christ that despite his good intentions he misunderstood human nature and now the Church has corrected his mistake. He tells Christ that he has no right to come back and promises to burn him at the stake the next day.

The main thrust of the story raises profound questions concerning human nature. The Inquisitor claims that Christ had too optimistic and naive a view of human nature. He came to give humankind freedom, but, according to the Inquisitor "I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born." The most difficult burden of freedom is "freedom of conscience" --the freedom to think through what is good and evil. "Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of man at rest forever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic."

So human beings want someone to worship in order to surrender that terrible burden of freedom of conscience. And not only do they want someone to worship, they want everyone to worship the same thing:

"So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find something that all would believe in and worship; what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every human individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, 'Put away your gods and come worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!' And so it will be to the end of the world . . . ."

Marx may have been right that religion is "the opium of the masses" but his atheism inspired a similar bloodlust founded upon the same desire that everyone be together in their atheism.

Thus I say: Neither theism nor atheism--"one small step for man and one great leap for mankind"


p.s. The Inquisitor goes on to tell Christ his secret:
"And do you think I would conceal our secret from you? Perhaps it is my own lips that you want to hear it from -- then listen: we are not with you, but with him, there is our secret!"

The Inquisitor is referring, of course, to the one who tempted Christ in the desert. The secret is that the Church, in taking away freedom of conscience and installing a common authority instead, has all along been on the side of the Anti-Christ.

That's the great irony of Christianity today: the most powerful leader in the world today owes his position primarily to Christian voters. He rules in "His" name, but we all know the secret truth is precisely the opposite.

To paraphrase Socrates:
"The unexamined belief is not worth believing."

[tjfreeman]

127. Nietzsche must have read Dostoevsky

This is a repost from the thread about proof of Jesus' existence

58. It doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not. . .

for the MESSAGE that is ascribed to him, whether he existed historically as depicted in the gospels or not,is certainly FICTION. That is the only conclusion one can come to if one honestly faces up to the problem of the interpretation of any text, especially an ancient one. That doesn't mean the message isn't based on something that actually took place, but there is no way one can pretend that we have the message today absolutely undiluted by many layers of interpretation and translation. If Jesus did in fact exist, he certainly didn't commit any of his message to writing. All we know of his message is second hand. The gospels are all at least second hand reporting, the earliest being written at least 30 years after the supposed fact. And those gospels were not chosen as "canonical" until the New Testament was put together in something like 365 C.E. They were obviously chosen because they supported the dominant Pauline interpretation. How do we know that Paul's interpretation of the message was at all what the messanger had meant? Paul's letters are the earliest documents in the New Testament and Christianity today is largely the result of his interpretation? How do we know he got it right? He never met the man (if he did in fact exist). One cannot discount the possibility that Paul might have gotten the message completely wrong.

This is in fact the thesis of Nietzsche's greatly misunderstood critique of Christianity. If one understands anything of Nietzsche's philosophy, that critique is certainly not based on any "fact" that "God is dead" or doesn't even exist (though he loved Stendahl's joke that "God's only excuse is that he does not exist"). Rather, his critique is based on this problem of interpretation, and his supposition that Paul might have gotten it all wrong to begin with. One really should read sections 29-45 of The AntiChrist. The gist of this critique is that perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus' message was that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is here and now if we just learn to follow a little better his example of becoming a loving human being. Here the "message" focuses "practice" and trying to follow the example of the life of Jesus. But Paul, according to Nietzsche, changed the "message" so that what matters is not "practice" but "belief." The "Kingdom of Heaven" is thus put off into the next life, and thus made into a reward for "correct belief." Really, I think the whole ensuing history of Western culture, from the dark ages through the Inquisition to the fundamentalists who now have their trigger finger on the Armageddon button is encapsulated in this critique.

Here are some examples from Nietzsche:

"In the whole psychology of the 'evangel' the concept of guilt and punishment is lacking; also the concept of reward. 'Sin'--any distance separating God and man--is abolished: precisely this is the 'glad tidings.' Blessedness is not promised, it is not tied to conditions: it is the only reality--the rest is a sign with which to speak of it.
The consequence of such a state projects itself into a new practice, the genuine evangelical practice. It is not a 'faith' that distinguishes the Christian: the Christian acts, he is distinguished by acting differently: by not resisting, either in words or in his heart, those who treat him ill; by making no distinction between foreigner and native, between Jew and not-Jew ('the neighbor'--really the coreligionist, the Jew); by not growing angry with anybody, by not despising anybody; by not permitting himself to be seen or involved at courts of law...
The life of the Redeemer was nothing other than this practice--nor was his death anything else. He no longer required any formulas, any rites for his intercourse with God--not even prayer. He broke with the whole Jewish doctrine of repentence and reconcilliation; he knows that it is only in the practice of life that one feels 'divine,' 'blessed,' 'evangelical,' at all times a 'child of God.' Not 'repentence,' not prayer for forgiveness,' are the ways to God: only the evangelical practice leads to God, indeed, it is 'God'!" (The AntiChrist 33)

"The 'kingdom of heaven' is a state of the heart--not something that is to come 'above the earth' or 'after death.' The whole concept of natural death is lacking in the evangel: death is no bridge, no transition; it is laccking because it belongs to a wholly different, merely apparent world, useful only insofar as it furnishes signs. The 'hour of death' is no Christian concept--an 'hour,' time, physical life and its crises do not even exist for the teacher of the 'glad tidings.' The 'kingdom of God' is nothing that one expects; it has no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it will not come in 'a thousand years'--it is an experience of the heart; it is everywhere, it is nowhere." (The AntiChrist 34)

"This 'bringer of glad tidings; died as he had lived, as he had taught--not to 'redeem men' but to show how one must live. This practice is his legacy to mankind; his behavior before the judges, before the catchpoles, before the accusers and all kinds of slander and scorn--his behavior on the cross. He does not resist, he does not defend his right, he takes no step which might ward off the worst; on the contrary, he provokes it. And he begs, he suffers, he loves with those, in those, who do him evil. Not to resist, not to be angry, not to hold responsible--but to resist not even the evil one--to love him." (The AntiChrist 35)

So whose interpretation, Paul's or Nietzsche's, is closer to the message of the historical Jesus (if he indeed existed)? The honest truth is that we have no way of knowing. The message of Christ today is always going to be a product of human interpretation and that is why it is a completely irrelevant question whether or not Jesus really existed.

But the question of which interpretation we should prefer today is of the absolutely greatest importance and relevance today. There are those who are ready and quite willing to destroy this earth today precisely because they think they have the "correct belief" and thus eternal reward in the "kingdom of heaven." Perhaps the whole of Christianity is based on a misunderstanding (and that is the point of the title of Nietzsche's polemic). The "fundamentalists" are perhaps really the "AntiChristians" and the "godless" ones who are simply trying to be loving human beings are the most "Christ-like."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. I suspect things are actually not that extreme

I have a hunch many nonbelievers answered some religion in that poll out of fear or embarassment. The pollsters should have handed pollees a circular card with the options written in pie slices, so they could mark an option without the pollster knowing.

[LiberalFighter]

113. I had been Lutheran but changed after researching and analyzing the facts

[toddaa]

114. Pantheistic Taoist

Not sure if that officially qualifies as a religion in the state of Texas, but that's what I am.

[truthspeaker]

117. Atheist. No faith, no spirituality.

Unless you're talking about distilled spirits.

[ButterflyBlood]

118. Protestant

ELCA Lutheran

[orthogonal]

120. Church of All Worlds

Orthodox Heinleinism.

Can you grok that?


(Just kidding. I'm an atheist, of course. "Of course" because it fits me; I'm not implying it should be your belief or that it is obvious or inevitable.)

[LDS Jock]

121. Other... Mormon..... n/t

[JohnKleeb]

123. Catholic

but I can sound agnostic, hell my little brother after getting me to swear to god one time said, oh thats right you dont believe in god. I may not be as religious as my grandparents but I am more so than my parents honest.

[apnu]

124. Other: nobody's business

I've kicked around with religion for a long time. I've done stints with several faiths and have come to one universal conclusion.

Its nobody's business what you believe in.

Belief is a very private and personal conviction, and should be be interfered with by any other person.

[Generator]

125. Gnostic

Though I am Church of the Subgenius by marriage.

[yellowcanine]

128. What, no Druid choice?

.