Which Religion do you follow II [Archive]

consuming negativity

18th June 2014, 18:44

An update on the missing Agnosticism option.

It turns out, after extensively searching on how to edit the poll, local mods can't edit polls. So you all just need to fill in some requests to promote me to Global...no other choice I am afraid :cool:

Well...either that...or you all need to wait until the admin I sollicited to edit the poll and add the option will do so ;)

May I request you cut down the Buddhism options as well? I am not one, although I am familiar with it, but it seems like a lot of options when you consider less than 5% of people chose it and the differences between them probably aren't even pronounced as between Protestant sects. Then again, it was the third largest religious belief - excluding atheists/agnostics - after Christianity and Islam.

The other options are always the most interesting if you ask me, although seeing a couple Catholics already voting is also pretty interesting. I picked "other" but cannot be bothered to explain my hippie nonsense right now.

PhoenixAsh

18th June 2014, 19:00

May I request you cut down the Buddhism options as well? I am not one, although I am familiar with it, but it seems like a lot of options when you consider less than 5% of people chose it and the differences between them probably aren't even pronounced as between Protestant sects. Then again, it was the third largest religious belief - excluding atheists/agnostics - after Christianity and Islam.

The other options are always the most interesting if you ask me, although seeing a couple Catholics already voting is also pretty interesting. I picked "other" but cannot be bothered to explain my hippie nonsense right now.

Those are the three major distinctions in Buddhism....and they are very relevant for Buddhists. They actually kill each other over them. Go figure. :-/

CaptainCool309

19th June 2014, 00:24

I voted for other, because I consider myself a Unitarian Universalist.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

19th June 2014, 00:42

Agnostic because I'm lame and don't think I can know whether there is or isn't a god.

Sea

19th June 2014, 01:40

I demand there be a subgenius option on the above poll!
I haven't changed my faith yet and I never will!

http://www.subgenius.com/
http://www.subgenius.com/
http://www.subgenius.com/
http://www.subgenius.com/
http://www.subgenius.com/

WHERE I WORSHIP
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120317204623/subgenius/images/thumb/b/bb/Frop_farm.jpg/500px-Frop_farm.jpg
WHO I WORSHIP
http://eu.foundry.tv/flyers/040306.subgenius.jpg
WHY I WORSHIP
http://jmason.org/slack/S-or-D.gif

Agnostic because I'm lame and don't think I can know whether there is or isn't a god.Don't fucking use ableist language.

Thirsty Crow

19th June 2014, 01:48

Atheist-without-adjectives.

I don't believe in any kind of deity and the notion of such a "being" is such that it is simply impossible to know whether it exists (that's why I think agnosticism is completely superfluous).

Sea

19th June 2014, 01:49

Thirsty Crow

19th June 2014, 01:52

Do you not believe in "Bob"?
Come again?

(I'm actually quite perplexed by this post...and a bit unnerved because a friend of mine and me have had our stupid little absurdist story about the true name of God being BOB)

Sea

19th June 2014, 02:44

Come again?

(I'm actually quite perplexed by this post...and a bit unnerved because a friend of mine and me have had our stupid little absurdist story about the true name of God being BOB)That is not a coincidence, my nigga. J. R. "Bob" Dobbs is the son of Xinucha-Chi-Xan M. Dobbs and Jane McBrine Dobbs. In 1594 he saw a vision of god. "Bob" tells us:

1. Why we fight.
2. You can do it!
3.

Educate yourself here:
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/classic/classics/X0003_botsg-intro.html

Not only are we not kidding, but we'll even Piss You Off. Indeed, that's
our JOB - our CALLING - our MISSION. We're going to shock the hell out of
every man, woman, and child on this planet. It's a big job, and we only
have until 1998 to do it.
It's "Bob."
It always comes down to that.
Because "Bob" is SLACK.
And SLACK is what you want. SLACK is what you need. As the Pope of
All New York[4] told the multitudes,
"With the FULLNESS of Slack a CHANGE will come;
Slackness will ENTER your life, Slackness will MAKE YOU SEE,
Slackness will SET YOU FREE!
Slackness IS! Slackness LIVES,
Slackness WAITS FOR YOU and YEAH! send $20."
Slack is what was taken away; Slack is what "Bob" gives BACK.
Learn about X day. Learn about the stark fists and the dialectical relationship between them. Lean about the holes in "Bob"'s body. Press your ear to "Bob"'s holes. Can you hear "BOB"? Hurry now, time is about to run out! Yeah send $20!

PeoplesRepublics

19th June 2014, 06:22

I would describe myself as a Secular Agnostic-Athiest Jew

Creative Destruction

19th June 2014, 07:31

Pantheist probably.

RedAnarchist

19th June 2014, 08:38

I guess I would call myself an agnostic atheist with maybe a slightly (scientific) pantheistic influence. I certainly don't spend any time on religious activities.

Jewishcomrade

20th June 2014, 03:43

I'm a messianic Jew so I clicked Protestantism and Judaism. A little too jewish for the Christians and to Christian for the Jews. Haha

Sea

20th June 2014, 19:10

This poll will be of great help in the coming purge.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

20th June 2014, 19:13

discordianism

Trap Queen Voxxy

24th June 2014, 03:08

There is no option for Islaam (Sufi). The fuck. I kinda float through both.

Brandon's Impotent Rage

24th June 2014, 03:18

Up until my realization that religion was bullshit, I grew up in a fairly progressive Baptist church. This church was a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which is a group of several baptist churches that left the Southern Baptist Convention after the SBC made it official policy that women could not be pastors or deacons.

OGLemon

24th June 2014, 03:45

Buddhist (Mahāyāna) + Atheist

DigitalBluster

24th June 2014, 04:50

Atheist

(Which means you don't believe; it doesn't necessarily mean you affirm a negative. Simple unbelief doesn't bar you from atheism and relegate you to agnosticism, as is commonly misunderstood.)

TheBigREDOne

5th July 2014, 07:57

Agnostic nowadays...

Comrade Jacob

5th July 2014, 12:59

TheFox

9th July 2014, 02:27

I really don't know. Until recently I identified as a Christian but I'm really not. My beliefs are probably closer to deism than anything.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

15th July 2014, 22:18

Catholicism. Why is there a seperate option for Protestantism? I thought that was a subset of Satanism

Psycho P and the Freight Train

15th July 2014, 22:23

Where is the option for those who follow Cthulhu? This is religious discrimination and it won't be tolerated on these forums.

Lord Testicles

18th July 2014, 03:33

I pull the wool over my own eyes and relax in the safety of my own delusions.

Delusional Kid

18th July 2014, 03:35

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

consuming negativity

18th July 2014, 06:40

I am the religion. And the followers.

MarcusJuniusBrutus

18th July 2014, 06:46

There is no God. There is no afterlife. I am worried that if someone dies without the right words and gestures, his/her soul will go to hell. There's conscious knowledge and then there's gut feeling and the latter is a lot harder to deprogram.

(A)

18th July 2014, 06:56

I am a Deist.

Deism (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Speakerlink-new.svg/11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/En-uk-deism.ogg)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-uk-deism.ogg)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)iː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)əm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#cite_note-2) or / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)eɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)əm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)) is the belief that reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) and observation of the natural world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation) and authority as a source of religious knowledge.

Supposed Mocha

22nd July 2014, 09:58

Where is the option for those who follow Cthulhu? This is religious discrimination and it won't be tolerated on these forums.

Why worship a sleeping god that's a giant squid thing?
It's like you don't even like the best god, Nyarlathotep.

Dagoth Ur

22nd July 2014, 10:58

Tao-Sufi Islam. Voted Sunni.

argeiphontes

3rd August 2014, 07:55

I have finally come out with a name for myself...Materialist-Pagan. It's summed up by materialist-atheism with the traditions of pagan religions. This way it is compatible with historical-materialism.

You don't have to do that. Historical materialism has nothing to do with metaphysical materialism. It's perfectly compatible to "believe" in both.

(Metaphysical materialism is a bogus idea anyway. If the Gods are real, then metaphysical materialism has just expanded the definition of 'material'. That is all. There is no such thing as the supernatural.)

Zukunftsmusik

3rd August 2014, 09:08

Historical materialism has nothing to do with metaphysical materialism.

Exactly, so...

It's perfectly compatible to "believe" in both.

...no.

Red Economist

3rd August 2014, 09:28

I consider myself an Atheist, based on having no personal experience of any supernatural phenomena or of a personal god. I went to a primary school with a 'christian ethos' and ended up singing about Jesus and god in school assemblies, so I was a theist of sorts until my early teens. I've never got to the point where I could say categorically god does not exist, but my sympathies for dialectical materialism push me in that direction every time I think about it.

To be honest I think alot of scientific theories such as quantum mechanics or the big bang (admittedly I have only a very basic understanding from what I know from secondary school or Wikipedia; so not 'knowledge' by anyone's standards) still are idealistic enough that they can't rule it out the possibility of a god, merely as exceptionally improbable because better explanations exist. This was a problem that faced Soviet Scientists in trying to reconcile scientific knowledge with the dogmas of dialectical materialism in the USSR.

Hagalaz

3rd August 2014, 22:39

Norse Paganism.

NextElement

4th August 2014, 05:18

Devout Catholic and proud. :grin:

The Red Star Rising

4th August 2014, 07:36

Apatheistic.

Cuz I don't give a shit.

4th August 2014, 07:56

Humanist.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

4th August 2014, 18:19

I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.

This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.

Please Google ---- Alan Watts - On The Book of Eli

Also, please Google --- 1A Hidden Meanings In Bible

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?

Regards
DL

argeiphontes

9th August 2014, 07:24

...no.

Uh, if one has nothing to do with another, then they are compatible beliefs.

Five Year Plan

9th August 2014, 07:27

I do not follow any religion.

VCrakeV

20th August 2014, 21:22

I'd like to introduce to myself to this forum by sharing my religion: Satanism. There's quite a bit to it, including some optional "rules" (think The Ten Commandments), but a lot of it can be boiled down to a few sentences:

1. We are atheists, and follow the scientific method in everything we do, believe, etc.

2. Satan is thought as just a metaphorical representation of humanity: animalistic, wise, and self-loving.

3. We believe in and encourage self-development, self-indulgence, and individualism.

Ro Laren

21st August 2014, 18:37

Isn't Satanism basically a way to make Ayn Rand palatable to goth kids?

JahLemon

21st August 2014, 20:24

I listened to a interview with Boyd Rice about Satanism and it seemed like an extreme form of individualism.

Invincible Summer

25th August 2014, 10:08

Was practicing both Theravada and Zen Buddhism for the past few years. Now I'm not sure what's up with me spiritually. I guess more agnostic than anything, while meditating on and off.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

25th August 2014, 12:05

Was practicing both Theravada and Zen Buddhism for the past few years. Now I'm not sure what's up with me spiritually. I guess more agnostic than anything, while meditating on and off.

Check post 49. Gnostic Christianity might scratch your spiritual itch. It is for thinking people who do not like woo.

http://www.thesongofgod.com/tgc/basic_beliefs.html

It is a re-immerging religion and all aspects need explanation. Our myth are also weird but we recognize them as myth as we do with all Gods and scriptures.

We believe in full equality for women and gays and to me, that is the only moral position to take, --- and the mainstream religions do not.

Regards
DL

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th August 2014, 15:32

Gnostic Christian Bishop

25th August 2014, 16:25

I think it's really pretty unfortunate that with such a rich history and traditions and so forth that the Sufi community isn't being represented in the poll. But at any rate, I voted Islam (Sunni) mainly because I go to Sunni masjid for jummuah but also have an interest in Shi'ism as well tho again, I am Sufi.

Do you think Muslims will ever give women and gays equality?

Will woman always need 2 witnesses to a rape before she can lay a charge?

Will woman always need their husband permission to dress as they would like without having to worry about the 5,000 or so Honor killings that Muslims are involved in?

Regards
DL

Invincible Summer

25th August 2014, 21:05

Check post 49. Gnostic Christianity might scratch your spiritual itch. It is for thinking people who do not like woo.

http://www.thesongofgod.com/tgc/basic_beliefs.html

It is a re-immerging religion and all aspects need explanation. Our myth are also weird but we recognize them as myth as we do with all Gods and scriptures.

We believe in full equality for women and gays and to me, that is the only moral position to take, --- and the mainstream religions do not.

Regards
DL
Interesting. I'll have to look into it. I haven't really left Buddhism per se (in the sense that I have lost all faith in it), just participating in a more secular fashion I suppose. Using meditation as a tool, not as a religious practice.

EDIT: After doing a bit more reading on Gnosticism, I have to wonder - why use myths as spiritual texts and then just regard them as myths? Where is faith involved? I feel that faith (not necessarily in The One God or anything like that) is an important part of religion, rather than just intellectually understanding something.

I think it's really pretty unfortunate that with such a rich history and traditions and so forth that the Sufi community isn't being represented in the poll. But at any rate, I voted Islam (Sunni) mainly because I go to Sunni masjid for jummuah but also have an interest in Shi'ism as well tho again, I am Sufi.

I know he's far from the only Sufi writer, but Rumi's works are beautiful and got me looking into Islam at one point.

But just like Gnostic Christian Bishop brings up, the deeply conservative nature of most Muslim groups around these parts has put me off. What's the representation of the more liberal side of Islam?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

26th August 2014, 01:23

Interesting. I'll have to look into it. I haven't really left Buddhism per se (in the sense that I have lost all faith in it), just participating in a more secular fashion I suppose. Using meditation as a tool, not as a religious practice.

EDIT: After doing a bit more reading on Gnosticism, I have to wonder - why use myths as spiritual texts and then just regard them as myths? Where is faith involved? I feel that faith (not necessarily in The One God or anything like that) is an important part of religion, rather than just intellectually understanding something.

“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” — Friedrich Nietzsche -

Gnosis is the opposite of faith. Gnostic Christians seek truth above all else and even after apotheosis, opening out third eye, we set aside what was found and move the bar of our expectation up and seek anew. Like Buddhism, the adherent never reaches full enlightenment. If I recall correctly.

We recognize that our minds like to anthropomorphise and myths are good and easy for us to internalize. Especially if we are familiar with a certain set of myths.

In a sense, God is too big for us to try to internalize without chopping him down to man sized bites.

Literalists are good at rhyming off scriptures by the score to reach their shallow ecstatic states. We Gnostics Christians just have to walk our internal construct/myth to the right hemisphere of the brain and voilà. Apotheosis.

Not quite that easy but that is what we preach.

Regards
DL

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th August 2014, 01:58

Do you think Muslims will ever give women and gays equality?

While there is an ummah, there is not a cohesive, homogenous entity known as 'the Muslims' and so on, you dig. There is totally progressive interpretations of the Qur'an and also varying ways to interpret Islam, the deen, as well, as a whole. I personally view Islam, is liberating for women, [I wear hijab, I do my thing and go about my business] however has been also been twisted to conform to various patriarchal gender social idiosyncrasies wherever it has been practiced, however in the West, there's a shit ton of progressive Islamic organizations, for example. Also, Sufis and other mystic sects have traditionally been known to be more liberal than others.

Will woman always need 2 witnesses to a rape before she can lay a charge?

What're you talking about?

Will woman always need their husband permission to dress as they would like without having to worry about the 5,000 or so Honor killings that Muslims are involved in?

Murder is haram? Derrrrrrrrrrrr

Salam,

-VP

Gnostic Christian Bishop

26th August 2014, 16:54

While there is an ummah, there is not a cohesive, homogenous entity known as 'the Muslims' and so on, you dig. There is totally progressive interpretations of the Qur'an and also varying ways to interpret Islam, the deen, as well, as a whole. I personally view Islam, is liberating for women, [I wear hijab, I do my thing and go about my business] however has been also been twisted to conform to various patriarchal gender social idiosyncrasies wherever it has been practiced, however in the West, there's a shit ton of progressive Islamic organizations, for example. Also, Sufis and other mystic sects have traditionally been known to be more liberal than others.

What're you talking about?

Murder is haram? Derrrrrrrrrrrr

Salam,

-VP

"I personally view Islam, is liberating for women, [I wear hijab, I do my thing and go about my business]"

Try going about your business without your hijab and depending on which community you live in, you might get a liberating response. Not.

Quite the liberating religion that as it tells you what to even wear.

Strange that you are a woman and feel nothing for your many sister who are victims of Muslim honor killings.

You show that your morality has been corrupted by your religion.

Regards
DL

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

26th August 2014, 17:01

Also, Sufis and other mystic sects have traditionally been known to be more liberal than others.

This is a particularly Western viewpoint, and among other things it ignores the Sufi component in various Islamist movements. The Islamic current that might be closest to "liberal Islam" as some people in the West imagine it is the ultra-conservative Maturidi theological movement.

I don't get what people get out of making up "progressive" interpretations of religion. Obviously you aren't following the religion but fitting it to what you actually do - which is generally good, don't get me wrong, but it sort of lacks rigour.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th August 2014, 17:16

Try going about your business without your hijab and depending on which community you live in, you might get a liberating response. Not.

If I wanted too, I could, no problem. You haven't been to a lot of mosques in the West have you? A lot of women don't put on hijab until it's time for prayer and a lot of younger girls and women my age don't even wear it properly. Amazingly enough, none of us have been stoned or beheaded. :rolleyes:

Quite the liberating religion that as it tells you what to even wear.

This is stupid. My religion doesn't dictate to me what I am to wear. This is a very disingenuous ploy used by the irreligious to make a mockery of religious customs. I chose to wear hijab because I refuse to be viewed as a sex object or be objectified and not taken based upon my merits and general worth. Fuck out of here with your patronizing bullshit.

Strange that you are a woman and feel nothing for your many sister who are victims of Muslim honor killings.

"Whoever kills a believer intentionally, their reward will be Hell, to abide therein forever, and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon them, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for them."-Quran, 4:93.

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if they killed all people. And if any one saved a life, it would be as if they saved the life of all people."-Quran, 5:32.

So called 'honor killings' are unIslamic, they are haram and they are also an unfortunate and vile cultural phenomena not a religious one and even Imams in Pakistan are calling for people to stop (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/1/pakistan-issues-fatwaagainsthonorkillingscallingthemunislamic.html ) and even further, calling such practices a 'sign of ignorance.' How dare you insult me with your other nonsense. Wow.

You show that your morality has been corrupted by your religion.

Go fuck yourself.

Invincible Summer

27th August 2014, 04:28

Gnosis is the opposite of faith.
All belief systems (religious or not) require faith of some kind.

Gnostic Christians seek truth above all else and even after apotheosis, opening out third eye, we set aside what was found and move the bar of our expectation up and seek anew. Like Buddhism, the adherent never reaches full enlightenment. If I recall correctly.

Theravadans believe enlightenment is possible in this lifetime.

In Mahayana, the view is generally that enlightenment can be attained, but that the Bodhisattva Vow is more important - that one should stall one's own attainment of complete enlightenment and help other sentient beings attain enlightenment first. Trick is, there are innumerable sentient beings. It's basically an exercise in selflessness.

We recognize that our minds like to anthropomorphise and myths are good and easy for us to internalize. Especially if we are familiar with a certain set of myths.

In a sense, God is too big for us to try to internalize without chopping him down to man sized bites.

Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

Thirsty Crow

27th August 2014, 04:32

Just to make a general remark, Gnosis isn't the opposite of belief but it's necessary complementary part - which should be most obvious to latter day Gnostics especially.

That is, if they've acquainted themselves with what irreligious folks summarily view as knowledge.

Lord Testicles

27th August 2014, 21:03

What're you talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

27th August 2014, 21:11

All belief systems (religious or not) require faith of some kind.

I believe I have eaten eggs for supper.

This belief and the system it is not part of does not require faith of any kind.

I appreciate that faith is a giant epistemic weak spot for the religious, but claiming that everyone relies on faith just makes you look a bit silly.

Lord Testicles

27th August 2014, 21:21

I believe I have eaten eggs for supper.

This belief and the system it is not part of does not require faith of any kind.

I appreciate that faith is a giant epistemic weak spot for the religious, but claiming that everyone relies on faith just makes you look a bit silly.

What you had for supper isn't a belief system...

If we describe faith as a:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

or

a strongly held belief.

Then, yes, everyone relies on a degree of faith at one time or another.

As an after-thought though what you think you had for supper does require a degree of faith. Doesn't it requires you to trust that your recollection is accurate? or that you aren't recalling some previous supper? Memory is hardly the most trustworthy way of accurately recalling events after all.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

27th August 2014, 21:24

What you had for supper isn't a belief system...

If we describe faith as a:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

or

a strongly held belief.

Then, yes, everyone relies on a degree of faith at one time or another.

Well, no, the second definition doesn't have anything with how people actually use the term "faith". I believe that 2+2=4, for example, relatively "strongly", but no one would say that I have faith that 2+2=4.

As an after-thought though what you think you had for supper does require a degree of faith. Doesn't it requires you to trust that your recollection is accurate? or that you aren't recalling some previous supper? Memory is hardly the most trustworthy way of accurately recalling events after all.

Well, no, it requires me to assume that most of the time my recollection is not faulty, which is a belief I have good reason to hold, so no faith is involved.

Lord Testicles

27th August 2014, 21:41

Well, no, the second definition doesn't have anything with how people actually use the term "faith". I believe that 2+2=4, for example, relatively "strongly", but no one would say that I have faith that 2+2=4.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith

Well, faith isn't really required for simple maths. However you might have a strongly held belief that "person A" can be trusted, therefore you have faith that "person A" won't steal from you.

Well, no, it requires me to assume that most of the time my recollection is not faulty, which is a belief I have good reason to hold, so no faith is involved.

You believe (have faith maybe?) that it is a belief that you have good reason to hold, but do you? (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/)

Invincible Summer

27th August 2014, 23:30

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

28th August 2014, 01:01

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith

Well, faith isn't really required for simple maths. However you might have a strongly held belief that "person A" can be trusted, therefore you have faith that "person A" won't steal from you.

From the OED definition of socialism:

" 1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

So, yeah, perhaps dictionaries are not the best sources when talking about anything contentious. What makes the belief that person A can be trusted an example of faith, in a very broad sense, is not that I strongly believe this is the case - I could be, after all, pointing a gun in A's head, at which point my strong belief that A can be trusted to do as I say is not a matter of faith, but of warranted belief - but that I have no justification for thinking so.

You believe (have faith maybe?) that it is a belief that you have good reason to hold, but do you? (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/)

I remember most means. I remember people who served me store-bought lasagna back in high school. I still haven't forgiven them.

Be that as it may, the point was that beliefs can be justified, and those beliefs that are justified are not a matter of faith. Claiming that everyone has faith is an old idealist-religious canard, meant to excuse them from having to prove their various sky deities and air spirits.

Invincible Summer

28th August 2014, 01:26

Be that as it may, the point was that beliefs can be justified, and those beliefs that are justified are not a matter of faith. Claiming that everyone has faith is an old idealist-religious canard, meant to excuse them from having to prove their various sky deities and air spirits.

Communists have faith that a communist society will come about sooner or later, and for the good of all, despite having nothing that justifies it - no precedent.

And honestly, so long as religious people don't push their agendas on others, who cares if they can't prove their beliefs based on scientific fact or objective measures?

sirz345

28th August 2014, 01:48

Shinto

Gnostic Christian Bishop

28th August 2014, 13:44

All belief systems (religious or not) require faith of some kind.

We hope to find. We do not faith as we think faith in anything is wasted.

We say that Sophia, wisdom to us, has faith in us. This means that we trust and hope that each of us has enough wisdom to learn how to seek perpetually. What else could possibly be the goal of a Universalist religion?

Faith in nothing is wasted and useless. Hope that one will advance is worthy.

Theravadans believe enlightenment is possible in this lifetime.

They are correct.

In Mahayana, the view is generally that enlightenment can be attained, but that the Bodhisattva Vow is more important - that one should stall one's own attainment of complete enlightenment and help other sentient beings attain enlightenment first. Trick is, there are innumerable sentient beings. It's basically an exercise in selflessness.

I would not agree that one should stall his own. The teacher must first know the topic before he can teach it.

Certainty and personal success is the model a student will follow best. Not someone who has yet to get there.

Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

My pleasure my friend.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

28th August 2014, 13:46

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th August 2014, 16:03

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women%27s_testimony_in_Islam

I want to first point out that in Christianity and Judaism, a woman has no testimoney; so in light of this, this would actually be an improvement. Anyway, I don't believe this has anything to so with Islam, the religion, more with the societies in question. I would like to see people's support for this crap either via the Qur'an or strong/authentic Hadith and so on. So Muslims also think flogging yourself with cat-o-nines and swords during Ashura is halal, when it's absolutely haram.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

28th August 2014, 17:25

"a woman has no testimony".

Pure immoral subjugation that you have accepted showing how your religion has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th August 2014, 18:30

"a woman has no testimony".

Pure immoral subjugation that you have accepted showing how your religion has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

Because that so obviously reflects the message of my post and isn't some straw man. What are ya, a crow?

argeiphontes

29th August 2014, 05:32

While there is an ummah, there is not a cohesive, homogenous entity known as 'the Muslims' and so on, you dig. There is totally progressive interpretations of the Qur'an and also varying ways to interpret Islam, the deen, as well, as a whole.

Then you should extend the same latitude in interpretation to other religions. Ahem. :)

VCrakeV

29th August 2014, 16:49

So, I see that there a few things going on here...

@Gnostic Christian Bishop
No needle picking; it gets you no where, and only fuels arguments. Instead of looking for what may support your side of the argument, look at how the Islamic lady here is trying to support her belief system, and then you may critique her based on that.

And now, about this whole faith argument. All we're doing here is debating semantics, and nothing else. Personally, I believe that faith is the strong belief in something without evidence, memory recall, or any other sort of support. For example, believing that I ate lunch at 1:00 is memory recall; believing that someone took my drink because it's not where I left it is evidence; and believing that a friend of mine will pay off a loan I gave them without any particular reason is faith. Now, some people define faith differently, and again, this just makes any argument over faith a waste of time.

Lord Testicles

29th August 2014, 21:29

From the OED definition of socialism:

" 1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

So, yeah, perhaps dictionaries are not the best sources when talking about anything contentious.

Well the OED definition of socialism can be either:

1. A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

or

1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

or

1.2 (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism

I think it would be unwise to argue about a complex theory using the dictionary as your base. However, I do think though that a dictionary is a good way of grasping how people actually use terms like "faith."

What makes the belief that person A can be trusted an example of faith, in a very broad sense, is not that I strongly believe this is the case - I could be, after all, pointing a gun in A's head, at which point my strong belief that A can be trusted to do as I say is not a matter of faith, but of warranted belief - but that I have no justification for thinking so.

I think you're trying to argue for the sake of argument. Without going as far as pointing a gun at someone's head you could trust someone because you have known them for a long time and they are your friends, but you still have faith (a strong belief) that they won't steal from you. However you don't know for certain that they won't, you can't know with absolute certainty that anyone will act in any particular way and that is why it is an example of faith. An example of faith that the religious and the non-religious do everyday.

I remember most means. I remember people who served me store-bought lasagna back in high school. I still haven't forgiven them.

Just because you think you remember them doesn't mean that you are actually remembering them accurately. You merely have a belief that you can remember them accurately or have confidence in your ability to remember them accurately. Belief and confidence doesn't make something so.

Be that as it may, the point was that beliefs can be justified, and those beliefs that are justified are not a matter of faith. Claiming that everyone has faith is an old idealist-religious canard, meant to excuse them from having to prove their various sky deities and air spirits.

By "justified" do you mean: "Declared or made righteous in the sight of God." ? :tt2:

Seriously though. A justified belief doesn't mean there isn't an element of faith there. I'm sure the faithful think their belief in a Jew nailed to a stick is justified as well, that doesn't make it rational though. A belief devoid of faith is a belief that you can prove and people display faith by holding beliefs that they cannot prove everyday. Everyone has faith, just not about the same things.

Lord Testicles

29th August 2014, 21:34

I want to first point out that in Christianity and Judaism, a woman has no testimoney; so in light of this, this would actually be an improvement.

I want to first point out that in some corners of the earth entire populations have been killed; so in light of this a small massacre would actually be an improvement.

This "lesser of two evils" thinking really is an outward sign to signal a drastic drop in brain activity.

I would like to see people's support for this crap either via the Qur'an or strong/authentic Hadith and so on.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#282

Trap Queen Voxxy

29th August 2014, 21:51

Then you should extend the same latitude in interpretation to other religions. Ahem. :)

I do. Like for example, I wouldn't judge a modern day Roman reconstruction it's based upon the negative aspects of ancient Roman mythology and culture.

Trap Queen Voxxy

29th August 2014, 22:02

I want to first point out that in some corners of the earth entire populations have been killed; so in light of this a small massacre would actually be an improvement.

This "lesser of two evils" thinking really is an outward sign to signal a drastic drop in brain activity.

That's not really what I'm saying but ok. Islam was genuinely progressive and genuinely brought about progressive reforms/changes for women in the region. Something that wasn't seen in the West for centuries. This is not taking the less of two evils more it pointing out the importance of historical context in relation to scriptural/Qur'anic interpretation. Also, when material conditions change, some elements of the Qur'an become void and obsolete because that's not how things are anymore. The same would also apply now and do not try to spin this as religious revisionism; more, I feel and personally would argue, it reflects a more matured and accurate interpretation of the message of Islam in the Qur'an and hadiths.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#282

here read this (www.wisemuslimwomen.org/currentissues/testimonyincourts/)

Lord Testicles

29th August 2014, 22:25

here read this (http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/currentissues/testimonyincourts/)

I don't see what you want me to get out of this?

Because when you stated:

I would like to see people's support for this crap either via the Qur'an or strong/authentic Hadith and so on.

It sounded like you were trying to make out that there was no basis in the Quran for this view that women's testimony was less value than that of a man's. However in the link you've provided it would appear that this one verse seems to have had a detrimental effect on women for hundreds of years...

Trap Queen Voxxy

30th August 2014, 00:02

I don't see what you want me to get out of this?

Because when you stated:

It sounded like you were trying to make out that there was no basis in the Quran for this view that women's testimony was less value than that of a man's. However in the link you've provided it would appear that this one verse seems to have had a detrimental effect on women for hundreds of years...

The link also stated (which you've also failed to mention, not unsurprising, tbh) that the issue has also been debated and contested for centuries among Islamic scholars, in addition, also, numerous scholars have argued that this verse is in no way saying that a woman's testimony is unequal to a mans. Furthermore, it also talked about how the Qur'an mentions the topic of testimoney numerous times in which the actors were gender neutral. In short, my link totally is a valid counter-argument. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Lord Testicles

30th August 2014, 04:00

The link also stated (which you've also failed to mention, not unsurprising, tbh) that the issue has also been debated and contested for centuries among Islamic scholars, in addition, also, numerous scholars have argued that this verse is in no way saying that a woman's testimony is unequal to a mans. Furthermore, it also talked about how the Qur'an mentions the topic of testimoney numerous times in which the actors were gender neutral. In short, my link totally is a valid counter-argument. I don't understand what you're getting at.

I don't see what the argument is here. You asked for evidence of people who support "this crap" via the Quran, I supplied evidence from the Quran, you supplied evidence of how support from people for "this crap" has effected women through the centuries and to this day. Whilst some scholars might argue that the verse has been misunderstood or whatever that doesn't negate the fact that it still has real world negative consequences.

Christian scholars might argue that the verses from the bible regarding homosexuals have been misinterpreted and point to other verses in the bible which talk about loving your neighbour or some other apologism but that doesn't negate that those verses and that "misinterpretation" has had real world negative consequences.

Trap Queen Voxxy

30th August 2014, 04:20

I don't see what the argument is here. You asked for evidence of people who support "this crap" via the Quran, I supplied evidence from the Quran, you supplied evidence of how support from people for "this crap" has effected women through the centuries and to this day. Whilst some scholars might argue that the verse has been misunderstood or whatever that doesn't negate the fact that it still has real world negative consequences.

Christian scholars might argue that the verses from the bible regarding homosexuals have been misinterpreted and point to other verses in the bible which talk about loving your neighbour or some other apologism but that doesn't negate that those verses and that "misinterpretation" has had real world negative consequences.

So, instead of encouraging or being receptive to progressive interpretations of whatever religion we should instead just say fuck that religion and peddle the ideas that their inherently bad and this is what whatever group is actually saying or something? I've always found this to be an odd course of action for anti-theists. You supplied one link with one relevant verse and I posted a link which discussed said verse. So, bare bones, I win. Because whether or not said verse has been historically coopted by whatever society seems irrelevant because if said verse was widely misunderstood, said actions are a manifestation of this misunderstanding, consciously or unconsciously, and thus the sacred work in question and it's associated faith, bare no responsibility.

I mean, people have used science and medicine as well to reinforce patriarchial gender dynamics. For example, the history of 'hysteria.' So, in light of this, why does religion get a bum rap? We do not condemn science and medicine as a whole, just the sections of history in which it has been oppressive and misunderstood and corrupted.

Lord Testicles

30th August 2014, 04:31

So, instead of encouraging or being receptive to progressive interpretations of whatever religion we should instead just say fuck that religion and peddle the ideas that their inherently bad and this is what whatever group is actually saying or something?

Is that what I typed? It's odd because I don't remember typing that. I don't think we should encourage anything when it comes to religion, I think we should take it as it is, warts and all, and there's a whole lot of warts.

You supplied one link with one relevant verse and I posted a link which discussed said verse. So, bare bones, I win.

If that's how you view things. :rolleyes:

Because whether or not said verse has been historically coopted by whatever society seems irrelevant because if said verse was widely misunderstood, said actions are a manifestation of this misunderstanding, consciously or unconsciously, and thus the sacred work in question and it's associated faith, bare no responsibility.

Yes, the real world effects of a religion are irrelevant because it's all a big misunderstanding and the religion in question bears no fault at all.

I can see absolutely nothing troubling or worrying about that logic.

I mean, people have used science and medicine as well to reinforce patriarchial gender dynamics. For example, the history of 'hysteria.' So, in light of this, why does religion get a bum rap? We do not condemn science and medicine as a whole, just the sections of history in which it has been oppressive and misunderstood and corrupted.

The difference is, science and medicine facilitate change and challenges to their results and established theories. Religion doesn't seem to be able to do that without a lot of bloodshed. When the miasma theory of disease was superseded by the germ theory it didn't plunge the scientific community into a frenzy of violence, the same however can't be said about religion. When Martin Luther tried to reform the practice of the catholic church it descended the Christian world into decades of religious wars and strife.

Not to mention religion still facilitates terrible things today all over the world. When was anyone diagnosed with female hysteria lately?

Invincible Summer

31st August 2014, 00:56

Chomskyan

31st August 2014, 07:03

Gnostic Christian Bishop

31st August 2014, 15:29

Who likes this, eh, charismatic Muslim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki8EipzCHb4&feature=youtube_gdata

Regards
DL

Lord Testicles

31st August 2014, 15:55

Who likes this, eh, charismatic Muslim?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki8EipzCHb4&feature=youtube_gdata

Regards
DL

You need to fuck off posting videos of Sean Hannity and Anjaem Choudary. I find it highly suspect that it's only Anjaem Choudary that western media, whether it is the BBC or Fox news, seems to be able to roll when they want to scare the public with a "scary", bat-shit insane Muslim. It's like if every time they wanted a Christian perspective on something they invited on Fred Phelps.

What point are you even trying to make with posting that piece of shit video?

Trap Queen Voxxy

31st August 2014, 16:03

You need to fuck off posting videos of Sean Hannity and Anjaem Choudary. I find it highly suspect that it's only Anjaem Choudary that western media, whether it is the BBC or Fox news, seems to be able to roll when they want to scare the public with a "scary", bat-shit insane Muslim. Fuck man! Sean Hannity!? Did you honestly see that video and think this will be a balanced and informative video that will change minds and highlight a point?

They're probably still embarrassed from the Reza Aslan interview. This is what happens when FOX talks to a normal person.

gnv1ooN5KxE

Gnostic Christian Bishop

21st September 2014, 20:36

You need to fuck off posting videos of Sean Hannity and Anjaem Choudary. I find it highly suspect that it's only Anjaem Choudary that western media, whether it is the BBC or Fox news, seems to be able to roll when they want to scare the public with a "scary", bat-shit insane Muslim. It's like if every time they wanted a Christian perspective on something they invited on Fred Phelps.

What point are you even trying to make with posting that piece of shit video?

Just highlighting how the right operates.

Regards
DL

Trap Queen Voxxy

25th September 2014, 17:51

Is that what I typed? It's odd because I don't remember typing that. I don't think we should encourage anything when it comes to religion, I think we should take it as it is, warts and all, and there's a whole lot of warts.

Ok.

If that's how you view things. :rolleyes:

I do.

Yes, the real world effects of a religion are irrelevant because it's all a big misunderstanding and the religion in question bears no fault at all.

I can see absolutely nothing troubling or worrying about that logic.

I'm ever so glad you agree.

The difference is, science and medicine facilitate change and challenges to their results and established theories. Religion doesn't seem to be able to do that without a lot of bloodshed. When the miasma theory of disease was superseded by the germ theory it didn't plunge the scientific community into a frenzy of violence, the same however can't be said about religion. When Martin Luther tried to reform the practice of the catholic church it descended the Christian world into decades of religious wars and strife.

Not to mention religion still facilitates terrible things today all over the world. When was anyone diagnosed with female hysteria lately?

Tell that to Mengle, the Tuskegee Study group, Johann Dippel, Paracelsus, Dr, Rascher, Shir Ishii, or any of the other mad scientists who's research and experiments led to an insane amount of atrocities. The scientific community is by no means innocent and further, I am curious as to why you think it would be.

Chomskyan

25th September 2014, 18:19

Did I already mention that every human society that has ever existed has had a semblance of religion? I thought I did. Huh.

Lord Testicles

25th September 2014, 19:29

I do.

My only surprise is that you can breathe and type at the same time.

I'm ever so glad you agree.

It's sarcasm you tit.

Tell that to Mengle, the Tuskegee Study group, Johann Dippel, Paracelsus, Dr, Rascher, Shir Ishii, or any of the other mad scientists who's research and experiments led to an insane amount of atrocities. The scientific community is by no means innocent and further, I am curious as to why you think it would be.

I would if they didn't all die a long fucking time ago. For every "mad scientist" you can give me I could name ten religious atrocities. (Not only that but I won't have to rely on approx. 300 year old rumours either.)

I'll just type this out again in case you feel the need address it properly.

The difference is, science and medicine facilitate change and challenges to their results and established theories. Religion doesn't seem to be able to do that without a lot of bloodshed. When the miasma theory of disease was superseded by the germ theory it didn't plunge the scientific community into a frenzy of violence, the same however can't be said about religion. When Martin Luther tried to reform the practice of the catholic church it descended the Christian world into decades of religious wars and strife.

Not to mention religion still facilitates terrible things today all over the world. Has Mengle done any experiments lately?

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th September 2014, 01:36

My only surprise is that you can breathe and type at the same time.

The simple minded are often surprised and bewildered by the most average of things.

It's sarcasm you tit.

I know.

I would if they didn't all die a long fucking time ago. For every "mad scientist" you can give me I could name ten religious atrocities. (Not only that but I won't have to rely on approx. 300 year old rumours either.)

I'll just type this out again in case you feel the need address it properly.

The difference is, science and medicine facilitate change and challenges to their results and established theories. Religion doesn't seem to be able to do that without a lot of bloodshed. When the miasma theory of disease was superseded by the germ theory it didn't plunge the scientific community into a frenzy of violence, the same however can't be said about religion. When Martin Luther tried to reform the practice of the catholic church it descended the Christian world into decades of religious wars and strife.

Not to mention religion still facilitates terrible things today all over the world. Has Mengle done any experiments lately?

I could point to numerous modern examples including testing centres in Miami luring poor immigrants and human experimentation. I think the whole "it didn't happen yesterday," argument is pretty silly. What about the Aversion Project or Holmesburg Dermatological experiments, and such? Same shit

Rugged Collectivist

26th September 2014, 02:11

Zoroaster

26th September 2014, 02:19

Chomskyan

26th September 2014, 02:57

I do agree with Rugged Collectivist, but I thought this quote sums up the history of Christianity pretty well.

"The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding - in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.'
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist

I more or less agree, although as someone who lays claim to the title of Christian, I shouldn't make judgment on all 2.3 billion claimants to the religion. (c.f., Matthew 23)

"You cannot serve two masters, God and money." (Luke 16:13)

"Sell all of your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)

Those are the actions of 'true' Christians. Not mass murder or money-making schemes or social and thought control. 'Real' Christians are those like Martin Luther King, Chris Hedges and Cornel West to name a few.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

26th September 2014, 10:02

Eastern Orthodox Christianity. At it's heart, it's all personal and about compassion for human beings. Even though those same human beings mess up so much. It's not like the fire and brimstone Christianity you have in the West.

(1) You live in the American Midwest, dude.

(2) The Eastern Orthodox churches are miserable misogynists, homophobes, transphobes and occasionally racists and ethnic chauvinists just as the Catholic church or the various Protestant denominations.

Rafiq

26th September 2014, 15:43

Did I already mention that every human society that has ever existed has had a semblance of religion? I thought I did. Huh.

You did, and you were called out for saying such utter bullshit.

Chomskyan

26th September 2014, 16:16

You did, and you were called out for saying such utter bullshit.

So, demonstrate pre-modern societies that don't have religion. I know some anthropology, and I don't recall the existence of such societies.

(2) The Eastern Orthodox churches are miserable misogynists, homophobes, transphobes and occasionally racists and ethnic chauvinists just as the Catholic church or the various Protestant denominations.Unfortunately. It doesn't mean that it's perfect, but the teachings of the Church are different than the imperfections of human beings who are part of it. Anyway, I think the "just as the Catholic Church or Protestant denominations" is not entirely true. Not in my experience, but I suppose we need to define the terms first.

Rafiq

26th September 2014, 19:58

So, demonstrate pre-modern societies that don't have religion. I know some anthropology, and I don't recall the existence of such societies.

The utter bullshit comes from the implications - that (because of its existing in human societies)t this is a "human thing". It's logical fallacy, religion can be traced to real social factors, and all religions of every society reproduced the conditions of life in every society. This is a fact. If religion was a "human thing" than all variation in religion, according to you, would be a matter of the different developments of "pure thought", or - even worse, something stupid like geographic variation. Evidently, this is not the case. Humans are not genetically predisposed toward being religious, there is no "god gene" - early forms of spirituality were not in any way comparable to modern spirituality. If spirituality did exist before class society (something I have seen argued against, by anthropologists).

By the way, what is the evidence provided for the existence of spirituality and religion before the neolithic revolution? Ritual burials? This is hardly sufficient evidence for such a claim. But suppose you are right - that the first societies of the homo sapiens sapiens possessed some sort of identifiable spirituality - this is hardly comparable to spirituality today. All this so-called "spirituality" could ever amount to is a petty attempt to conceptualize the world around humans by manifesting their human consciousness to the natural world around them. The evolution of how we have successfully conceptualized the world around us has been a linear trend of less and less projections of human consciousness on things devoid of it.

Religion, which is something entirely different from petty-superstition, did not exist before class society. Religion was not a way for early people's to explain the world around them, but the first manifestation of ideology.

All in all, you claim that religion is a "human thing" and your evidence is that it has prevailed in all human societies. Yet you fail to explain why it has prevailed in all human societies, you ignorantly and childishly claim that "It's because it's a human thing". That isn't how science works, sorry. You don't deduce grandiose conclusions based on evidence which we can deduce is incomplete (again, why Chomsky's empiricism is worthless). If you want to claim that religion is a human thing, than you are going to have to give us a detailed biological explanation for religion, rather than a social one. No one has done this in the past, because it is impossible: Because religion is not biological, it is not innate to our "nature". It is innate to specific ways in which humans organize themselves in relation to the process of production - their basis of survival and sexual reproduction.

Tim Cornelis

26th September 2014, 20:10

I think at this point I haven't seen 'its' being used for weeks. Everyone uses 'it's'. I think the battle for elementary grammar skills is definitely lost.

this is not the case. Humans are not genetically predisposed toward being religious, there is no "god gene" - early forms of spirituality were not in any way comparable to modern spirituality

I disagree. The susceptibility to spiritualism is genetic I'd say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zGbrsMlCII

Rafiq

26th September 2014, 20:13

You cannot come to us and tell us that your affinity for Orthodox Christianity stems from some kind of rational decision based on the outwardly ways it presents itself. Rather, your reasoning, your rational explanations stem from something entirely different: Your apologia is not a cause of your religious beliefs, but a result of them. Reasoning for religion is not a cause of religion - but a result of religion, beliefs that are inherently irrational. It is not that this irrationality is deliberate - it is that the language of religion, to those speaking it, is stronger and more consistent than rationality itself - the paradigm of rationality does not even factor in.

Not only is Eastern Orthodox Christianity reactionary, it is more reactionary than Catholicism. You, who are so keen on concluding grandiose transhistorical laws about humanity based on the experience of history alone - give us examples of anything in the history of the Orthodox denomination that is in any way comparable to the rapid social changes following the protestant reformation in the west (Even "progressive" Russian monarchs like Peter the Great did not reform, but constantly were in a state of quarrel with the Orthodox Church) - granted you have the Old Believers, but they never became anything close to becoming part of the historical identity and legacy of Orthodox Christianity. Where is your Orthodox liberation theology? Where are your Orthodox predecessors to Communism? Where are your Muntzer's? Non-existent.

The Russian Orthodox church itself is one of the most, if not the most, literally, at least within the context of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, reactionary institutions the world has seen. Even the reactionary Catholic church was behind Napoleon and his anti-feudal code while the Orthodox Church labelled him the anti-Christ because he was dismantling the centuries old feudal order. Any anti-capitalist expression of Christian orthodoxy is reactionary in nature. This is incontestable.

Rafiq

26th September 2014, 20:30

I think at this point I haven't seen 'its' being used for weeks. Everyone uses 'it's'. I think the battle for elementary grammar skills is definitely lost.

Who cares? There are plenty of reputable posters on this site who possess much worse 'grammar skills' than I.

I disagree. The susceptibility to spiritualism is genetic I'd say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zGbrsMlCII

That isn't evidence. That's a 40 minute video on youtube. If you want to provide compelling evidence, don't make us search for it in an hour long documentary-spectacle.

If you're referring to VMAT2 - while it has been 'linked' to human mystical experiences, that hardly constitutes a genetic predisposition to spiritualism. Firstly no one here disagrees that spirituality, or capitalism, or existing sexual relations is incompatible with human neurology. Take for example this - if one's Christian, or spiritual beliefs shape and define the expression of this neurological mechanism - that doesn't mean the neurological mechanism is Christian, or spiritual in nature, but that their adherence to Christianity socially has appropriated it. Comparatively, our labor is utilized to produce products, but that does not mean the fact that we possess arms and legs is a predisposition to produce commodities in capitalism - they are utilized for this (their character, therefore, is defined by this relative condition).

Which is why the so-called "science" that speculates the existence of a god gene, or a genetic predisposition to spirituality is ridiculous. Because those whose neurological sensations are not activated by what society calls "spirituality" are just called people without the gene - how convenient is that? No one is denying that humans aren't a bunch of reason-driven spectators solely driven by their notion of rationality - but saying that this amounts to having a 'god gene' or a genetic predisposition to spirituality (which can only ever be superstition) is ridiculous.

Our profound 'human' sensations are characterized as religious, because they are utilized and expressed through spirituality. But that doesn't mean they are predisposed to spirituality (why then, does spirituality exist? Again, besides from ignorance it is a social mechanism) . All the evidence literally stems from the experiences of the test subjects and volunteers, while taking into account their already pre-conceptualized religious beliefs - it's like saying that the Earth is perfect and that intelligent design is real, with our survival as evidence. I am very sure atheists, Communists during the October revolution had immensely profound experiences and a grand "mystical" sense of something greater than themselves (International revolution, a new world, history being fulfilled, future of civilization, and the intensified sentiments and feeling of global solidarity associated with revolution).

Lord Testicles

29th September 2014, 20:19

Playing the "who committed more atrocities?" game is dumb and useless.

The most basic, most important criticism that can, and must be leveled against religion is that it is absurd.

After that everything else unravels.

Agreed. However when a member states that religion has never inspired an atrocity because the people who commited those atrocites are misunderstanding that religion and therefore religion bares no blame and cannot be held responsible should be called out on their bullshit.

Then to bring up the crimes that have been committed by people like Mengele as if the scientific process is to blame and that those atrocities were anywhere near comparable in size and horror to that of religion seems like an attempt to brandish about their defective logic.

Lord Testicles

29th September 2014, 20:25

I could point to numerous modern examples including testing centres in Miami luring poor immigrants and human experimentation. I think the whole "it didn't happen yesterday," argument is pretty silly. What about the Aversion Project or Holmesburg Dermatological experiments, and such? Same shit

I'll just type this out again in case you feel the need address it properly.

The difference is, science and medicine facilitate change and challenges to their results and established theories. Religion doesn't seem to be able to do that without a lot of bloodshed. When the miasma theory of disease was superseded by the germ theory it didn't plunge the scientific community into a frenzy of violence, the same however can't be said about religion. When Martin Luther tried to reform the practice of the catholic church it descended the Christian world into decades of religious wars and strife.

Not to mention religion still facilitates terrible things today all over the world. Has Holmesburg Prison done any dermatological experiments lately?

Cosmonaut

2nd October 2014, 00:56

I am one of the few people in the world who recognizes Juche as a religion and folllows it as one.

ℂᵒиѕẗяᵤкт

2nd October 2014, 01:35

Is there any such thing as "secular generalized superstition?" Because that's what I think I have.

Also: why are "agnosticism" and "atheism" listed as religions?

Martin Luther

2nd October 2014, 04:20

Christianity. Protestantism, I guess.

Zanters

8th November 2014, 02:43

I consider myself agnostic, but am a catechumen under the Orthodox Church. The church loves to be reactionary, but the way they teach Christianity isn't very much so. They have something that almost no other sect has, and it is called theosis. That is, one should just follow what the religion says, but try to act as much like Jesus as possible. They don't worry about heaven nor hell, they only worry about being jesus-like. It is very odd of what they preach.

The Undecided

8th November 2014, 18:29

I clicked Agnostic. I'm sort of Agnostic, sort of Deist. I believe that a deity (or multiple deities), as of now, November 2014, CANNOT be proven or disproven, but sometimes I believe that there is some sort of deity that exists, but it just exists. I don't believe in the Torah, the Bible, the Qur'an, etc., I (sometimes) believe that there is a deity. I definitely believe that the existence of a deity can't be proven or disproven (yet).

Comrade V

9th November 2014, 04:28

Asatrú. My grandfather and grandmother are off the boat Norwegian, and my father passed down the values he was taught. I was raised Protestant by my mother but after continuing to notice how often I disagreed with the religion I did my own research and during/after Basic I picked it up. It clicks with me and I enjoy the hell out of it.

Zanters

10th November 2014, 23:39

Hel*

pax et aequalitas

11th November 2014, 11:18

Voted 'other'. I guess I sorta converted to Druidry 8 months ago or something. It is a very openminded and non-dogmatic religion and it is just felt right when I first read about it. And due to the lack of dogmas, it is able to adjust to modern society a lot better than some other religions which have a lot of written rules.

I do also have a bit of Discordianism in me, but I think that's not so much actual religion as it is being a friendly eccentric lunatic and embracing how random and unpredictable the world truly is. Something which doesn't contradict druidry at all, it actually fits together quite well in my opinion.

prap

16th November 2014, 23:58

Atheist, I was actually expecting the "christianity"-option to have lots of more votes, as there are a lot of americans here on revleft.

:)

prap

17th November 2014, 00:00

Also: why are "agnosticism" and "atheism" listed as religions?

I know, the correct word should be "beliefs".

Red Eagle

3rd January 2015, 04:47

Atheism isn't really a religion it's a lack of religion.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

3rd January 2015, 05:28

I guess I could be described as a materialistic pantheist, i.e. the natural universe is both the ultimate reality and a source of awe and mystery.

TheBigREDOne

3rd January 2015, 05:34

None anymore

Asero

3rd January 2015, 05:53

Atheism isn't really a religion it's a lack of religion.
Atheism isn't a religion, but it's still a religious identity.

Deism. Wish there was another option.

contracycle

5th January 2015, 20:18

Huh. I'm genuinely surprised that in a forum like this, such a poll doesn't come at 99%+ atheist.

RevUK

5th January 2015, 23:33

New Age spiritualism.

Comrade Nymoen

6th January 2015, 00:48

To be honest i'm not really sure if i'm a protestant or atheist. I think that both God and Jesus existed, but didn't have "superpowers" as many would call it.

RevUK

6th January 2015, 17:16

To be honest i'm not really sure if i'm a protestant or atheist. I think that both God and Jesus existed, but didn't have "superpowers" as many would call it.

If it doesn't have superpowers, is it really God?

Comrade Nymoen

6th January 2015, 18:40

If it doesn't have superpowers, is it really God?

Yes, I look at God as a Person rather than a God.

Culicarius

30th January 2015, 23:01

Subversive

5th February 2015, 18:35

I'm not sure what exactly I'd label myself, but I follow and am drawn to both Therevada Buddhism and Pantheism. I find Buddhism has a lot of good teachings regarding awareness, meditation, and controlling your thoughts and emotions. I've heard Pantheism described as sexed up atheism, but the gist of it is that the world around you is divine. I think there's a beauty to the chaos of the universe.
You may want to check out 'Taoism' then.
It is a sort-of combination between Buddhism and Pantheism, in a way.

Instead of trying to aim for some mystical 'Enlightenment' of rejecting everything like Buddhism, Taoism focuses on humanity and human problems, but approaches divinity by essentially stating that divinity comes from the natural path which all things, including the universe, follow. The Tao is not a god or divine entity, but the flow and transition of all things.

The "yin-yang symbol", as people call it, is essentially the primary symbol of Taoism, which describes many of it's philosophies. That two opposing forces can coexist, creating one whole, like light and darkness, and that they are in a constant transition. As well as that they both contain some elements of the other (the two 'dots'), essentially symbolizing how nothing is 'pure'.

Taoism essentially aims for perfection in the way of body and mind, as opposed to Buddhism which would reject perfection of the body (since the body is 'materialism'). Unlike a Buddhist who struggles for inner-peace and thus sees worldly violence as a struggle against himself, a Taoist would not be afraid to fight if that fight were his natural thing to do. He would not be afraid of desecrating himself with violence, because there would be nothing 'holy' to desecrate. That isn't to say Taoists are violent, or that it condones violence, but that Taoism simply does not reject violence like Buddhism because it has no need to reject the natural ways of the world, no need to reject materialism.

Taoism is also inherently non-dogmatic. Meanwhile Buddhism, even despite not being as dogmatic as Western religions, still maintains several dogmas, like their 'Four Noble Truths' and such.
However despite the many differences, Taoism still shares many of the same general teachings and beliefs of Buddhism, like meditation and control, especially given that it developed alongside Buddhism in China.

The reason I would also suggest it is also similar to Pantheism is because it generally holds that there is an ultimately universal and permanent force in reality which divinely moves the entire universe. Taoists do not equate the Tao with the universe itself (it extends beyond the existence of the universe), but they do believe that the Universe is an entity that follows a divine path, one shared with humanity.

I'm sure you can read more about it and understand it better if you are interested. This is just a very brief summary and generalization.

And since I posted but never answered the topic: I do not "follow" any religion. I believe that everyone has their own path in life and that belief systems should not be "followed", but only understood.

Lily Briscoe

6th February 2015, 05:12

To be honest i'm not really sure if i'm a protestant or atheist.
How?

SkepticEpileptic

6th February 2015, 05:44

I follow an odd form of religion...it's like a combination of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and I'm sure me an my fellow have added in a few extra religions...We recognize the god of Abraham as god and just live our lives according to kindness and all that. Just like all official religions we also come with a default political stance which is Generally a moderate leftism (i.e. Libertarian-Socialism).

Бай Ганьо

23rd February 2015, 16:34

I don't follow any religion, I'm an atheist.

Atheism isn't a religion, but it's still a religious identity.

Atheism is neither a religion, nor a religious identity.

revnoon

25th February 2015, 07:09

None:laugh::laugh::laugh: for number of reason why I'm anti-religion:rolleyes:

1. Religion conflicts with the modern world we live in
2. Conflicts of different religion out there ( if there was god there should be only one religion, heck if I was god I would see to it that there is only one religion and better interpretation of text.
3. Old testament vs new testament what a mess and confusion.
4. Many religious text is not clear and very confusing
5. Angry god :cursing: yep the more you read religious text god is evil and intolerant of people.
6. Almost every thing is sin in his eye.
7.Females where less human and have no rights in his eye.
8 God very evil hard core conservative
9. Text saying only small number people will get into heaven
10. End of times yep there will be time he will end all life.

And much more why I will not be apart of any religion.

mushroompizza

2nd March 2015, 22:45

I am personally an atheist, (wish I wasn't, its caused a lot of depression) but I have deep respect for Buddhism I consider it the only good faith, in fact I used to be Buddhist before I became an Atheist.

TIVVYULTRAS

26th August 2015, 07:40

I am a non-theist Quaker :tremble:

Usawa

30th September 2015, 21:57

I'm a non-theist but the normative ethical world view I ascribe to is hedonistic utilitarianism (without the concept of aggregating the happiness-suffering of separate individuals), even though I don't consistently live by it.

Guardia Rossa

30th September 2015, 22:07

Add Paganism (In general) and Mystical religion (In general)

ZrianKobani

1st October 2015, 01:23

It's not on the list but East Orthodox.

cyu

1st October 2015, 12:50

In general, agnostic. More specifically, http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2848500&postcount=69

...in other words, I believe this universe probably runs like a computer simulation, and is merely one among countless other simulations. But even the world in which our "Master Computer" resides, is probably a computer simulation itself.

This belief was spawned by seeing the title to the book http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/The_Recursive_Universe - though I haven't actually read the book xD

Comrade Jacob

14th October 2015, 20:41

Still a spooky-scary Pagan.

Zoop

14th October 2015, 20:45

Atheist.

Armchair Partisan

14th October 2015, 21:43

I'm an atheist. Here's a thing, though, that religious people could answer... You can take any number of religions (Christianity, Hellenic polytheism, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Eru Ilúvatar) and the thing is, there is pretty much no reason to believe any of them are any more legit than the other. None of the religions have any verifiable evidence going for them. Some (Hellenic polytheism, for example, is a particularly serious offender, but almost every religion that claims "this observable fact did happen on Earth at some point" tends to run into this) have made claims that have been disproven, but religion is good at moving the goalposts anyway, or shedding some of their less defensible dogma while keeping the core tenets.

Why do people choose one religion but reject another? Christianity and Buddhism might be a completely different mindset, but could anyone, seriously, with a straight face, claim that the Greek Orthodox sect of Christianity is, without a doubt, more legit than Catholicism, for example? Of course, with most people, the answer is obvious: their religion is just a cultural identity, they take up the religion to fit in with their group. But if someone really takes the time to try and answer the question of "which religion is most likely to accurately answer the big questions of our world", would they really have anything to decide by?

Basically, the tl;dr way to ask this question would be: "Why do you subscribe to your religion, and why not to any other religion?"