What religion are you?

Tranan · Post by **Tranan** » 2006-02-16 03:43pm

Folower of the godess
Marie Curie.

sorry.
No religon at all. dont belive i fairy taels.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2006-02-16 04:06pm

I am of the Great Church of Athe.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-02-16 06:12pm

Check the sig. Baptised Catholic, never revoked. Confirmed Presbyterian Protestant, never revoked. Atheist.

I encompass nearly three quarters of humanity's religions according to Western percentages. Whee!

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2006-02-16 06:17pm

Personally, I see myself as a very liberal Christian. I only consider items for my system of beliefs if it has already been proven true, or if it hasn't been or can't be proven either way (evolution and big bang for the former, life after death for the later).

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-02-16 06:49pm

Used to say I was "raised" Catholic, but looking back now, it would be more appropriate to say I was "baptized Catholic." I went to 12 years of Catholic school (grade and high school), which was surprisingly not all that religious. What religious study there was consisted mostly of learning about the sacraments, stations of the cross, the lives of various saints, and making sure we could walk in a straight line from the school to the church building. There was little in the way of dogmatic pounding into us students. Lots of ceremony, but little preaching. At least during the course of school. Chruch could be a little more preachy at times, depending on what priest was saying mass.

I now totally reject the idea of gods, goddesses, pixies, spirits, eskimos or any other non-corporeal life forms or entities.

But if there are such things, I doubt they care that humans (or anything else) worships them.

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2006-02-16 09:00pm

Atheist

Zor

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-02-16 11:10pm

Initially raised in that lovely American import to the UK the Church of the Nazarene later on the Methodists, who weren’t anywhere near as bad. Still the damage was done even as a young child the crap I was being fed never made any sense and I refused to go to church anymore when I was about 12 by which time I had a gut level loathing of religion.

I’m now a committed Atheist though with pantheistic leanings (ie. I think that the world is a glorious, wonderful thing that fills me with wonder whenever I’m out cycling or walking in the countryside). I’d also describe myself as a Secular Humanist.

wilfulton wrote:Mostly atheist, but I don't bear any ill will toward any other religion that doesn't bear ill will toward me. I go my way, let everyone else go theirs.

And just how many religions are happy to ‘let everyone else go theirs’?

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-17 05:45am

Plekhanov wrote:
wilfulton wrote:Mostly atheist, but I don't bear any ill will toward any other religion that doesn't bear ill will toward me. I go my way, let everyone else go theirs.
And just how many religions are happy to ‘let everyone else go theirs’?

Mine does
Buddism
Hinduism
Shintoism
Zorastorianism
Just about all the animists

Really, it seems to be monotheism that's the worst culprit for prostelytizing over the last couple millenia. Unfortunatley, the monotheists seem to be the majority of religous these days.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2006-02-17 05:56am

Broomstick wrote:Really, it seems to be monotheism that's the worst culprit for prostelytizing over the last couple millenia. Unfortunatley, the monotheists seem to be the majority of religous these days.

Not surprising considering there is a direct causation there. Proselytizing -> majority

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-02-17 06:07am

Broomstick wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
wilfulton wrote:Mostly atheist, but I don't bear any ill will toward any other religion that doesn't bear ill will toward me. I go my way, let everyone else go theirs.
And just how many religions are happy to ‘let everyone else go theirs’?
Mine does

I expect it does as you seem a very reasonable person who has chosen a ‘nice’ minor religion with practically zero political power.

Buddism

The deeply unpleasant history of the Buddhist theocracy that used to exist in Tibet would suggest otherwise

Hinduism

The conduct of the BJP would suggest otherwise

Shintoism

Was the state religion of Imperial Japan and played a role in radicalising the populace it was used as an instrument of social control long before that.

Zorastorianism
Just about all the animists

I know next to nothing about these so really couldn’t say

Really, it seems to be monotheism that's the worst culprit for prostelytizing over the last couple millenia. Unfortunatley, the monotheists seem to be the majority of religous these days.

If mere proselytising was the worst way of ‘bearing ill will’ towards people that most religions exhibited I really wouldn’t have such a problem with it. The real problem is that generally the pious & powerful religious types demand that others live by their arbitrary codes of morality & conduct & have very little tolerance of alternative world views, even if they don’t expend much time & effort trying to save your soul.

Post by **Dalton** » 2006-02-17 10:09am

Complicated.

Recovering Catholic/Ex-Born-Again Christian/Formerly-Virulent Atheist with Secular Humanism mixed in.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-02-17 10:13am

None, since I can't honestly call Atheisim a religion.

As for background....very laid back Catholic, which got fed up Sunday mass before I was born, and tried to see if I was interested. When that didn't stick...decided Sunday was better spent otherwise.

Dralan · Post by **Dralan** » 2006-02-17 11:18am

Discordian, Church of Linux or Atheist...

Discordian because of the title I have.. Weee I am a Pope

Church of Linux, fighting the good fight against M$

In the end it all comes out in Atheism.. or Apathyism.. I really could not care less about religion..

darth korte · Post by **darth korte** » 2006-02-17 12:28pm

adept of machine god

seriously pseudo-,sub-,whatever christian

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2006-02-17 01:24pm

Atheist,

with parents whom were somewhat religious but never tried to impart there religion on me.

Cthulhuvong · Post by **Cthulhuvong** » 2006-02-17 04:52pm

Raised to believe what I want....

Agnostic throughout high school, but now I just don't believe....

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2006-02-17 06:08pm

Hinduism
The conduct of the BJP would suggest otherwise

You are correct in a way. While Hindus don't really give a crap about what the rest of the world practices, they have this irrational hatred of muslims in India and Pakistan. Second and third generation Immigrants to the western countries seem to more tolerant from what I have seen.

None the less, this religion is a road I have left long ago...

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-17 06:10pm

The deeply unpleasant history of the Buddhist theocracy that used to exist in Tibet would suggest otherwise

Does this show that Buddhists are no better than other human beings, or that Buddhism itself is no different than any other religion? I would think the former, since unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism (to my knowledge) does not expressly condemn (and even encourage) violence against religious dissidents.

Hinduism
The conduct of the BJP would suggest otherwise

A better example is the caste system, since one could argue that violence is not actually espoused in the Vedas (though there are numerous war tales, few of them concern other religions). If I remember correctly, the BJP was more of a nationalist group. Either way, it still goes without saying that followers of Hinduism are not necessarily better than other people.

Shintoism
Was the state religion of Imperial Japan and played a role in radicalising the populace it was used as an instrument of social control long before that.

This doesn't show that Shintoism is bad, since obviously there are a plethora of forms. It rather shows that Shinto can easily be turned to evil use, and that again, Shintoists are no better than any other people.[

quote]Zorastorianism. Just about all the animists

I know next to nothing about these so really couldn’t say[/quote]Zoroastrianism was very similar to the Abrahamic religions, and the Jews probably stole a lot of shit from them. Considering that, we shouldn't have high expectations for it. Animists obviously vary widely, but some tribes practice a religious rite of female circumcision; obviously not a great endorsemen. And of course, there are all those cases of virgin sex being considered a cure, and all the related bullshit that follows.

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2006-02-17 06:23pm

A better example is the caste system, since one could argue that violence is not actually espoused in the Vedas (though there are numerous war tales, few of them concern other religions).

Actually, if you read between the lines in a major epic like the Ramayan, the heroic Kings(or Gods as they are made out to be) go out and make war on primitive people and other tribal groups who are not Hindu and are constantly referred to as demons.

Otherwise the vedas are relatively peaceful. They describe methods for everythin from farming methods to politics and military strategy. In fact I believe that was one of the main weakneses of ancient Indian civilizations. They relied too much upon the so-called sacred texts for every aspect of life and were afraid to try new ideas.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-02-17 06:42pm

I'm a strong agnostic. I don't claim to be certain about anything relating to gods, faries, or other such nonsense, and I don't think you know anything either.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-17 07:52pm

Spice Runner wrote:Actually, if you read between the lines in a major epic like the Ramayan, the heroic Kings(or Gods as they are made out to be) go out and make war on primitive people and other tribal groups who are not Hindu and are constantly referred to as demons.

They say that these demons were really the native Dravidians (Asuras) and that the conquering light-skinned Aryans (calling themselves Devas in the stories) made up this shit as a sort of pseudo-history of the Aryan invasion. But my point still holds; they didn't mention religion explicity, and in fact, everyone seems to hold the same religion in those tales. That seems like a given.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2006-02-17 08:15pm

Raised and baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-17 08:30pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Broomstick wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: And just how many religions are happy to ‘let everyone else go theirs’?
Mine does
I expect it does as you seem a very reasonable person who has chosen a ‘nice’ minor religion with practically zero political power.

And perhaps you have hit the nail on the head right there - political power tends to corrupt religions even more thoroughly than it does individual politicians.

Yet one more argument in favor of strict separation of church and state.

Buddism
The deeply unpleasant history of the Buddhist theocracy that used to exist in Tibet would suggest otherwise

That is a subset of Buddhism as a whole. While it certainly demonstrates that Buddism, like other religions, can be oppressive or corrupting when controlling political as well as spiritual power, other varieties of Buddism have largely escaped this manifestation of ickiness.

A major difference? Tibetan Buddism incorprated political power as well as religious.

Shintoism
Was the state religion of Imperial Japan and played a role in radicalising the populace it was used as an instrument of social control long before that.

Yes. Religion is an instrument of social control. This is not news to me. Like any other form of social control, it can be oppressive. I have no doubt that examples could be found of oppressive atheism, or oppression in the name of atheism, as well.

Zorastorianism
Just about all the animists
I know next to nothing about these so really couldn’t say

And it is that very lack of being majority players, and having little power, that makes these religions "harmless". At one time Zorastorianism dominated Persia, and at the time Persia was a major political/military player. It took the Muslims to pare down the Zorastorians to what they are today.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-02-17 08:43pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Zorastorianism. Just about all the animists
I know next to nothing about these so really couldn’t say
Zoroastrianism was very similar to the Abrahamic religions, and the Jews probably stole a lot of shit from them. Considering that, we shouldn't have high expectations for it. Animists obviously vary widely, but some tribes practice a religious rite of female circumcision; obviously not a great endorsemen. And of course, there are all those cases of virgin sex being considered a cure, and all the related bullshit that follows.

Unfair to animists in general.

Those examples are both drawn from Africa, and there are animists on every continent with hugely varying practices. Female circumcism (FGM) is NOT practiced by any animist group outside Africa, as just one example. It's rather like holding up penis subincision as a feature of "Autralian aboriginal culture" - Australian natives are NOT a uniform group and only a small number of those groups practice penis-slitting. In actual fact, FGM is multi-thousand-year feature of East and to a lesser extent North Africa irrespective of religion - Eqyptian mummies have been found with FGM, animists practice it - and so do Muslims. This long-standing heritage is acknowledged in the description of FGM techniques with words like "Sunni" and "Pharonic" circumcision. Blame East African traditions, but not animist ones. Who practices FGM in Africa has more to do with ancient tribal custom than what religion an individual practices. Groups of East Africans have changed religion serveral times yet continued to carry on with FGM rituals. As just one example - virtually every woman in Sudan is "circumcised" and has been for thousands of years - through the millenia they worshipped Kemetic Egyptian dieties, used animist practices, worshipped as Christians, and worshipped as Muslims. It's a Sudanese practice, not a religious practice.

Likewise, fucking virgin infants girls to cure sexual diseases is NOT a universal feature of animism - it is a feature of South African desparation in the face of HIV, government denial of true causes and even somewhat effective medication, and a power play by a religious hierarchy long deprieved of power and not caring who dies if they can regain some of their former glory. Oh, look - politics fucks religion and atrocity is the bastard offspring again!

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-17 09:58pm

I was sort've using the phrase, "Animists obviously vary widely" as a disclaimer saying that there are virtually no general statements that can be made about animists other than the vague Webster definition.