What religion is most appealing to you?

[Jack]

I'd really like this thread to be deleted....or at least unpinned.

[brigadista]

none really although I appreciate the poetic aspects of islam

[Decolonize The Left]

Scientology, obviously... if I'm going to pick an oppressive, absurd, unjustified belief system, I'm going with the wackiest one there is.

- August

[brigadista]

The Qur'an kind of skips around from poetic to just plain threatening.

I picked Jainism.

nusrat fateh ali khan - beautiful - sufism though

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Greco-Roman Paganism or polytheistic Hinduism. The idea of gods being powerful yet still fallible beings (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PhysicalGod) with their own backstories is more dramatically appealing. The idea of demigods and a veritable zoo of intelligent non-human races with their own agendas also seems to make more sense on a gut level.

Mind you, if the Cthulhu Mythos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos) were a real religion (or super-group of religions), that would be my choice, since there's no logical reason to believe that gods or god-like beings, Earthly or otherwise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien), would necessarily have benign intentions towards humanity. Considering the vast size of the universe, the vast majority of such beings are likely to be physically (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens), psychologically, and just generally indescribable in the extreme (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination).

[Sarah Palin]

Scientology, obviously... if I'm going to pick an oppressive, absurd, unjustified belief system, I'm going with the wackiest one there is.

- August

Agreed.

Because 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.

[Communist Theory]

I don't believe in religion but I believe in Great Spirit, thats the term most Native Americans use so what am I?

[Jazzratt]

I voted neo-pagan because you can make up whatever the fuck you want, pinch ideas from other religions and no one can challenge this as 'heretical' or the religious equivalent. Also because you can develop an air of mystique which a surprising number of people find attractive - if I'm not going to use my brain to form beliefs about the world around me I may as well use my penis. :rolleyes:

[commyrebel]

I believe in a Buddhist type religion with the meaning of life is to reach ascension( a higher plan of existence)

[Rangi]

Voted for Islam. If FOX says it's bad then it must be good.

[Glorious Union]

Greco-Roman pagan religions for sure, I like the idea of the Gods being seperate and vulnerable beings much like us, who must colaberate with eachother to gain anything. Although I also love the idea of shinto, with the Kami being a spiritual essence about us that influences us instead of being an all powerfull man in the sky, dictating us. Sort of a mix between those two idea is what I beleive in. I am still a religious person, although not a memeber of any official religion. My beleifs are my own.

[Brother No. 1]

I realy cant decide. Religions have always been used as weapons of opression and War. Christainty,Islam, and Judasim have done this the most. but even though I hate to say it...Christainty best appeals me. I have alot of regret saying this also.

[rioters bloc]

Traditional religions.

I don't know why more people don't pick Jainism

Probably cos they love their meat and potatoes too much ;)

[Comrade B]

I used to be a soft-core hippieish Buddhist, humorously before I became a Stalinist. It is an interesting ideology which has some morals I can appreciate.
However, I sympathize with the followers of Islam the most.

[Azurite]

I see no Discordianism or Church of the SubGenius on that list.

[Decolonize The Left]

Traditional religions.

I don't know why more people don't pick Jainism, I honestly contacted a Jain center near me a few months ago because I was on the edge of converting.

If they had called back I would have probably done so.

Why would you do that? What does "converting" actually provide you that you can't a) do on your own, b) do without, or c) do with other people?

And furthermore, why would you even need to "convert" in the first place? Does that not demonstrate some fundamental issue in your life which you are unable to fulfill on your own and so you need some other people to tell you some stories to make you feel better?

Really?

- August

[butterfly]

I don't find any religion appealing.

[Brother No. 1]

Then you are good.:)

[More Fire for the People]

The one that encourages sex, drugs, and good music and requires no moral living and rewards you infinitely in the afterlife.

[Black Dagger]

nusrat fateh ali khan - beautiful - sufism though

Yeah, NFAK is awesome.

I don't really find any sort of religiosity appealing but from this list taoism is probably the closest relative of mine, philosophically speaking.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would say one which ties me to the generations which came before, and asserts that they strengthen and help me throughout my life.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I suppose buddhism - I think meditation can be beneficial, health-wise.

[Jazzratt]

The one that encourages sex, drugs, and good music and requires no moral living and rewards you infinitely in the afterlife.

Neo-pagan every time. Because you're making it up as you go along you can have all of the above.

[Pirate Utopian]

Neo-pagan it doesnt have any restrictions as far as I know of, it's just reeeeaaally floaty and very much bullshit.

[Rangi]

So that's different from all the others?

[ibn Bruce]

*creates multiple accounts and votes for Islam*

Be afraid, the Mo-zlems are taking over ;)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Native American's and Native African's stories got me very well. The rest does good too but it doesn't get deep and subconsciousness as Native American and Native African religion.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Islam, just for shits and giggles.

[Yazman]

I don't find any religion appealing, although if I had to pick one I would choose confucianism (which I voted for in the poll) or Taoism, as one could be an atheist and still a practitioner. Taoism and confucianism are not necessarily religions; they can be, but they can also just be seen as systems of ethics and philosophy. Thats why there are many who are practitioners but ALSO christians/buddhists/islamic etc

[butterfly]

Neo-pagan every time. Because you're making it up as you go along you can have all of the above.
Whats the catch?

[Jack]

Why would you do that? What does "converting" actually provide you that you can't a) do on your own, b) do without, or c) do with other people?

And furthermore, why would you even need to "convert" in the first place? Does that not demonstrate some fundamental issue in your life which you are unable to fulfill on your own and so you need some other people to tell you some stories to make you feel better?

Really?

- August

a) I didn't understand all aspects of Jainism, so I wanted to learn more before commiting myself to something.

b) It makes more sense than any other religion I've seen. There are no Gods for one thing. Reading Jain Dharma is pretty uplifting too.

Do you have a need to be a jackass that you can't fufil yourself so you seek others to be a jackass to?

Really?

-Jack

[Jazzratt]

Whats the catch?

You have to be an insufferable prick all the time.

[YouSir]

Sufism, Buddhism or Discordianism, the latter two at least wouldn't jar to badly with my politics, well, assuming I chose the right form of Buddhism.

Then again, reprehensable as it may be, Catholicism does have the best clothes and I'm sure I could carry off the black and communion wine bit.

[JohannGE]

Provided the question is "apeals most" and not "would you adopt" I would vote for Zen. But it's not even made the list!

"it de-emphasizes both theoretical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge) and the study of religious texts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text) in favor of direct, experiential realization through meditation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation) and dharma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma) practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

Something many of us could learn from I think. ;)

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
Basho

"There is no beginning to practice nor end to enlightenment; There is no beginning to enlightenment nor end to practice."
Dogen

"It is better to practice a little than talk a lot."
Muso Kokushi

"The most important point is to accept yourself and stand on your two feet."
Shunryu Suzuki

Breath out...and relax.......

:)

[Jack]

Zen is officially called Zen Buddhism, so yes it is on the list.

[Greenman]

Pick and mix is appealing.
That would be the Unitarians then;) (UUs - Unitarian Universalists for our US readers).
They seem happy to blend in the best bits of all of them.
Unfortunately their services sometimes seem to resemble a school assembly:bored:

[Klepto]

Taoism without a doubt, although it may not be a religion depending on your definition of the word. I find Buddhism and Confucianism interesting too but there is a simplicity and clarity in Taoism that I find very appealing.

[ibn Bruce]

Sufism

Sufism is the English word for Tasawuf; Islamic mysticism. There is no Tasawuf without Sha'riah. :)

[NecroCommie]

If it weren't for the: "Do what thou willt shall be the whole of the law!", and "some people are born kings"-stuff I would already be LaVeyan Satanist.

Though it does not count as religion now does it. Just atheism with silly rituals and gothic aesthetics.

[Vahanian]

I would pick taoism because of reasons stated in previous posts: it's fairly simple and its not always considered a religion

[Captain Shiny Sides]

Raelianism for me, thanks.

[Forward Union]

pantheism

[synthesis]

pantheism

I'd say that or gnosticism, the kind where humans are divine and God is out to get us.

I voted for Scientology.

[ibn Bruce]

However, I sympathize with the followers of Islam the most. Thanks, though empathy rather than sympathy is preferable.


What's weird is that Buddhism is getting so many votes, when it is such a disempowering philosophy. I mean non-violence, on a revolutionary left forum? Really?

[Black Dagger]

Thanks, though empathy rather than sympathy is preferable.

It's not always possible for people to empathise, but anyway i think you're taking a common turn of phrase more literally than was intended by the author. I.E. They just mean they're attracted to Islam more than other religions for some unstated reason(s) not that they have sympathy for muslims.

[synthesis]

It's not always possible for people to empathise, but anyway i think you're taking a common turn of phrase more literally than was intended by the author. I.E. They just mean they're attracted to Islam more than other religions for some unstated reason(s) not that they have sympathy for muslims.

I think you have it backwards. It seems to me that they meant Muslims are an oppressed group, more so than other major religions, and therefore they have some sympathy for them.

[brigadista]

i said islam but in retrospect i woudlnt mind hanging with the rastas =goood music:)

[Invincible Summer]

I'm a strong agnostic/atheist, but I'm interested in ancient traditional religions - namely Norse and Egyptian.

I suppose I'd choose to follow one of those if I had to choose one, even if no one really does that anymore to my knowledge.

[Black Dagger]

I think you have it backwards. It seems to me that they meant Muslims are an oppressed group, more so than other major religions, and therefore they have some sympathy for them.

Yes, that is certainly probable - kudos.

[Kappie]

I voted for Taoism on the grounds I personally have some attraction towards some of its ideas, and I find it among the least offensive of religions (although like any religion it has its share of faults). In general I find any more mystically oriented, experiential religions to be superior to dogmatic revelatory religions. I have no problems with people making up fantasies and believing in them, so long as they keep them to themselves and do not force them upon others.

[RedAnarchist]

No religion is really appealing to me. I like to be as secular as possible and I don't think I could ever have faith in a god enough to be even a non-practising adherent of a religion.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Hinduism is an imperialist religion and mormonism is a rascist religion.Everything else I guess is ok

[Random Precision]

Hinduism is an imperialist religion

That doesn't make any sense.

[hugsandmarxism]

The anime geek in me made me vote Shinto. They have cool shrines too.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I voted Buddhism because it's not one of those religions that is always trying to shove beliefs down people's throats.

[Coggeh]

Neo pagan , lots of parties with orgies :) ....

[manic expression]

Hinduism is an imperialist religion

Yeah, that makes absolutely no sense.

On a related note, I think Hinduism is appealing: it's largely tolerant, has no monolithic doctrine and there's no central authority. The belief that views everything and everyone as equal expressions of a universal divinity is quite interesting IMO, too. I'm pretty deistic in my outlook right now, but I do go to temples once in awhile and the symbolism can be very profound.

I also find Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism interesting, but that's not the same as appealing (and it's probably because both religions fell from prominence some centuries ago). As a matter of fact, the more I know about them, the less I like (the whole "sex is evil" thing, for starters).

[JFMLenin]

The Qur'an kind of skips around from poetic to just plain threatening.

This is actually indicative of the difference in Muhammad's preaching in Mecca versus his preaching in Medina. In Mecca, it was the more poetic and spiritual side, in Medina, it was more the law and order side where he laid down Shariah law essentially.

I picked Islam, it's belief in the Oneness of God as well as the inclusion of peoples rather than the exclusion of peoples found in Christianity speaks to me.

If I were to go with a second, though, it would be Buddhism. The quest for enlightenment is the most noble goal of all, and there are some Buddhist philosophies which are very intelligent and thoughtful.

[The Intransigent Faction]

No religion appeals to me, but since that wasn't a choice in the poll, I said Islam.
Quite a few of my neighbours and friends are Muslim.

They have never tried to convert me (which I can't say for the Christians in my family), and seem exceptionally friendly. Also, while I realize Muslims are not the only religious group that can fast, I admire the idea of fasting for a month (Ramadan).

Lastly, I think it's important to show the good in many Muslim people in order to counter the fearmongering in the Western world surrounding them.

[MarxSchmarx]

Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism aren't really religions. wEll, some aspects of them have been made into a religion, but these are really continuations of animist and indigenous traditions. They:re kind of like "unitarian universalism" sure they have their religious elements like holidays (cough, May Day), symbols (cough, red flag), chants (cough, "The people united..."), but they don:t really a have a cogent "theology". Even the supposed "supernatural" claims like "reincarnation" are hotly debated as to whether they are a way of coming to terms with human experiences.

[Raúl Duke]

Cthulhu Mythos (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos) sounds like an interesting religion...

But me and a bunch of friends made up our own joke religion and this is what appeals to me, religious-wise. Hey, just like in neo-pagenism, I (and my friends) make it up as we go along.

[Hoxhaist]

Is Islam compatible with leftism?

[JFMLenin]

Is Islam compatible with leftism?
I see no reason why not. Organized dogmatic fascism, which is what is preached by corrupt Imams who change the word of Allah for their own gain, is not, but that is not what I follow. What I follow is what I believe are the three most important tenets of Islam: love and worship God, put no god before or with Him, and do good works. I see no reason why that is not compatible with leftism.

[Hoxhaist]

do you follow a branch of Islamic jurisprudence?

[JFMLenin]

do you follow a branch of Islamic jurisprudence?
No; however, much of what is laid down in Shariah law and Islamic jurisprudence is similar to secular law, laws against murder, theft, etc., but I do not follow any form of Islamic jurisprudence, no.

[WeiWuWei]

By and large, I consider most - if not all - theistic religions to be oppressive and dictatorial, so I reject all of them.

However, I see no reason to suggest that Buddhism and Taoism are not completely legitimate ideas, so long as we consider them purely to be ethical systems rather than "religions".

I consider myself a Taoist - or at least somebody who's been influenced enough by the Tao Te Ching to say that they're a Taoist - and I'm convinced that Taoism has helped reinforce my Anarchist views.

[pastradamus]

All religion is perservise of the understanding of rationality and indeed evolution. However I chose Buddhism. It does hold the Natural world in a high regard and so do I. Since I was young I was always fascinated in Mother Nature especially zoology and Animals, though im no fanatical environmentalist . Now maybe my understanding on Buddhism is off the mark, from what I can make out it respects animals and is not as crazy as jainism.

[Hoxhaist]

Other than Christianity, the religion that most appeals to me is Shia Islam, I like its emphasis on showing commitment to religion through self-sacrifice rather than feel good nonsense

[Jack]

Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism aren't really religions. wEll, some aspects of them have been made into a religion, but these are really continuations of animist and indigenous traditions. They:re kind of like "unitarian universalism" sure they have their religious elements like holidays (cough, May Day), symbols (cough, red flag), chants (cough, "The people united..."), but they don:t really a have a cogent "theology". Even the supposed "supernatural" claims like "reincarnation" are hotly debated as to whether they are a way of coming to terms with human experiences.

Confucianism and Taoism have been the official religions of China at different parts of its history. Hindus hate Confucianists, by the way.

Zen Buddhism is just hippie meditation crap, Tibetan and any other non-zen Buddhism is a real religion, minor deities and everything.

[Random Precision]

Confucianism and Taoism have been the official religions of China at different parts of its history. Hindus hate Confucianists, by the way.

Zen Buddhism is just hippie meditation crap, Tibetan and any other non-zen Buddhism is a real religion, minor deities and everything.

This post is so full of generalizations and simplifications that it makes my brain hurt.

1. Hindus do not hate Confucianists, they would have little reason to given the geographic separation involved. Where the fuck did you get that from, anyway?
2. Zen Buddhism is a real religion. It comes from Japan. Western hippie culture adopted a sort of simplified and bastardized form of it.
3. Theravada Buddhism, the only surviving original Buddhist school, includes no sort of deities. It's a non-theistic religion.

[Patchd]

3. Theravada Buddhism, the only surviving original Buddhist school, includes no sort of deities. It's a non-theistic religion.

While this is true, I was brought up as a Buddhist, and was taught to treat the Buddha, or more specifically Siddhattha Gotama, as a God pretty much, as well as believe in Hell. In Thailand, Buddhism there is largely twisted, most likely in order to be able to be used as a tool to put fear into people's hearts.

I think in Sri Lanka the same applies to an extent.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I put Buddhism, but kind of regret that decision. I probably would have put 'traditional religions', since I am a huge fan of ancient Greek mythology (any other fans of Xena in the house?). I love the elaborate stories that are built around the different gods, and ultimately the idea that there are multiple, fallible deities makes more sense than monotheistic religions. Plus then we could sacrifice the capitalists to Ares, that would be fun. :laugh:

Hinduism is kind of cool too, mainly how it has the different manifestations of God through different deities and avatars... Some of the art and architecture associate with the Hindu tradition is badass too.

http://burningbosom.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/enlight-vishnu.jpg

This list is missing one of the largest religions in the world, however. Sikhism is like the 5th or 6th largest religion with some 20+ million adherents and it's not on here. Did you know that orthodox male followers of Sikhism are required to carry a small sword with them everywhere called a Kirpan? That would be a convenient copout in a revolution... "No, Mr. CIA Agent, I don't know anything about a revolution, I just have to carry a sword with me everywhere. Why? Because I'm a fucking Sikh!"

[Comrade Anarchist]

I dont like any religion but i like many aspects of Buddhism

[Patchd]

This list is missing one of the largest religions in the world, however. Sikhism is like the 5th or 6th largest religion with some 20+ million adherents and it's not on here. Did you know that orthodox male followers of Sikhism are required to carry a small sword with them everywhere called a Kirpan? That would be a convenient copout in a revolution... "No, Mr. CIA Agent, I don't know anything about a revolution, I just have to carry a sword with me everywhere. Why? Because I'm a fucking Sikh!"

Good point! But in some countries there are certain restrictions on the size of the sword, to the point that some look like little replica daggers, others might carry something else if a sword won't do. :p

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Good point! But in some countries there are certain restrictions on the size of the sword, to the point that some look like little replica daggers, others might carry something else if a sword won't do. :p

Hey Palachinov, is that a kirpan in your kachera or are you just happy to see me? :thumbup:

Okay I'm done.

[Dejavu]

If I had to pick, probably Buddhism.

[Dejavu]

Paganism is kind of cool too in a nutty sort of way.

[F9]

No Rastafarian, no vote.
"Almighty god is a living men":rolleyes::lol:

Fuserg9:star:

[Dejavu]

Me-ism

[Hoxhaist]

Sikhism is pretty cool. the kirpan is supposed to be a sword only drawn to defend the weak

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Sikhism is pretty cool. the kirpan is supposed to be a sword only drawn to defend the weak

No shit? That's pretty cool, thanks for the info

[hardlinecommunist]

I Voted for Islam Because i am a Muslim and a Communist and i see no Contradiction between being a Muslim and a Communist

[LOLseph Stalin]

Sikhism is pretty cool. the kirpan is supposed to be a sword only drawn to defend the weak


Sikhism is actually pretty cool. I once attended a service at a Sikh temple out of curiousity. When they're reading their holy book(can't remember the name) it's almost like they're chanting it.

[Jack]

I Voted for Islam Because i am a Muslim and a Communist and i see no Contradiction between being a Muslim and a Communist

Except that Islam demands a Caliph, you can't have a ruler in Communism.

[hardlinecommunist]

Except that Islam demands a Caliph, you can't have a ruler in Communism. no you are wrong how a Muslim views the Caliph depends on what Sect or school of thought one belongs to or follows

[redarmyfaction38]

I don't believe in religion but I believe in Great Spirit, thats the term most Native Americans use so what am I?
you're probably as confused about religion as i am :D.

i voted bhuddist, most dieing people i 've known, have been quite happy to go, the sense of relief at finally being released from "mortal toil" is overwhelming.

IMO, "god" is not a seperate being, it is what we are all part of, it has two sides, "ying and yang", for want of a better explanation, and there are elements of both in each other.

bhuddism, taoism and certain other "old" religions tie in quite nicely with "marxist materialism".

when i'm dead, i'll know, one way or the other, or not as the case may be.:scared:

[Oktyabr]

where is the "Screw religion" option?

I don't see what is appealing about submitting to the will of a master who's existence is constantly debated, and to an organization that still has not forgiven all the innocent people it has murdered.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

where is the "Screw religion" option?

I don't see what is appealing about submitting to the will of a master who's existence is constantly debated, and to an organization that still has not forgiven all the innocent people it has murdered.

Uhhhh, dude... I think most of us agree on that. But that doesn't mean that there aren't thinks that are kind of cool or interesting about them anyway. I think we can all agree that the Greek gods of Mt. Olympus were oppressive as fuck, that doesn't make the stories and legends any less interesting. Shit ain't just black and white man.

[Jazzratt]

where is the "Screw religion" option?

I don't see what is appealing about submitting to the will of a master who's existence is constantly debated, and to an organization that still has not forgiven all the innocent people it has murdered.

I'm not entirely sure ypu've grasped the point of this thread. Try again. Also do you not realise the hilarious hypocrisy of making that post and quoting the Buddha in your sig?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Taoism.

I think that I'd enjoy chilling in a monastery somewhere in the mountains, trying to find my spiritual center and practicing martial arts.

[hugsandmarxism]

Which ever one allows me to take a nap after work on Friday, eat 5 pounds of pork on Saturday, and sleep in on Sunday, while walking around in chaps with no pants for every other day of the week. Sign me up for that one. :thumbup:

[Glenn Beck]

Who are those wacky alien sex cultists that live in Quebec?

Yeah, I pick those

[Jack]

no you are wrong how a Muslim views the Caliph depends on what Sect or school of thought one belongs to or follows

How do you know your sect is the right sect?

Doesn't it say in the Koran that there is to be a Caliph? (its been a while since I've picked it up, so that's a genuine question)

[Revy]

I voted for Neo-Paganism, and more specifically, Wicca.

It tends to be pretty progressive, egalitarian, and respectful of the Earth. It also is a very open religion, meaning there isn't just one Wicca.

Of course, there's still theistic tendencies, but it beats out all the other theistic religions, and I couldn't vote for Buddhism simply because I find its teachings about "indulgence" and "desire" puritanical.

[Pawn Power]

I picked Judaism since I am sorta a Jew.

Anyway, why is Judaism the only selection italicized?

[Blackscare]

I picked Judaism since I am sorta a Jew.

Anyway, why is Judaism the only selection italicized?

Because the option you vote for is italicized.

Buddhism is italicized.






JK, it's a giant antisemitic leftist plot. :p

[Il Medico]

I think that the core values of Christianity, not the ones made up later, and the core values of Buddhism are compatible with Marx.:hammersickle:

[Dóchas]

what!!!! no pastafarianism!!!!!

http://www.secondlifepros.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

all hail the flying spaghetti monster!!!!

[Pawn Power]

Because the option you vote for is italicized.

Buddhism is italicized.






JK, it's a giant antisemitic leftist plot. :p

Ha, I knew it!

[RedAnarchist]

I voted Taoism. I've read a bit about it, and as far as the philosophy is concerned, it is similar in some ways to anarchism.

[Kronos]

Scientology.

Any religion that says I'm a thetan presently trapped on planet Earth in a meat body, has got my vote.

The Urantia coming in a close second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urantia

[Verix]

I would go church of satan, just to scare the shit out of right-wing christains
Church of Satanic Communists, take that pat robertson! :D

[MolotovCocktail988]

Neo-Paganism, Greco-Roman Paganism, Germanic/Norse Paganism etc.

I like any type of paganism. :D

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

For a moment here my heart lept as I thought the thread read appalling.

[Azraelscross]

the most appealing is the belief i hold. The Nordic belief system is what i believe in. I believe however there is no such thing as a god/gods. All these gods people talk about IMO are just powerful spirits that took a liking to us.

and no matter that we are our own masters if something is powerful enough to be called a god by ancient people it deserves at least our respect

[Decolonize The Left]

the most appealing is the belief i hold. The Nordic belief system is what i believe in. I believe however there is no such thing as a god/gods. All these gods people talk about IMO are just powerful spirits that took a liking to us.

and no matter that we are our own masters if something is powerful enough to be called a god by ancient people it deserves at least our respect

Does this man (http://skepdic.com/raelian.html) deserve our respect?

- August

[Aeval]

I'm surprised more people haven't gone for Ba'hai Faith -
* total equality of men and women
* no priests and religious leaders
* prohibiting mendicant and ascetic lifestyles and telling people to get off their arses and help people
* administrative roles voted in by all followers and on a rotational basis
* pro science
* pro universal auxiliary language
* wanting the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty
* wanting a big world council majig to sort out disputes

except for the whole no drugs (inc. alcohol), no sex unless you're married (thus banning homosexuality) and, you know, the belief there's a big man sat in the sky watching over us, it's not a bad religion. Pretty gardens too.

I voted jainism though.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm surprised more people haven't gone for Ba'hai Faith -
* total equality of men and women
* no priests and religious leaders
* prohibiting mendicant and ascetic lifestyles and telling people to get off their arses and help people
* administrative roles voted in by all followers and on a rotational basis
* pro science
* pro universal auxiliary language
* wanting the elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty
* wanting a big world council majig to sort out disputes Actually I'm not, because that's basically a shade of communism. That Baha'i thing is a competitor for potential cadres.

[Cynical Observer]

Neo-pagan (specifically Wicca) see after i gave up christianity i was very lost and confused about life and god and was a very pissed of atheist. but all my friends are wiccan so i was actually a wiccan for about 3 years, i love the religion for it's complete tolerance of everything, and lack of doctrine. also all the holidays were drunken celebrations of how happy we are to be alive and to admire nature. there were no moral taboos the only rule was "An it harm none, do what ye will." so if it wasn't for lack of faith in any sort of god i'd still be a wiccan but their are some sects of wicca that have no god just a universal energy that fuels peoples aura and and is the spark of life and i've been drifting in and out of that for awhile cuz i practice aura manipulation and Reiki. (i was skeptical at first but after reading some scientific research reports on how the body does in fact have an aura that is effected by our physical condition and vice versa, i dove right into it.) so now i'm an atheist with strong wiccan traditions in the back of my mind. (still hate the idea of gods and organized religions) Wicca was really just a way to celebrate life for me and learn some of the craft.

[Cynical Observer]

what!!!! no pastafarianism!!!!!

http://www.secondlifepros.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

all hail the flying spaghetti monster!!!!
someone post this in the anti-theist pic library for me! i've had two hours sleepa nd can't be arsed to do so.

[Cynical Observer]

Greco-Roman Paganism or polytheistic Hinduism. The idea of gods being powerful yet still fallible beings (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PhysicalGod) with their own backstories is more dramatically appealing. The idea of demigods and a veritable zoo of intelligent non-human races with their own agendas also seems to make more sense on a gut level.

Mind you, if the Cthulhu Mythos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos) were a real religion (or super-group of religions), that would be my choice, since there's no logical reason to believe that gods or god-like beings, Earthly or otherwise (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien), would necessarily have benign intentions towards humanity. Considering the vast size of the universe, the vast majority of such beings are likely to be physically (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens), psychologically, and just generally indescribable in the extreme (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EldritchAbomination).
you every study any chaos magic literature? it's filled with references to Cthulhu, and rather disturbing...in a mind blowing sort of way

[amandevsingh]

I voted Buddhism, but I wish Sikhism was an option. :(

[Agrippa]

Let's see, obviously not Christianity unless you count heretic sects such as Gnosticism and Anabaptism.

Same with Islam. Lots of interesting heresies but the orthodoxy of it is total shit.

Theoretically, Judaism has much more appeal to me than both Christianity and Islam combined but in practice it mostly sucks, unfortunately. It has quite the potential, however.

Ba'Hai is new age wishy-washy hippie crap like Unitarian-Universalism.

Hinduism has a very strong appeal to me. But more Shaktism, less Vaishnavism and Saivism.

Jainism is nothing more than a masochistic suicide cult, but it's better than Buddhism.

Buddhism has some interesting philosophical concepts but all-and-all a fundamentally flawed, nihilistic philosophy.

Confucianism is basically synonymous with "imperial Chinese totalitarianism"

Taoism is what I voted for since it is essentially 6th-century anarchism.

Scientologists are worthy adversary.

I am very strongly opposed to "neo-Pagan religions" because they are a blasphemous mockery of my ancestors' religion.

I am strongly disappointed that traditional European Paganism and Hermeticism/Western Occultism are not options, as that is surely what I would have voted for, given the option. I guess that's all lumped into "traditional religions", even though Shinto, the traditional religion of a much smaller geographic area, gets it's own category. (For the anime nerds I guess)

Mormonism would make a good D&D setting.

EDIT:
I am also grateful to the creator of the poll for sparing us all by excluding trite joke religions such as "Pastafarianism", "Discordianism", "the Church of the SubGenius", etc. as serious options. However, if you're going to include Scientology as a serious option, you have no excuse for excluding the cosmology of H.P. Lovecraft.

[Tomhet]

Although an atheist, I have much admiration for Buddhism, and indogenous-american native religions.

[Jazzratt]

you every study any chaos magic literature? it's filled with references to Cthulhu, and rather disturbing...in a mind blowing sort of way

Yeah I found it kind of interesting, until I realised the authors of the books and things were actually serious. Then I fell about the fucking place. Really, though, actual magic?

[MakeYourFuture]

Does you consider Scientology as a religion? It's just sci-fi.
I voted for buddhism, but taoism is always a good one for me because they are the most respectful religions.

[Pawn Power]

This one:
http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/flycreationism.jpg

[Agrippa]

Yeah I found it kind of interesting, until I realised the authors of the books and things were actually serious. Then I fell about the fucking place. Really, though, actual magic?

From what I understand, "magic" in chaos magic ideology is just verbal short-hand for a smattering of clever psychological tricks - an atheistic philosophy through-and-through. There is even a Marxist-Leninist chaos magician who has a collection of quite-intelligent writings on her blog. (Link (http://chaosmarxism.blogspot.com/))

Chaos magic seems, to me, to be totally incompatible with a traditional magical ideology*, such as mine, which tends to view any magical powers or phenomena demonstrated by humans to have an external sorce, ie: a more powerful spiritual being.

*and totally compatible with atheist nihilism such as dialectical materialism :D

[Cynical Observer]

chaos magicians or "chaotes" believe that the human mind or more specifically the unconscious mind has the power to manipulate probability and to reach out and effect other people's minds. However they believe that to do this u must achieve gnosis (a trance) which allows you to let your conscious mind tell your unconscious mind what it wants to happen. the conscious mind puts up barriers against this so chaos magicians usually temporarily convince themselves that they are drawing power from a god because that is easier for the mind to believe for some. however all chaotes are atheists by definition.

i practice some esoteric things and have experience with quite afew different methods so i know about this stuff.

[Agrippa]

chaos magicians or "chaotes" believe that the human mind or more specifically the unconscious mind has the power to manipulate probability and to reach out and effect other people's minds. However they believe that to do this u must achieve gnosis (a trance) which allows you to let your conscious mind tell your unconscious mind what it wants to happen. the conscious mind puts up barriers against this so chaos magicians usually temporarily convince themselves that they are drawing power from a god because that is easier for the mind to believe for some. however all chaotes are atheists by definition.

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you refuting or affirming my position, or just generally contributing to the discussion on chaos magic?

Your interpretation of chaos magic seems consistent with mine. To me, personally, the idea that gods, demons, ghosts, and other magical beings are just a clever trick played on the ego by the subconscious mind, and that magic is just a product of the willpower of human psyche alone, is very blasphemous and narcissistic, so that's why I reject chaos magic. Obviously my religious beliefs are personal and I respect the right of others to have their own religious practices, outlooks, etc. as long as they don't hurt me or attempt to impede my freedom

[Cynical Observer]

Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you refuting or affirming my position, or just generally contributing to the discussion on chaos magic?

Your interpretation of chaos magic seems consistent with mine. To me, personally, the idea that gods, demons, ghosts, and other magical beings are just a clever trick played on the ego by the subconscious mind, and that magic is just a product of the willpower of human psyche alone, is very blasphemous and narcissistic, so that's why I reject chaos magic. Obviously my religious beliefs are personal and I respect the right of others to have their own religious practices, outlooks, etc. as long as they don't hurt me or attempt to impede my freedom
i was just elaborating, except i don't consider it narcissistic and blasphemy is fine with me since i'm an anti-theist. but i was just looking to clear up any misconceptions.

[Agrippa]

i was just elaborating, except i don't consider it narcissistic and blasphemy is fine with me since i'm an anti-theist. but i was just looking to clear up any misconceptions.

Mm..

Keep in mind when I say "blasphemous", I just mean that it stands in stark contrast to how I view reality, not that others should be not allowed to practice or believe it.

[Cynical Observer]

Mm..

Keep in mind when I say "blasphemous", I just mean that it stands in stark contrast to how I view reality, not that others should be not allowed to practice or believe it.
of course, i'm not one of those "burn the christians (or anyone else) at the stake!" atheists lol.

[Kyrite]

I voted Jainism as i consider myself to be a 'soft-core' follower of the religion. I am not a full Jain in the sense that i don't meditate (I really struggle to do it) and i eat root vegtables. But i take aspects of Jainism and adapt them to my life. For example most Jains are not vegans, but this is because the vast majority of Jains live in India where cows are treated with large amounts of respect. In England cows are not treated with respect to the extent that i consider the current method of taking milk from a cow to be violence towards the cow. Jains uphold the vow of non violence above all other vows so i decided to become vegan.

[Thunder]

I voted for Mormonism because, this might sound whacky, but it makes sense. If I had faith to believe in God, Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that would make sense to me.

[Mala Tha Testa]

I Dunno If It's Been Discussed Earlier, But What'd Rastafari Be Considered?

[Omniscient Lynx]

I picked shinto, because if something has a form of magic (not magic, holy powers!;)) why shouldn't everything have some form of representation?

[TheBellJar]

Sufism, The religion of Love, Poetry and Music.

[Manxboz]

I voted for Mormonism because, this might sound whacky, but it makes sense. If I had faith to believe in God, Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that would make sense to me.


I agree with Thunder, it makes a load of sense.

[trivas7]

I chose Zen Buddhism b/c it is non-dogmatic, critical and has strong parallels to modern physics. It is personally integrative of understanding, happiness and virtue which has been largely lost in the contemplative traditions of the West.

[Misanthrope]

Buddhism by far, I have flirted with the idea of considering myself Buddhist.

bhmaK4Q19RY

[Kronos]

Truth, check this comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, written by Nietzsche.

You will note that he immediately considers each a form of nihilism. Buddhism, although a far more honest, more dignified religion, is still fundamentally a denial of the will to power, the will to life. The desire to resign from this world, to deny or moderate the passions- these principles can only be the result of a suspicion, a caution toward the world....as if one did not find agreeable that the world is dangerous. There is a kind of pathological weakness here. One is not satisfied with the world. One wants to escape it (in Christianity) and avoid it (in Buddhism).

Still, with Nietzsche, I have the highest respect for Buddhism among the religions.

(I have coupons for some Fig Newtons I could mail you, if you want to get an early start)


I hope that my condemnation of Christianity has not involved me in any injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of adherents: Buddhism. Both belong together as nihilistic religions—they are religions of décadence—but they differ most remarkably. For being in a position now to compare them, the critic of Christianity is profoundly grateful to the students of India.— Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of "God" had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism—): it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering." Buddhism is profoundly distinguished from Christianity by the fact that the self-deception of the moral concepts lies far behind it. In my terms, it stands beyond good and evil.— The two physiological facts on which it is based and which it keeps in mind are: first, an excessive sensitivity, which manifests itself in a refined susceptibility to pain; and second, an overspiritualization, an all-too-long preoccupation with concepts and logical procedures, which has damaged the instinct of personality by subordinating it to the "impersonal" (—both states which at least some of my readers, those who are "objective" like myself, will know from experience). These physiological conditions have led to a depression, and the Buddha proceeds against this with hygienic measures. Against it he recommends life in the open air, the wandering life; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; wariness of all intoxicants; wariness also of all emotions that activate the gall bladder or heat the blood; no worry either for oneself or for others. He prescribes ideas which are either soothing or cheering—he invents means for weaning oneself from all the others. He understands goodness and graciousness as health-promoting. Prayer is ruled out, and so is asceticism; there is no categorial imperative, no compulsion whatever, not even in the monastic societies (—one may leave again—). All these things would merely increase the excessive sensitivity we mentioned. For the same reason, he does not ask his followers to fight those who think otherwise: there is nothing to which his doctrine is more opposed than the feeling of revenge, antipathy, ressentiment (—"it is not by enmity that enmity is ended": that is the stirring refrain of all Buddhism ...). And all this is quite right: these emotions would indeed be utterly unhealthy in view of the basic hygienic purpose. Against the spiritual exhaustion he encounters, which manifests itself in an excessive "objectivity" (that is, in the individual's loss of interest in himself, in the loss of a center of gravity, of "egoism"), he fights with a rigorous attempt to lead back even the most spiritual interests to the person. In the Buddha's doctrine, egoism becomes a duty: the "one thing needful," the question "how can you escape from suffering?" regulates and limits the whole spiritual diet. (Perhaps one may here recall that Athenian who also waged war against any pure "scientism"—Socrates, who elevated personal egoism to an ethic, even in the realm of problems.)
Buddhism presupposes a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and the absence of militarism; moreover, the movement had to originate among the higher, and even the scholarly, classes. Cheerfulness, calm, and freedom from desire are the highest goal, and the goal is attained. Buddhism is not a religion in which one merely aspires to perfection: perfection is the normal case. —

[trivas7]

Still, with Nietzsche, I have the highest respect for Buddhism among the religions.

AFAIK Nietzsche knew of Buddhism only second-hand from Schopenhauer. Not a creditable source IMO.

[Kronos]

I don't know for certain, but I would highly doubt Nietzsche's source for the knowledge he had of Buddhism was only Schopenhauer. You do know Nietzsche was a professor of philology...and well read on current affairs/world news. Buddhism was well known all over Europe during his time, as well.

Although Schopenhauer had an affinity for eastern philosophy (having studied the Upanishads), his estimation of the religion probably only influenced Nietzsche in a small way. In the end Nietzsche's philosophy broke free of Schopenhauer's pessimism (where he once considered him a mentor)...and in that sense, his interpretations of much of the same material became quite different. So, Buddhism, from Nietzsche's generically different philosophical perspective, is analyzed differently.

[Manifesto]

Well obviously I chose Christianity but, I do not see why Islam is so hated when it is another form of Christianity. Even Muhammad had respect for Judaism and Christianity. Also I am pretty understanding of all religions (except Scientology) especially Buddhism.

[Manifesto]

Also I would like to post this. Sorry go to next comment.

[Manifesto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgAU5XQ2HnY (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgAU5XQ2HnY)

[Old Man Diogenes]

Buddhism is my favorite, its not as dogmatic as other religions and you don't have to believe in one God, and the purpose of life in Buddhism is to reach enlightenment, which I interperet as learning, so it's all good.

[heylelshalem]

i am an occultist for the most part(interested in the study of thelema,hermeticism and practical applications of magick etc etc.) otherwise i own a lot of crowely books and other varying books on differing religions. When i left the christian church due to heavy frustration in my disagreement with the politics of said church(on the issue of gays and marriage, abortion etc etc.) i was a chaote for a while, then was heavy into gnosticism and witchcraft and then ended up being a purely materialist atheist/nihilist. Now i am pretty much a practicing buddhist/magick practicioner. Kinda funny thing is that I embraced socialism pretty much the day i realized i was an atheist...

buddhism to me is everything a religion should be..good solid philosophy and tracates to live ones life by ie good common sense, with none of the metaphysical mindfuck that most religions have. and for the most part buddhism has had a very good history that does not smack of the hypocracy in their dealings with the people...unlike say christianity.

[Azraelscross]

Does this man deserve our respect?

- August
that's not ancient by a long shot........

[CommunityBeliever]

Buddhism. I am highly confident there is no god (I am at least 6.999 on Richard Dawkins scale) so I absolutely have to choose an atheist religion. When I heard that some Buddhists even integrate evolution into their religion with the concept of spiritual evolution, I was really surprised because that idea is so very appealing. I also like cremation as opposed to cemeteries, and I like vegetarianism. :thumbup1:

[the last donut of the night]

I'm still surprised that 13% of the votes went to us and that we're the second-largest group. We Christians are slowly infiltrating; one day we'll get you all.:crying:

[Richard Nixon]

I'm still surprised that 13% of the votes went to us and that we're the second-largest group. We Christians are slowly infiltrating; one day we'll get you all.:crying:

Well Christianity does condemn greed and mammon. Indeed many early Communists/socialists were Christians at least until Marxism became more popular who condemned religion as the "opiate of the people".

[RedAnarchist]

I'm still surprised that 13% of the votes went to us and that we're the second-largest group. We Christians are slowly infiltrating; one day we'll get you all.:crying:

It's most likely due to the fact that for Westerners, Christianity is generally the most common religion within society. Also, this is in OI - if it were just unrestricted members, that 13% would be much lower.

[Bud Struggle]

It's most likely due to the fact that for Westerners, Christianity is generally the most common religion within society. Also, this is in OI - if it were just unrestricted members, that 13% would be much lower.

But OI does raise the IQ of Revleft Considerably.

;):lol:


I had to get that one in. :cool:

[RedAnarchist]

But OI does raise the IQ of Revleft Considerably.

;):lol:


I had to get that one in. :cool:

It's not the size of the IQ, its what you do with it.;)

[the last donut of the night]

It's most likely due to the fact that for Westerners, Christianity is generally the most common religion within society. Also, this is in OI - if it were just unrestricted members, that 13% would be much lower.


Hmm. Maybe. But then again, I am not a restricted member and a dangerously crazy Catholic. So do I get restricted for being Catholic? Oops. Also, what does restriction entail?

[Malakangga]

Islam. I'm a moslem

[Richard Nixon]

Hmm. Maybe. But then again, I am not a restricted member and a dangerously crazy Catholic. So do I get restricted for being Catholic? Oops. Also, what does restriction entail?

You can only post in OI. Also according to the rules you don't get restricted for being Catholic unless you are opposed to abortion or something.

[the last donut of the night]

You can only post in OI. Also according to the rules you don't get restricted for being Catholic unless you are opposed to abortion or something.


Is there some guideline to this, or do mods just on their own whim restrict members?

[Decolonize The Left]

Is there some guideline to this, or do mods just on their own whim restrict members?

From the Forum FAQ:


What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Basically, if someone makes a questionable statement, they are issued a verbal warning, or a warning point. If this continues, or if they demonstrate an opposing ideology, their case is brought before the CC. The CC then votes on whether or not this individual ought to be restricted.

- August

[the last donut of the night]

Basically, if someone makes a questionable statement, they are issued a verbal warning, or a warning point. If this continues, or if they demonstrate an opposing ideology, their case is brought before the CC. The CC then votes on whether or not this individual ought to be restricted.

- August

The Forum FAQ said that members who don't believe in the emancipation of the working class are sent to the OI. So why are religious members sometimes restricted? Is it because of a questionable statement? That doesn't sound like a democracy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Religious members are not restricted for their religion. I'm religious and even used to be a CC member (my membership expired due to a period of inactivity). However, religious members - like everyone else - can get restricted if the CC thinks that they don't believe in the emancipation of the working class.

And unfortunately, in some cases the CC can be made to think that a person doesn't believe in the emancipation of the working class based on very flimsy evidence.

[the last donut of the night]

And unfortunately, in some cases the CC can be made to think that a person doesn't believe in the emancipation of the working class based on very flimsy evidence.

That explains a lot.

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I could of said last year but ive came to the conclusion that religion is just the governments way of creating the "perfect" community for the future.Which is absolute bs and will fail.Its so obvious.Its on tv,its in our school,its in the government,its in the law.You cant get away from the influence religion (christianity especially) has on the modern society

[Brother No. 1]

I'm more appealed by Buddhism since it doesnt allow you to believe in a "dentiy" like figure.

[gorillafuck]

I voted scientology because it amuses me.

[Ultra_Cheese]

Is there a religion that rejects all reverence for gods and concepts of morality, honour, justice, etc.?

[Decolonize The Left]

Is there a religion that rejects all reverence for gods and concepts of morality, honour, justice, etc.?

Perhaps. It depends what you mean by "reverence."

"Religion" is merely an institutionalized belief in a higher being, it says nothing of reverence though generally it involves some sort or morality.

- August

[Agrippa]

I'm more appealed by Buddhism since it doesnt allow you to believe in a "dentiy" like figure.

Buddhists believe in deities, they just think they are assholes.

[RedAnarchist]

Buddhists believe in deities, they just think they are assholes.

Which deities are those?

[Agrippa]

Which deities are those?

Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Shakti, etc.

[the last donut of the night]

Those are Hindu deities. Don't Buddhists have deities of their own?


I don't think so. They just adapted to local religious beliefs.

[Agrippa]

As with any religion, there are different sects of Buddhism - some are atheistic, which seems to be what redanarchist was referring to, and some believe in deities.

This is a claim frequently made by western atheists who want to claim Buddhism as their own. I've never recieved any proof of Buddhist "atheism" prior to Buddhist interaction with the west. Buddhists never renounced the existence of gods, they just viewed them as impermanent


Those are Hindu deities. Don't Buddhists have deities of their own?

No, I don't think it really works that way. To Hindus and Buddhists, deities are very real entities that can be percieved. Therefore it wouldn't make sense for Buddhists to just go off and invent deities of their own, any more than it would make sense for them to go off and invent animals of their own.

[Clear Air Turbulence]

Buddhism, in my own kind of way. Ignoring that bat shit crazy oppressive Tibetan style of Buddhism.

[Agrippa]

Its not a question of "inventing" deities. To the believers, the deities may be real, but not to rational people who recognize the development of mythology as a literary rather than material phenomenon. My point was that the deities you quoted are from Indian Hindu mythology and my question was that though Buddhism originated in India, wouldn't the Buddhists in other countries have local deities from their own mythologies to worship? In fact a simple internet search turned up a few buddhist deities (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/deities.htm):

Laughing Buddha/Future Buddha (Maitreya) (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/laughing_buddha.htm)
Tara (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/tara.htm)
Kuan-Yin (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/kuan_yin.htm)

Buddhism is not my area of expertise, so I'm not familiar with those other two entities, but Maitreya, as far as I'm aware, is not a god but a buddha. It would be like saying a Greek hero or a Jewish messiah is a god.



Buddhism, in my own kind of way. Ignoring that bat shit crazy oppressive Tibetan style of Buddhism.

Tibetan Buddhism is the only form of Buddhism that isn't oppressive, because it's the only form of Buddhism that isn't vegetarian. ;)

[marxistcritic]

Im an athiest, but I choose zorastoarianism because they have fun holidays[leaping through fire].

[OneNamedNameLess]

The Manifesto is my religion.

[Agrippa]

The Manifesto is my religion.

Wow, no offense but that's a pretty crappy religion, considering Marx grew up to basically renounce almost every strategy he and Engels proposed in the Manifesto.

[trivas7]

Its not a question of "inventing" deities. To the believers, the deities may be real, but not to rational people who recognize the development of mythology as a literary rather than material phenomenon.
What makes the development of mythology non-material?

[RedRise]

I voted neo-pagan because you can make up whatever the fuck you want, pinch ideas from other religions and no one can challenge this as 'heretical' or the religious equivalent.

Excuse me for flaming just a bit...BUT THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! :cursing:
My religion is a combination of Celtic Recreationism and Asatrü (and yes I am quite aware that hardly anyone knows what that is). Admittedly neither religion (in today) follows strict guidelines, but if you make something up and call it a specific type of paganism, THAT IS EXTREMELY RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!:cursing:
I have strong beliefs in a number of deities and I believe there are certain ways a civilized person should behave. Making things up and calling them paganism will not only offend the Gods (not trying to convert anyone) but will bring down the wrath of any mortal pagans in the vicinity upon your head. Not a good idea if they have earned warrior status.:mad:
So in future please think carefully before you assume things about religions you don't know squat about!:cursing:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Excuse me for flaming just a bit...BUT THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! :cursing:
My religion is a combination of Celtic Recreationism and Asatrü (and yes I am quite aware that hardly anyone knows what that is). Admittedly neither religion (in today) follows strict guidelines, but if you make something up and call it a specific type of paganism, THAT IS EXTREMELY RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!:cursing:

You say it isn't true, yet you immediately follow up with your own example of a religious pick 'n' mix.

Shouldn't you be offending yourself?


I have strong beliefs in a number of deities and I believe there are certain ways a civilized person should behave. Making things up and calling them paganism will not only offend the Gods (not trying to convert anyone) but will bring down the wrath of any mortal pagans in the vicinity upon your head. Not a good idea if they have earned warrior status.:mad:Wow, implicit threats. Such civilised behaviour. :lol: Honestly, I expected better from a Pagan.


So in future please think carefully before you assume things about religions you don't know squat about!:cursing:If he's sewing together his own Frankensteinian religion, what are you getting offended over exactly?

[Led Zeppelin]

I like Greek and Roman mythology. It's interesting.

I'm also a firm believer in Zeus.

[Merces]

Religion is poison.

It detracts the human condition in the lowest point of view, by indirectly stating that he is under a master, and it is the masters power which helkpos the lowley creature attain happiness.

Islam is the most despicable religion out there, for the whole idea of "submission" in its root word; proves its nothing more than slave morality as Nietzche would say. They preach hate, intolerance and should be destroyed for the progression of human kind. Christianity practices utter lunacies with hypocrisy attached to it, and a dollar sign above the cross, with the cross being the symbol of power and control.

God is Dead.

[Agrippa]

And you think Nietzsche would approve of your sophomoric atheism?

[black magick hustla]

dyonisian cult,

kierkergaards/wittgensteins interpretation of religion

[DDR]

Well, I voted for Neo-pagan, but I also find appealing budism and luciferianism.

[Jazzratt]

Excuse me for flaming just a bit...BUT THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! :cursing:

Yes it is. Pagans come in two flavours, as far as I've encountered. The fairly laid back ones that are making it up as they go along, maybe read a few books and generally are a bit of a laugh despite their loony beliefs. Then there are uptight ones who read a book by some guy who was making it up as he went along and get all up in arms if anyone makes fun of them, they are as loony as their beliefs.


My religion is a combination of Celtic Recreationism and Asatrü (and yes I am quite aware that hardly anyone knows what that is). Admittedly neither religion (in today) follows strict guidelines, but if you make something up and call it a specific type of paganism, THAT IS EXTREMELY RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!:cursing:

Your argument would have more weight if you hadn't, as NoXion pointed out, gone for the "pic 'n' mix" approach to the religion yourself.


I have strong beliefs in a number of deities and I believe there are certain ways a civilized person should behave. Making things up and calling them paganism will not only offend the Gods (not trying to convert anyone) but will bring down the wrath of any mortal pagans in the vicinity upon your head. Not a good idea if they have earned warrior status.:mad:

First: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: That's an amazingly funny statement.
Second: I really doubt most of the mortal pagans in my vicinity give a shit and the ones that do are likely to be more inclined to "curse" me or something just as funny.
Third: Re-read that staement. It's so god damned funny.


So in future please think carefully before you assume things about religions you don't know squat about!:cursing:
I was taking the piss out of a religion I don't really take seriously.

[Merces]

I don't give a shit. It's a simple fact of life when I say god is dead and all religions and its people are slaves to it.

[narcomprom]

I voted scientology for being so efficient a crack for the people.

[Ultra_Cheese]

I voted scientology for being so efficient a crack for the people.
I vote for a more direct approach. My religion will be Alcoholism.

[RedRise]

Second: I really doubt most of the mortal pagans in my vicinity give a shit and the ones that do are likely to be more inclined to "curse" me or something just as funny.

May Morrigan's crows peck your eyes out and Hel take you down to her icy depths.:mad:

[Kukulofori]

I practice elements of Islam and neopaganism.

On the other hand, my definition of "religion" is pretty lax.

[RedRise]

Neo pagan , lots of parties with orgies ....

That was actually a lot of ancient roman (christian era) propaganda. I'm neo pagan - I don't throw orgies. Please check your facts first, Coggeh.:thumbdown:

[Jack]

Who added the "none" option? That kind of defeats the whole purpose of this poll since we're already mostly atheists.

[narcomprom]

That was actually a lot of ancient roman (christian era) propaganda. I'm neo pagan - I don't throw orgies. Please check your facts first, Coggeh.:thumbdown:
How do you want to lure in the believers? Do you practice at least mystic chanting naked out in the wilderness covered with animal guts?

[RedRise]

Do you practice at least mystic chanting naked out in the wilderness covered with animal guts?

What the Neiflheim? You have issues.:ohmy:

My religion is about respect for nature and our ancestors. We're not trying to lure in anyone, but if you'd like to join and see what our beliefs are really about, you're more then welcome.:tt2:
And hang on a tick, everyone gets all worked up when some idiot says that Islam is about oppressing women and smashing skyscrapers. And you peeps think it's OK to talk about a load of crap you heard about from some religious fanatic who came to your school or something? I thought this forum was anti discrimination!:confused:

[narcomprom]

Madonna's kabbalah has the plus that it doesn't say you must be 40-years male jew to even read it. I don't know as much about it as Apikoros but some of the prose in it makes is confusing mysticism par excellance.(i surely will quote it if i find the book now) And it has some confusing arithmetics in it by reading letter as numbers they get to results such as "Father+Mother=Child" and derive other equasions from that. To anyone with an interest in new age stuff, tarot, semiotics or obscurantism the original Kabbalah is a must-read.

Yes it is. Pagans come in two flavours, as far as I've encountered. The fairly laid back ones that are making it up as they go along, maybe read a few books and generally are a bit of a laugh despite their loony beliefs. Then there are uptight ones who read a book by some guy who was making it up as he went along and get all up in arms if anyone makes fun of them, they are as loony as their beliefs.
Well,that applies to all religious people! And some economists and philosophy students as well.

[trivas7]

Well,that applies to all religious people! And some economists and philosophy students as well.
Marxism, perhaps...?

[narcomprom]

Marxism, perhaps...?
Yes, there are certain young Marxists who would blurt out dogmata not exactly understanding what it is about.

[RedRise]

Well,that applies to all religious people! And some economists and philosophy students as well.

I have to admit you have a point there.:blushing: But I wouldn't exactly say that what I believe is a 'religion' or a 'faith'. It's just one interpretation of, well, the universe I guess. Every religion is a different interpretation of the way, um, 'things' work. How about I call god/gods/nature/force what I like and you call it/them what you like? The only reason I was getting up in arms was that Jazzratt was judging me for something he wouldn't know squat about.:rolleyes:

[narcomprom]

I have to admit you have a point there.:blushing: But I wouldn't exactly say that what I believe is a 'religion' or a 'faith'. It's just one interpretation of, well, the universe I guess. Every religion is a different interpretation of the way, um, 'things' work. How about I call god/gods/nature/force what I like and you call it/them what you like? The only reason I was getting up in arms was that Jazzratt was judging me for something he wouldn't know squat about.:rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/09/video
Would you not judge the interpretation of the universe of the villagers portrayed in this vid?

This is not set in stone, of course, as I am a 21-year-old female :)
Granted, my extremely limited understanding of it came largely from adult males in my family. Plus, one can always go to a library or bookstore and obtain some or all of Sefer Yetzirah, the Zohar (etc) themselves, but yes, it is true that historically and generally rabbinical instruction is reserved for adult males, no surprise there:closedeyes:
Just make sure to make a great fuss about what you're doing with every single kabbalist male you know. That would not only make it a good read but also an act of disobedience towards the patriarchate in your community and that is always good because it inspires discussions and consequentially autonomous thinking.

[deLarge]

I'm a Satanist, so eh.

[Jazzratt]

I'm a Satanist, so eh.

Why?

[scarletghoul]

I was self-described Satanist back in the day. It's a pretty cool religion and should definately be on the list

[Forward Union]

This One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yLhl6j_dVY)

[deLarge]

Why?

It's not so much something that you convert to in order to achieve something, so much as a useful term to describe what you already believe. As for the term itself, there are a lot of schools of thought. I take it to mean that I follow my own Will (a concept from Thelema admittedly) as opposed to that of a god or simply "following the herd" (of course doing this can have its merits in some places, but I digress), indulging knowingly and openly in activities that some would label unwholesome (as opposed to denying it or feeling guilty; if it's something you feel guilty about, you shouldn't do it), etc. I could go into dark doctrine and some more esoteric meanings, but that would be getting off topic.

[Richard Nixon]

I'm a Satanist, so eh.


I was self-described Satanist back in the day. It's a pretty cool religion and should definately be on the list

Incidentially it is one of only a few religions I'm intolerant of (others being the Aztec religion and the Thugee sect of Hinduism (but not all Hinduism)). Why? Because it is actually a very selfish religion rejecting the altruism of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others? It sounds like a spiritualized version of Ayn Rand's philosophy but far more stupid.

[deLarge]

Why? Because it is actually a very selfish religion rejecting the altruism of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others? It sounds like a spiritualized version of Ayn Rand's philosophy but far more stupid.

Someone has been paying too much attention to Peter Gilmore :laugh:

Satanism, in it's most broad form, refers to any religious (materialist or not) tradition that encourages knowing indulgence in carnal activities (basically acting the same as everyone else in the church, but sans guilt and hypocrisy), judging things for yourself and deciding what is important (instead of just doing what you are told by god or the church, for their own sake), challenging deeply-seated beliefs that are taken for granted, etc. Ritual magick, at least in the LaVeyan tradition, can be considered purely psychological; it is used to realize and vent emotions or desires, in the same way that punching a pillow can relieve anger.

Satanism, unless you are a devout Church of Satan fundamentalist, is also frequently used as a synonym of Left Hand Path. The Left Hand Path is a branch of religious philosophies that are concerned with individual spiritual development (similarities can be drawn with Gnosticism), terrestrial goals, and worldly pleasures. The origin of the term "Left Hand Path" is in the Vamachara Tantric tradition in Buddhism and Hinduism, and this relationship is acknowledged in the more 'spiritual' Satanist groups (the Church of Satan tries to play all of this down and make-pretend to be Objectivists), and thus the Right Hand Path beliefs (e.g. most types of Buddhism and Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, etc) are considered equally valid to Left Hand Path beliefs, provided that people follow them because they want to, and not for their own sake. The following video, once you get past the silly spooky music, sums dark doctrine and Satanism up quite well, or at the very least is one of the least biased videos on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgartyq-PUo

I've made some blog posts that go more in-depth on the specific technical contradictions between Satanism and Objectivism, as well as how Satanism and Socialism are compatible, but seeing as how my blog contains my name I won't give it out. I could just copy+paste it here, though, if anyone's interested.

[Richard Nixon]

Someone has been paying too much attention to Peter Gilmore :laugh:

Satanism, in it's most broad form, refers to any religious (materialist or not) tradition that encourages knowing indulgence in carnal activities (basically acting the same as everyone else in the church, but sans guilt and hypocrisy), judging things for yourself and deciding what is important (instead of just doing what you are told by god or the church, for their own sake), challenging deeply-seated beliefs that are taken for granted, etc. Ritual magick, at least in the LaVeyan tradition, can be considered purely psychological; it is used to realize and vent emotions or desires, in the same way that punching a pillow can relieve anger.

Satanism, unless you are a devout Church of Satan fundamentalist, is also frequently used as a synonym of Left Hand Path. The Left Hand Path is a branch of religious philosophies that are concerned with individual spiritual development (similarities can be drawn with Gnosticism), terrestrial goals, and worldly pleasures. The origin of the term "Left Hand Path" is in the Vamachara Tantric tradition in Buddhism and Hinduism, and this relationship is acknowledged in the more 'spiritual' Satanist groups (the Church of Satan tries to play all of this down and make-pretend to be Objectivists), and thus the Right Hand Path beliefs (e.g. most types of Buddhism and Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, etc) are considered equally valid to Left Hand Path beliefs, provided that people follow them because they want to, and not for their own sake. The following video, once you get past the silly spooky music, sums dark doctrine and Satanism up quite well, or at the very least is one of the least biased videos on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgartyq-PUo

I've made some blog posts that go more in-depth on the specific technical contradictions between Satanism and Objectivism, as well as how Satanism and Socialism are compatible, but seeing as how my blog contains my name I won't give it out. I could just copy+paste it here, though, if anyone's interested.

I'd like to see them please.

[deLarge]

On Socialism

I've heard a great deal of talk from both Satanists and Socialists (especially of the Marxist variety) who claim that the two beliefs are separate and mutually exclusive. I would disagree, and further would say that, under some circumstances, the former implies the latter.

Note that Satanism (and the Left Hand Path in general) is an extremely diverse field, and LaVey does not hold monopoly over it. Some types of Gnostic Luciferianism, for instance, can be even more compatible with socialist politics (the Satanic Reds, whatever you think of them, provide an obvious example). As far as comparability between LaVeyan satanism and socialism goes, if it is in one's self interest to be a socialist (for instance, if one is working class and wants a better life), or in the self interest of those one cares about (e.g. others of the same class, children, grandchildren, friends, or even all of humanity), then the two positions are again compatible. If one's chief motivation is the acquisition of wealth and the domination of the weak, then obviously their take on LaVeyan Satanism would not be compatible with socialism. The point is that it is largely an open-ended philosophy, and how much of the Satanic Bible (or other such documents) that one subscribes to is up to the individual. Generally speaking, the underpinning of the philosophy is that "life is the great indulgence, death the great abstinence", and that we need to work in the here-and-now of this world in order to better things, as opposed to investing in "spiritual pipe dreams", as LaVey put it. This, of course, is not diametrically opposed to socialism either. Some of the aspects of Satanism (LaVeyan or otherwise) can be seen as more dressed-up humanism than anything.

Beyond the strict LaVeyan point of view, it may also be enlightening to look at the specific judeo-christian mythologies surrounding the figure of 'Satan', as there are a number of 'satanists' (atheistic or otherwise) who revere the archetype of Satan as one who thought that humans were the equals of the gods, and were deserving of knowledge. This sort of gnostic approach to the Satan myth is actually fairly common within the LHP community, and is quite compatible with socialist politics. It may also be useful to compare the mythical figure of 'Satan' to Prometheus. The most common view of the Satan archetype is that of essentially an externalization of human motivation, potential, worldly needs and desires, an explicit rejection of spiritual subservience to external deities, and turning a critical eye to all institutions. These traits are indeed compatible with a number of political philosophies, and there is no reason that socialism cannot be among them.

Satanism as 'unrefined' Objectivism

I've heard something similar to the topic said by many individuals, especially on the Objectivist discussion boards. It seems common to say that Satanism is just a copy of Objectivism, and a bad one at that--however, I would disagree. Below I will elaborate on some of the differences, as well as on what Satanism does that Objectivism does not.

Metaphysics
While the Objectivist believes in an objective, naturalistic universe, and the Satanist might as well, there is a difference in the importance that is placed on this knowledge, as well as how it is used. Objectivists feel that, using their epistemology (reason) in combination with their metaphysics (objective reality), they logically come to a conclusion of ethics (ethical egoism). Thus, Objectivists claim to be just that-objective. Satanists, however, make no such claim by default (though there definitely exists Objectivist Satanists). Satanism holds metaphysics to be secondary to ethics, and alongside epistemology is used as a tool; in other words, in Satanism, metaphysics and epistemology are secondary to ethics, and not vice-versa as it is with Objectivism.

Epistemology
In the Satanic bible, there is some hinting at an adherence to an epistemology of reason, or at least a bias towards it, which is does share in common with Objectivism:

"2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!" - The Satanic Bible, The Nine Satanic Statements, 2-3
However, note that the LaVeyan Satanist's Undefiled Wisdom (their epistemology) consists of

"...outward research and observation as well as carnal intuition. " - A Map for the Misdirected, Peter GilmoreNow, while the definition of "carnal intuition" is up to the individual Satanist, a break becomes clearly apparent between Satanist and Objectivist epistemology, insofar as the use of "outward research and observation" is not the end-all, be-all. Depending on the type of Satanism, and especially on the individual Satanist, some type of religious experiences may be considered legitimate as "carnal intuition", though a Crowley-an perspective is usually taken to it:


"We place no reliance
On virgin or pidgeon
Our method is science
Our aim is religion."
- Aleister Crowley
That is, religious experiences are held to some scrutiny, and are not accepted at face-value.


Ethics

One of the largest differences between Objectivism and Satanism is found in ethics. Satanism, unlike Objectivism, makes no claim to being objective, nor to having absolute ethics. Indeed, Satanic ethics are largely subjective. In Satanism, one is free to do whatever they want, so long as they are responsible and accept the consequences, with nothing considered immoral, and any rules (i.e. sins) in the Satanic Bible considered guidelines for the benefit of the individual Satanist. These subjective ethics--as well as the existentialist take on meaning and on action--are at the core of Satanism, and both metaphysics and epistemology are secondary to it, or are used as a tool. A quote from the Satanic Bible that illustrates the subjectivity of ethics is as follows:

"The Satanist...should have the ability to decide what is just" - Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible

It should also not be understood that the moral subjectivity of Satanism implies something about the individual ethical beliefs of any individual Satanist: Ethical subjectivity in this case merely means that the Satanist can choose his own system (e.g. utilitarianism), though the tenants of Satanism generally bar most types of abstinence-based asceticism.

Ritual

Another difference between Satanism and Objectivism is that they both address different issues. While Objectivism aims at being a complete, internally-consistent, logical, "objective" life philosophy, Satanism aims at being a religion. In other words, Satanism, in addition to having a philosophy (explained above), also includes ritual and a sense of aesthetics that are reminiscent of organized religion.

Certainly, Objectivism does not address the use (psychological or otherwise) of ritual magick, and ritual magick would almost certainly be looked down upon by the Objectivist community. The reason for this contradiction lies in the relationship between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics. The suspention of disbelief that is utilized in ritual is permissible in Satanism because it does not contradict it's ethics (remember, the naturalistic metaphysics and epistemology of Satanism are secondary to it's ethics). On the other hand, because Objectivism derives it's ethics from it's metaphysics and epistemology, forgetting or ignoring the latter for the sake of the former would undermine the "objective" underpinning of Objectivism, and thus would not be internally consistent.

Conclusion

Certainly, I am not saying that Objectivism and Satanism share nothing in common. In fact, they can share quite a bit in common, but how much and whether or not they share anything is up to the individual.

However, the fact remains that they differ greatly on the origin and relative importance of ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, and are also fundamentally different in terms of what they are meant to be.

Anton LaVey and Ayn Rand

It's no secret that LaVey was influenced by Ayn Rand; He at one point (though remember he was just trying to summarize it to the layman) said: "My philosophy is just Ayn Rand's with added ritual". That is not to say, however that it was his only influence, or that Ayn Rand did not have influences herself.

Beyond mere influences (remember, one can by influenced by one's enemies), it would make more sense to look at similarities with other philosophical systems. While I have named a number of irregularities between Objectivism and Satanism, to the best of my knowledge, there are no irregularities between Satanism and Egoism as espoused by Max Stirner, and given the nature of Satanism it is also possible to combine Satanism and socialism. Certainly, there are no contradictions between Satanism and Dialectical Materialism in terms of metaphysics, and though the terms used are different (given the lack of meritocracy that I argue later in this post) one might say that the bourgeoisie are the ultimate [social] psychic vampires. When you get dark doctrine involved, the compatibility becomes more apparent as well.

Objective or Subjective Ethics?

As for Ayn Rand, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I like the work she did to dispel the notion of a clear dichotomy between selflessness and selfishness (as they are defined by society). On the other hand, her philosophy (including "objective" premises) is an act of circular logic; she assumes her conclusions. From the premise that all philosophies must benefit the individual she then argues the altruism is evil. Yes, she tries to tie the former axiom into her metaphysics, but I don't see how stating "existence exists" leads naturally to "therefor socialism is evil".

I would say that neither altruism nor selfishness are inherently 'logical' or 'moral' in themselves (objectively), since those terms apply exclusively to humans, and thus are not objective at all. Furthermore, she largely ignores the societal benefits of altruism, whereby one can gain long-term benefits (either directly for the self or through ones interests--which Ayn Rand acknowledges as selfishness) by acting altruistically in the short term (reciprocal altruism).

The universe does not care about humans, nor does it care for our interactions; whether or not we act in favor of ourselves or others is not objectively good or bad, it simply is. I suppose the point I am trying to make here is that, ultimately, all ethical systems are subjective at their root, so trying to pass off one (as Rand did) as "objective" is a misnomer. That is not to say that some ethical systems are not more or less logical or objective than others, but at their root no system is purely objective.

Rand's Objectivist Theory of Value (note that modern free-market economists, such as the Austrian School, more often use a Subjective Theory of Value) is mainly an act in selectively re-defined terms to mean the opposite of what they are intended. Basically, she argues that some objects have objective value, because of properties they have, and the relationship of the properties with reality, including man's subjective nature. In other words, an axe has objective value because of it's ability to kill animals, which is needed to get the animal's meat, which is important for human nutrition. Of course, this is an argument for value, but the fact that the value of the axe is entirely dependent upon circumstance and man's subjective nature doesn't do much for the claim of objectivity.

Satanism makes no claim to being objective. Quite the contrary, Satanism holds that "right" and "wrong" are decided by the individual Satanist, with metaphysics and epistemology used as tools for, rather than the origin of, ethics. Thus, a Satanist could choose any ethical system they want (e.g. utilitarianism) and still be valid within the Satanic framework.

Objectivist assumptions about society and politics

Another problem I have with her philosophy is that she further builds up the false dichotomy between "collectivism" and "individualism" as if the two were completely separate entities. Beyond that I can also nit-pick at her take on homosexuality and whatnot, but both of these are enough material for a totally different/new post. The Objectivist rhetoric used against "collectivist" faculties such as Welfare generally revolves around stating that it is based on misplaced guilt; that the poor are poor because of their own faults, and the rich are rich entirely because of their own effort.

Objectivism assumes we live in a meritocracy: we do not. There are many people who are born with an advantage over others--whether this is financial security, a better education, more involved parents, better nutrition, etc. Such factors are outside of the influence of the individuals in question, and thus those individuals cannot be said to have 'earned' everything they get in life. There are certainly people who--by sheer bad luck--were born to families or in to situations where, regardless of how smart they *could be* or how hard they *could work*, never had the opportunity to do so, or at least didn't have the faculties to fully develop themselves. There are definition exceptions--some people seem to be more 'lucky' than others--but this holds true in a number of circumstances, and to deny this would be Satanic Sin #6, Lack of Perspective.

To pick a cliche example, look at people like Paris Hilton, and then compare them to a single mother with a job who can barely make it by, all the while making difficult decisions day in and day out. Obviously, the latter person works harder, smarter, and longer than the former--and yet the former has more money. The point I'm trying to make here is that while it is unhealthy to abstain from bodily pleasure and deny one's own achievements, it is ignorant to assume that one's success is entirely the result of one's own effort. There are many successful business men who would never had gotten ahead if it wasn't for public education or their parent's money, for example.

This brings me to my next point: individuals do not exist in a vacuum. It is not as if everyone is born with nothing but their will and raw materials; our personalities, our knowledge, and our material condition are largely the culmination of tens of thousands of years of human society, which the individual has had nothing to do with. Contrary to some pop-psychologists, humans are primarily social creatures, who seek validation by and association with other individuals. What good is it to paint when there is no one to be moved by your work? Or to write, when there is no one to read? Or to create products, when there is no one to appreciate them? It's hypocritical to assume that society should only flow one way--that is, to say "everything that I have is mine and mine alone, and is the result of ONLY my effort and no one elses. No one contributed at all to my wealth, and I owe nothing to society, as society has done nothing for me". Furthermore, if we were to apply the Objectivist Theory of Value to individuals themselves, it could be argued that other people have objective value, since their properties of appreciation for material works satisfies the subjective emotional needs (or interests) of man.

Tell me, did you go to school? Who paid for that education? Did your upbringing--interaction with your parents for example--help you develop as an individual, help you to learn to speak? Did your relationship with the wider society shape you in any positive way? Who paid for your housing as a child? It would be difficult to argue that any present success you now have cannot be traced to any one of the things I just said, and it would be more difficult still to claim that you were the motivator and architect behind these factors.

Selfish v Selfless

Furthermore, I take somewhat of an issue with Ayn Rand's use of the words 'selfish' and 'selfless'. If we were to deconstruct any action fully enough, we could show it have a selfish motivation--perhaps the person giving to the beggar wants to impress someone, perhaps they like the image of being a "Good Samaritan", or perhaps they just wanted the beggar to shut up and bug someone else.

If merely having a self-serving motive (when we include one's interest and not just their immediate physical circumstance) means that one is acting selfishly, then the very term "selfish" becomes, for nearly all intents and purposes, as meaningless as asking "is there a god?". It is more useful to apply a sort of utilitarian perspective to the selfless vs. selfish dichotomy; perhaps we ought to label 'selfish' what contributes more utility to the self than anyone else, and 'selfless' what contributes more utility to others than to the self. While it is of course impossible to quantify 'utility', this framework, I think, makes much more sense. Taking a bullet for your child would then be selfless (or at least more selfless than selfish, as there would still be a selfish motive involved), as the utility gained by your child would be greater than that gained by you.

[Jazzratt]

It's not so much something that you convert to in order to achieve something, so much as a useful term to describe what you already believe.

No one "already believes" in anything.


As for the term itself, there are a lot of schools of thought. I take it to mean that I follow my own Will (a concept from Thelema admittedly) as opposed to that of a god or simply "following the herd" (of course doing this can have its merits in some places, but I digress), indulging knowingly and openly in activities that some would label unwholesome (as opposed to denying it or feeling guilty; if it's something you feel guilty about, you shouldn't do it), etc. I could go into dark doctrine and some more esoteric meanings, but that would be getting off topic.

I don't see why this system of ethics and morality is incompatible with being a non-mystical atheist, so my question stands: WHY?!

[deLarge]

No one "already believes" in anything.

Not quite sure what you mean there. You've never believed something, only to learn what the belief is called later?



I don't see why this system of ethics and morality is incompatible with being a non-mystical atheist, so my question stands: WHY?!

For one I don't like the term atheist; technically speaking I am ignostic. Two, assuming by 'atheist' you mean 'naturalist' or 'materialist' (the first and the latter two are not synonymous, mind you), then understand you can very well be a materialist/naturalist and a satanist, and many of the latter are in fact the former.

[RedRise]

What's wrong with the term atheist?:confused: Tons of peeps I know call themselves atheist.


You've never believed something, only to learn what the belief is called later?
Lots of people who were raised with a particular religion may not actually realize it is a specific religion and that others differ until they are old enough to talk about that stuff. Like, if you were raised in a Muslim society, you wouldn't know what religion was until you met a Jew in preschool. Like, when I was in my first nativity play at school, I hadn't the foggiest that all the Jesus stuff was a 'religion' and that there were different ones. That was all I'd heard about. I didn't actually believe it though, sense I was always a very logical child and someone dying on a cross the coming back to life, all the miracles, etc, etc, seemed about as unrealistic as you get.:rolleyes:
So I kinda see what you mean.

By the way,

one of only a few religions I'm intolerant of (others being the Aztec religion
what's wrong with the Aztec religion?:confused:

[Kamerat]

what's wrong with the Aztec religion?:confused:

Sacrifice people so the sun will rise again, seems perfectly alright right?

[deLarge]

What's wrong with the term atheist?:confused: Tons of peeps I know call themselves atheist.

My disagreement with atheism is one of semantics:

An agnostic can be an atheist, as the two terms address different issues. The former (agnostic versus gnostic) addresses knowledge, the latter (atheism versus theism) addresses belief. In other words, you can /not know/ god exists and thus not believe in him/her/it, or you can believe sans knowledge through faith, or you can claim to 'know' (e.g. through pointing out logical contradictions in the definition of 'god') that god does or does not exist. I am ignostic (not agnostic), meaning that I think terms such as 'agnostic' and 'atheist' are meaningless, as they assume too much about the nature of god.

Labeling oneself as 'atheist' is inherently meaningless without context and a definite definition of the terms involved. Being an atheist in regards to YHWH is different than being an atheist in regards to the pantheist god, which is different than being an atheist in regards to Spinoza's god. That the Christian is an atheist towards Zeus does not mean that the label 'atheist' is particularly useful in that particular scenario, and thus I reject the label 'atheist' as a catch-all descriptor for someone who believes in non-duality (or rather disbelieves in duality) and materialist metaphysics.

Certainly one can be an atheist in regards to specific definitions and instances of 'god', but to be an 'atheist period' doesn't mean much when someone might define 'love' as 'god'. Conversely, arguing that god exists because god is love is only an argument for 'god' insofar as god is defined as 'love', and thus labeling it as an argument for theism would be short-sighted; someone can be a theist in regards to the love-god and still be an atheist in regards to YHWH and every other non-material deity. Such a contradictory position is the root of why I do not label myself as an 'atheist' as an accurate description of my views, but rather ignostic--that is, I am an agnostic atheist in regards to the more widely believed-in gods, but acknowledge that god must be defined before any real statement of knowledge or belief can be made.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Labeling oneself as 'atheist' is inherently meaningless without context and a definite definition of the terms involved. Being an atheist in regards to YHWH is different than being an atheist in regards to the pantheist god, which is different than being an atheist in regards to Spinoza's god. That the Christian is an atheist towards Zeus does not mean that the label 'atheist' is particularly useful in that particular scenario, and thus I reject the label 'atheist' as a catch-all descriptor for someone who believes in non-duality (or rather disbelieves in duality) and materialist metaphysics.

What nonsense. Atheists don't believe in any gods. If you believe in any god, you're not an atheist. It's that simple.


Certainly one can be an atheist in regards to specific definitions and instances of 'god', but to be an 'atheist period' doesn't mean much when someone might define 'love' as 'god'.If someone is defining "god" as "love", they're playing stupid semantic games and you should harshly criticise their bullfuckery, rather than playing along.

[deLarge]

What nonsense. Atheists don't believe in any gods. If you believe in any god, you're not an atheist. It's that simple.

I know very well what the definition of atheism is, I'm just saying that to call yourself an "atheist in regards to all gods" is an incredibly vague statement. Pantheism can exist within a purely materialistic framework, for instance. Theism in general isn't diametrically opposed to materialism either. To claim that god can and only means the traditional definition of god as used in the Christian wordview (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) is culturally sort-sighted.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know very well what the definition of atheism is, I'm just saying that to call yourself an "atheist in regards to all gods" is an incredibly vague statement.

Seems quite a simple, non-vague statement to me.


Pantheism can exist within a purely materialistic framework, for instance.In that case it's merely "sexed-up atheism".


Theism in general isn't diametrically opposed to materialism either.Apart from the whole "lack of evidence for any gods" thing.


To claim that god can and only means the traditional definition of god as used in the Christian wordview (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) is culturally sort-sighted.And of course I claim no such thing. I don't believe in Odin or Set or Shiva either.

[deLarge]

In that case it's merely "sexed-up atheism".
But it would be a theism nonetheless. A more accurate summary would be "materialism on steroids". Pantheism itself varies in terms of theology, though; it can just be a purely poetic and symbolic representation, or pantheism can be a more spiritual system (i.e. the universe as a whole is god, and is sentient), and can imply polytheism in certain circumstances as well.


Apart from the whole "lack of evidence for any gods" thing.I think you're confusing materialist metaphysics with empirical epistemology. Whether or not you know the existence of something is different than whether or not that something could exist within your metaphysical system; unicorns (horses with horns) could exist within materialist metaphysics, but empirical epistemology leads us to believe that they do not exist, based on a lack of encounter.


And of course I claim no such thing. I don't believe in Odin or Set or Shiva either.I would claim that certain popular figures are essentially gods to their followers, and that in reality they have many times more power than the gods of antiquity; god, to me, is a status reserved for figures or ideas that are placed in a position of importance above one's own Will--"You are my god", etc.

[narcomprom]

What's wrong with the term atheist?:confused: Tons of peeps I know call themselves atheist.
This is an American quirk. Few Americans dare to call themselves atheists because clerics still have very much power over their society. So you get pantheists, agnostics, gnostics, theists and all other kinds of terms to call oneself. Their religion statistics are very surprising because normally blind faith falls with education and urbanisation everywhere except USA and states to which religion is legally relevant.



Sacrifice people so the sun will rise again, seems perfectly alright right?

How does it differ from the other religions?
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/burning.jpg

[RedRise]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamerat


Sacrifice people so the sun will rise again, seems perfectly alright right?

How does it differ from the other religions?


My point exactly. :thumbup1:

[deLarge]

This is an American quirk. Few Americans dare to call themselves atheists because clerics still have very much power over their society.
I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with calling yourself an atheist, but rather that saying so is rather vague (unless in reference to a specific god), and generally the person saying such means a number of things that are not specifically, logically implied by atheism; calling yourself a materialist or a naturalist would be much more accurate than atheist.


So you get pantheistsPantheism is compatible with materialism (well, it is a materialism), but it is still a type of theism nonetheless.


agnosticsAgnostic is a position on knowledge, not belief. You can be an agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or agnostic apatheist (which is what most people mean by agnostic). It's a more specific term, and is often useful. Not to say that it isn't misused at all, but rather that the term is appropriate in some circumstances (Do you think god exists? I'm agnostic. Do you believe in god? I'm an atheist).


gnosticsEven though the term is used frequently as the opposite of 'agnostic', the term itself more often refers to a dualist religious philosophy, sometimes related to Christianity, that puts a form of enlightenment ('gnosis') as the ultimate spiritual goal (e.g., Cathars).

[Axle]

I am not interested in any religion, and, in fact, opposed to religion in general. I feel as though its outlived its relevance and is only helping hold mankind back from greater things.

[narcomprom]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with calling yourself an atheist, but rather that saying so is rather vague (unless in reference to a specific god), and generally the person saying such means a number of things that are not specifically, logically implied by atheism; calling yourself a materialist or a naturalist would be much more accurate than atheist.
Nonsense! The word Atheist is very much disliked by powerful clerical elites which is why many Americans, Persians and Arabs fear using it. The rest is excuse sophistry! By Atheist I logically imply that illogical nonsense does not exist and that the clerics are thus scammers, in fact.

Pantheism is compatible with materialism (well, it is a materialism), but it is still a type of theism nonetheless.Apparently there your materialism differs from mine! To Spinoza there was a god and he was everywhere: he was a pantheist. To Engels there was neither god nor any of his holy angels. To him there was nothing aside from moving materia: He was materialist. People who think like Spinoza are not materialists. People who think like Engels are.

[redsnow]

i'm a christian but i don't like the bible or the fact that its been used to oppress

[Agrippa]

the Aztec religion

Why? Because the Aztec ruling class mudered people? By that same reasoning you should be "intolerant of" Christianity as well...


and the Thugee sect of Hinduism (but not all Hinduism)).

There is no "Thugee sect of Hinduism". Basically all you had to do to be a "Thugee" was parasatize off the genocidal British occupiers through theft and banditry. Someone's been watching too much Indiana Jones.

[deLarge]

The rest is excuse sophistry!
Are you going to actually tell me where I'm wrong, or just claim that it is "sophistry" or semantics, as if that makes the argument magically go away?



By Atheist I logically imply that illogical nonsense does not exist
That's not what atheist means. Atheist only means "not a theist", and thus makes no comment as to potential belief in any illogical thing.


and that the clerics are thus scammers, in fact.
Distrust of organized religion isn't directly, logically implied by atheism either.


Apparently there your materialism differs from mine!
Nice rhetoric, but you have yet to say how or why. Materialism, in it's generic unhyphenated form, means that the universe consists of matter and energy. Pantheism is generally materialistic. Animists can be materialists too.


To Spinoza there was a god and he was everywhere: he was a pantheist. To Engels there was neither god nor any of his holy angels. To him there was nothing aside from moving materia: He was materialist. People who think like Spinoza are not materialists. People who think like Engels are.
You're confusing "materialist" with "atheist" again. Spinoza was a materialist (monist) theist, Engels was a materialist atheist. Lessing was, to the best of my knowledge, a materialist pantheist as well. My point is that one can be a materialist theist or an idealist/dualist/supernaturalist/etc atheist.

[narcomprom]

Fine then I'm a catheist because my cat is called "God" and I believe in my cat!

Is thus the problem really semantical? Semantical is the sophistry used by clerics and people under their oppression to justify the sentence "God exists" or "I believe in God". A thinker might then add that he actually meant his shoes by God to avoid saying he's atheist but to a cleric it is utterly important to justify this single sentence because without it he's useless and he does only enjoy his authority because there are enough very naive people to whom "god" is a benevolent father-figure with a beard speaking through the mouth of the cleric.

Do you believe in "X"? Are you an Axists, Panxist or an Xist agnostic? Have you ever spoken to X? X bless you then. I hope you can live with it's logical implications!

Why would a materialist even waste his time with semantic sophist nonsense word-play?

[deLarge]

Fine then I'm a catheist because my cat is called "God" and I believe in my cat!

Is thus the problem really semantical? Semantical is the sophistry used by clerics and people under their oppression to justify the sentence "God exists" or "I believe in God". A thinker might then add that he actually meant his shoes by God to avoid saying he's atheist but to a cleric it is utterly important to justify this single sentence because without it he's useless and he does only enjoy his authority because there are enough very naive people to whom "god" is a benevolent father-figure with a beard speaking through the mouth of the cleric.

Do you believe in "X"? Are you an Axists, Panxist or an Xist agnostic? Have you ever spoken to X? X bless you then. I hope you can live with it's logical implications!

Why would a materialist even waste his time with semantic sophist nonsense word-play?

You're essentially saying that philosophy is meaningless because it confuses you.

[narcomprom]

You're essentially saying that philosophy is meaningless because it confuses you.
Exactly! Just replace "philosophy" with "theology". Theology is the semantical excercise of putting the variable "god" in all possible combinations in all possible definitions, hence "theo"logy, the study of the "god". You are quite correct about that it does confuse me.

That's what it was for originally, after all, to confuse and to limit the capability of criticism to a small intellectual elite. So says at least Kropotkin in his geneology of the state. Can you name any other purpose? You're informed better than me, I take it.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I used to be a quaker, cause my mom is. You can basically believe whatever and it's non-hierarchal. The problem is that they're pacifists and they got mad at me for getting into fights (that I didn't even start), so I'm not down with them any more. But if there were some non-pacifist quakers I'd be hyped. And if I had to be one of the big 3, I'd be a Jew, they seem the mellowest out of Christianity Islam and Judaism.

[deLarge]

That's what it was for originally, after all, to confuse and to limit the capability of criticism to a small intellectual elite. So says at least Kropotkin in his geneology of the state. Can you name any other purpose? You're informed better than me, I take it.

I view theology as a part of metaphysics, which itself is a part of philosophy, which I think can very well be explored on it's own merits. Theology itself is something that I think can have several additional purposes, however: the exploration of sources of meaning and value, and determining the relative importance of goals, for instance. That said, it can and is often used to oppress people, but the goal of oppression in the context of theology is as much (or more) political as it is philosophical.

[RedRise]

Exactly! Just replace "philosophy" with "theology".

Philosophy and theology aren't even remotely the same. Philosophy doesn't have to be linked to god and religion. (In fact, nothing does but everyone wants it too.:confused:) Philosophy can be studying why other people believe in god!:rolleyes: I know an atheist philosopher for that matter. I grant all that stuff is pretty darn confusing, but isn't everything when we get to the level of why and how do we exist? I think that's why we invented religion. And since we still arguing over our various big bang theories, maybe we do still need it?:confused:


But if there were some non-pacifist quakers I'd be hyped.

Doesn't that kinda defy the purpose of being a quaker?


And if I had to be one of the big 3, I'd be a Jew, they seem the mellowest out of Christianity Islam and Judaism.
__________________

No offense intended to Jews, but that's only because Judaism has been so busy trying to avoid being crushed by the other two that they haven't had time to persecute anyone.:rolleyes:

[Comrade Akai]

Islam, here. Hands-down.

[Zolken]

A Christian by heritage, a Socialist by choice.

[LeninKobaMao]

No offense intended to Jews, but that's only because Judaism has been so busy trying to avoid being crushed by the other two that they haven't had time to persecute anyone.

100% Agreed.

And I picked Taoism it is so AWESOME they almost got me converted.

[RedRise]

And I picked Taoism it is so AWESOME they almost got me converted.
__________________

Lots of polytheistic religions are pretty cool.:cool: I identify with being Celtic-Asatrü, but all polytheistic religions stem from the same idea just as monotheistic religions stem from the same idea. Then those two different types of religion stem from the same idea. So really I'm not to fussed about what I call the gods (i know lots about Hinduism as well) because I know who I'm asking for guidance and what others say doesn't really matter. I'm not strongly 'religious' though and I don't worship anyone or anything.:closedeyes:

[spiltteeth]

I'm a traditional Orthodox Christian.

[Ele'ill]

I picked neo-paganism because the thought of Keira Knightley in woad war paint stirs my blood. I don't know if the 'woads' were pagan. Wasn't anything North of the Danube? I thought they were Germanic. What is the difference between pagan celts and pagan germanic peoples?

[RedRise]

What is the difference between pagan celts and pagan germanic peoples?

The Celts were the Celts and the germanic peoples were the Norse (aka Vikings). They had very different religions with totally separate pantheons and had little to do with each other in general.


I don't know if the 'woads' were pagan.

'Woads' was just a roman nickname for the Celts or the Picts who as you probably realized painted themselves with woad. The Picts were just the very early Celts, so you could say they were the same thing.

Also, that film was incorrect since they're wouldn't have been Celts that were still pagan (or only in very small groups) by the time King Arthor was on the throne. Most of the place was Christian by then.

[Orange Juche]

I skimmed too fast, I chose none, and wish to have chosen Buddhism. I'm not Buddhist, but I'm attracted to it.

Buddhism in a very technichal sense of the Buddha-dharma... none of that reincarnation stuff. If you actually look at Buddhism, Buddhism and God aren't compatible.

God is created as an attachment, it's a wishful thinking delusion.

Alot of revolutionary leftists I've talked to who oppose it, oppose it on the nature that it is an opiate that gets the oppressed to accept their conditions rather than work to overthrow them. Which, personally, I don't think is actually compatible with what it is about.

It doesn't teach us to accept negative things in our lives. It's about disattachment. Not inaction in regards to neccessary change.

[Psych0]

I voted for "None". imho, the most heinous of religion in the list is Scientology (is a religion?), Christianity, Islam, the rest I probably do not know much:D.
Zorostranism? maybe Zoroastrianism?

[bellyscratch]

What about the Quakers? Apart from the pacifism, they're quite progressive. I was speaking to one, and she said you didn't even have to believe in a God to join and they view everyone as equal. Like everyone has the same gravestones and shit.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't know. Which form of cancer would you prefer?

Rastafarianism, because you get to smoke ganga.

[Azraelscross]

Excuse me for flaming just a bit...BUT THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! :cursing:
My religion is a combination of Celtic Recreationism and Asatrü (and yes I am quite aware that hardly anyone knows what that is). Admittedly neither religion (in today) follows strict guidelines, but if you make something up and call it a specific type of paganism, THAT IS EXTREMELY RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!:cursing:
I have strong beliefs in a number of deities and I believe there are certain ways a civilized person should behave. Making things up and calling them paganism will not only offend the Gods (not trying to convert anyone) but will bring down the wrath of any mortal pagans in the vicinity upon your head. Not a good idea if they have earned warrior status.:mad:
So in future please think carefully before you assume things about religions you don't know squat about!:cursing:I'm sorry, i had to dig this up to laugh. so *cough* ahem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

As a Firm believer in the old gods*as i said earlier in this thread just powerful spirits to me* of the north i find you to be incredibly offensive. Not many *if at all* modern people could earn "Warrior Status". you are born and bred into it and the practice hasn't really been done in about 3/4 of a millennium. and you can't say much about mixing gods and beliefs when you yourself are mixing Celtic and Norse Paganism.

and wraith upon his head eh? thought you "new-age" types were into curses, or just sitting back saying "Namaste" to everyone left, right and center without knowing what it means

[RedRise]

As a Firm believer in the old gods*as i said earlier in this thread just powerful spirits to me* of the north i find you to be incredibly offensive. Not many *if at all* modern people could earn "Warrior Status". you are born and bred into it and the practice hasn't really been done in about 3/4 of a millennium. and you can't say much about mixing gods and beliefs when you yourself are mixing Celtic and Norse Paganism.

So you reckon that there is know way, however ever hard you try, to be recognised as a warrior and you have to be born into it? Well firstly when I said 'warrior' I wasn't refering to someone running around slaughtering everyone. It means you have a duty to defend your beliefes and your people. I have to work bloody hard to defend my political beliefs! I think that makes me at least somewhat of a warrior although admittedly opinions very.
Secondly, I recall watching some crappy movie about this guy who wanted to be a knight but didn't have 'noble blood' so he couldn't. That's just bloody ridiculous! Like saying snobby rich aristocrats are the only ones with a right to become heroes or even be recognised as fighting for a cause!:mad:


and wraith upon his head eh? thought you "new-age" types were into curses, or just sitting back saying "Namaste" to everyone left, right and center without knowing what it means

Excuse me for conveying that whoever I'd said that to had pissed me off.:rolleyes:
btw, Namaste is a Hindu expression.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[mannetje]

I would rather die than convert to a religion. religion is something i compare with a mass psychosis. I'm from a very heavy-christian community. and it was like living in hell I wasn't free to be myself and they already started in kindergarten with brainwashing the kids with bible shit. I'm glad that I got the rationality to think for myself.

[kalu]

I grew up in Theravada Buddhist and Catholic traditions. I'd pick Buddhism, although I have spoken to friends who are lifelong monks and they say not to refer to it as a "religion" or a "philosophy," but a tool or analytic. Unfortunately, the very concept of religion was a colonial imposition that arrogates a more Heideggerian ontology, or "being," that does not depend on an epistemic distancing or faith in a "belief system" (see E. Valentine Daniel). The point is, "Buddhism" has been transformed by colonialism and orientalist discourses, so now we have wierd, screwed up phenomena like "war monks" in Sri Lanka saying Buddhism needs to be protected against "Tamil terrorists."

Back to the theoretical level (can it ever be separated from social transformation?) I am still learning, but in terms of a way of understanding existence, I think the dhamma definitely has its benefits. "Desire is suffering" seems pretty useful to overcoming pain. And NO, NON-ATTACHMENT does NOT equal "NIHILISM." Seriously, so many orientalist tropes about Buddhism, "oh, so it's anti-materialist, Oriental mysticism, blah blah.":rolleyes:

Anyways, I would choose the philosophical aspects of the dhamma plus the more "pagan" aspects of Catholicism, ie. saint worship. Also, I admire Hindu aesthetics and polytheism, so I'd take some of that, too. That is, of course, if I actually had the time to study these damn texts. Mostly I just meditate :)

[spiltteeth]

Check out Zen at War
by Brian Daizen Victoria
rom the Back Cover
Zen at War is a wake-up call for all Buddhists. Brian Victoria has shown in a passionate and well documented way that Buddhism is not immune to the kind of distortions that have been used throughout human history by virtually all of the worlds religions to justify so-called holy wars.
John Daido Loori, Roshi, Abbot of Zen Mountain Monastery Author of The Heart of Being
Zen at War is a stunning contribution to our understanding of Japanese militarism and the broader issue of war responsibility as it continues to be addressed (and ignored) in contemporary Japan. Brian Victoria's great sensitivity to the perversion and betrayal of Buddhism's teachings about compassion and non-violence makes his indictment of the role played by Imperial Way Buddhists in promoting ultranationalism and aggression all the more strikingand all the more saddening.
Professor John W. Dower, Harvard University Author of War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War

In this carefully documented study, Brian Victoria discloses the incredible intellectual dishonesty of Japanese Buddhists who perverted their religion to a jingoistic doctrine of support of the emperor and imperial expansion during the period 1868-1945. Good job! We must face this dark side of our heritage squarely.
Robert Aitken, Roshi

[kalu]

Yes, despite the Orientalist myth of "Buddhist mysticism" the sad thing is Buddhism has been caught in some strange justifications for dhamma yudhaya ("holy war"). I have vigorously fought fellow Sinhala on this point, and we must create a theoretical framework to deal with this "perversion" in its various contexts, such as Japan and Sri Lanka. My own point about Sri Lanka remains outlined in my above post about ontology versus epistemology, first brought to my attention by Daniel. Also, Buddhism has been tied to a racialist concept of "the land" in Sri Lanka, which completes the triadic fascism of "race, religion and country" in the so-called war against Tamil terrorism. Finally, the category of "religion" itself is produced in colonial categories of governmentality, and is thus a fundamentally political issue.

[Azraelscross]

So you reckon that there is know way, however ever hard you try, to be recognised as a warrior and you have to be born into it? Well firstly when I said 'warrior' I wasn't refering to someone running around slaughtering everyone. It means you have a duty to defend your beliefes and your people. I have to work bloody hard to defend my political beliefs! I think that makes me at least somewhat of a warrior although admittedly opinions very.
Secondly, I recall watching some crappy movie about this guy who wanted to be a knight but didn't have 'noble blood' so he couldn't. That's just bloody ridiculous! Like saying snobby rich aristocrats are the only ones with a right to become heroes or even be recognised as fighting for a cause!:mad:



Excuse me for conveying that whoever I'd said that to had pissed me off.:rolleyes:
btw, Namaste is a Hindu expression.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
no i meant training. born and bred means you are born to a warrior. and you are trained to be one from a young age. to be a warrior you have to know how to fight. And properly. no matter what you fight for. and no shit its a Hindu expression. i was making fun of you. New-age hippies use that alot. barely any know what it means

oh and btw. most recognized warriors were of noble blood. not saying its right but you had to work much, much harder and be an extraordinary fighter and strategist unless you were born from a noble or a famous warrior line

and to sum up the first post i responded to. you sounded like a 13th century Christian with the talk of wraith coming down upon him

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Those that self-destruct.:)

[JohannGE]

No Rastafari, no vote.

If only it weren't for the biblical influence...? :confused:

"A man has to strive in order to grow."

"Education and the quest for knowledge stop only at the grave."

"Unity gives strength and assures success."

"Study and examine all but choose and follow the good."

"In aiding the young,... we demonstrate our hope and faith in the future."

"The forests, the mountains, and the plains constitute wealth."

"Education of the youth is the surest guarantee for a better life."

“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted;the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”

"We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations, but to our fellow men within the human community."

"Many discouraging hours will arise before the rainbow of accomplished goals will appear on the horizon."

"You have still far to go. Along the tortuous paths that now lie ahead, you will be exposed to the rigorous teachings of life itself. There you will find no reference books, no study guides. There, there is no going back. The lessons of life, if once they are missed, are missed forever."

"There is no person in this world who is free from life's responsibilities."

"Use your knowledge for good, to preserve peace among men."

Haile Selassie

[Richard Nixon]

Haile Selassie was also a tyrannical ruler who got overthrown by guess who.... communists! So why should leftists support a religion that worships an anti-working class dictator...?

[JohannGE]

Haile Selassie was also a tyrannical ruler who got overthrown by guess who.... communists! So why should leftists support a religion that worships an anti-working class dictator...?

I may be a republican for all you know. :D

You didn't notice... "If only it weren't for the biblical influence"?

Removing the biblical influence would also remove the need to worship the earthly embodiment of a so called holy trinity. This would render Rastafari free of the "anti-working class dictator" and I and I free to "heal the nation" by liberal use of herb. :w00t:

If it's the quotes that lead you to the question...wise words are wise whoever says them. If you ever say anything wise, I may even quote you.

It's only a silly poll ffs :p
-

[A Chemist]

I consider myself agnostic, but if I had to pick one, I'd go for neo-paganism, especially of the Asatru flavour. Somehow, the idea of two enormous masses of fire and ice clashing together to form the universe sounds slightly more reasonable than some all-powerful entity snapping his fingers and just *willing* stars, worlds and life into existence.

That, and the lack of thou shalt's, thou shalt not's, holy wars, holy books, prophets, saviours, revealed truths and all that arsenal of brainwashing tools a lot of religions seem to thrive upon.

[Richard Nixon]

I may be a republican for all you know. :D

You didn't notice... "If only it weren't for the biblical influence"?

Removing the biblical influence would also remove the need to worship the earthly embodiment of a so called holy trinity. This would render Rastafari free of the "anti-working class dictator" and I and I free to "heal the nation" by liberal use of herb. :w00t:

If it's the quotes that lead you to the question...wise words are wise whoever says them. If you ever say anything wise, I may even quote you.

It's only a silly poll ffs :p
-

Except that 1) you quote Haile Sailsse and 2) it is the base of Rastrafrianism to consider Haile Salisse a Messiah. If you get rid of that element it's not Rastafrianism.

[Kronos]

There will never be good religion because we are no longer naive enough to believe in Gods. The best religions in the past cannot be evaluated according to how true or false they were, but how useful they were and to what end did they contribute. There were times in history when man was at his beginnings of intellectual dimension and simply wasn't smart enough...his language very primitive....to assist him in a formidable critique of his own beliefs. He was happily animistic, and that belief provided great comfort in his life, true or not.

But today we could never get back to the period where religious claims were accepted without issue, and we could never re-evolve those primitive intellectual conditions so that we could just 'be happy' believing what we did, because we are too smart, more inclined to doubt, first, than consider. Formerly, there was not enough language available to press such an issue, and everything was considered without the insistence of doubt.

Every Christian only very carefully acknowledges his doubt that what he believes does exist, really doesn't. He doesn't really believe what he does, but he knows that what he pretends to believe is not bad despite whether or not it's 'good'. Pascal's wager is a bet that can never be made honestly again, but only a little quickly, conveniently and with pretension.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Haile Selassie was also a tyrannical ruler who got overthrown by guess who.... communists!

Theres a certain level of fail that until your post had being made had yet to be reached. Congratulations.