Jump to content

What religion are you?


Bendubz

Recommended Posts

Meh. Family is Pentecostal. But my siblings and I weren't raised in the church the way my parents were. I can probably count on one hand the number of church services I've attended in my life - other than funerals and weddings - and they all happened before I was ten.

I've never labeled myself this or that. I simply don't think of God that much. And I don't put much stock in people calling themselves religious, as most don't adhere to any of the tenets of their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to put a name to it, I'd probably say Shintoism is the religion that appeals to me the most.

I've personally felt the energy emanating from certain trees, places, and things. Or at least I imagined it. For me it comes down to the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. They aren't hypothesises.

I don't understand. Surely if you posit that at one time someone had a god speak to him (and transcribed that to text, or told someone who told someone who told someone who compiled rumors who transcribed that to text), then not only is it data, but it can totally be framed within the scientific approach. Why say that "no data experimential or observational can become available" when such observational data is the very basis of many religions -not least among them the judeo-christian monotheism-, and even today "miracles" are acknowledged by the head of the catholic religion? Science and religion and belief seem to be perfectly compatible here.

I am not sure where hypothesises come into play when you were just talking about input data.

I don't understand the "universe is stranger than we can imagine" as an argument against the value of science and (apparently) for the idea of god, either: religions imagine god, exhaustively, he/they have attributes, involve themselves in creation, death and so on. Science is about knowing that we don't know much, but still trying to know more, it has never denied there could be something more, no, it's looking for that something more.

Well, anyway, this was why I asked the question, I don't understand your argument at all, genuinely.

On topic: I am atheist, agnostic about the spiritual in general but fairly gnostic about all the major religious texts in particular (though they are marvels of socio-cultural fair rules for the times they were written). My parent were atheist too, my grandparents were catholic, my grandfather tending towards buddhism in the end too, I was never pushed one way or another deliberately, but I guess my environment still shaped me... anyway the clincher was when my grandfather died (I was 9), we were in church and the priest was doing his speech, I think he was speaking about how we should not be sad because my grandpa was with god or something, and it hit me like a blow: he was lying about something he knew nothing about, just to console/control me/us: all of it was bullshit and I would never, ever see my grandfather, he was gone and I was here with a guy trying to feed me fairy tales. I cried right there, in church, because a priest had succeeded in convincing me there was no life after death. I still feel the same to this day, about the credo of the theistic religions.

What's so great about humans?

Their ability to be negative about themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I study Ancient History and am a huge Ancient Greek Mythology nerd and if I was religious it makes more sense to me to have pagan beliefs and believe in more than one God but I don't really think about religion very much at all, it just has no place in my life. I love mythology and reading about different Gods and religions but as for my personal life, I just don't subscribe to any religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Surely if you posit that at one time someone had a god speak to him (and transcribed that to text, or told someone who told someone who told someone who compiled rumors who transcribed that to text), then not only is it data, but it can totally be framed within the scientific approach. Why say that "no data experimential or observational can become available" when such observational data is the very basis of many religions -not least among them the judeo-christian monotheism-, and even today "miracles" are acknowledged by the head of the catholic religion? Science and religion and belief seem to be perfectly compatible here.

I am not sure where hypothesises come into play when you were just talking about input data.

I don't understand the "universe is stranger than we can imagine" as an argument against the value of science and (apparently) for the idea of god, either: religions imagine god, exhaustively, he/they have attributes, involve themselves in creation, death and so on. Science is about knowing that we don't know much, but still trying to know more, it has never denied there could be something more, no, it's looking for that something more.

Perhaps he's making some sort of epistemological claim? This or That counts as true knowledge about some unknown or possibly unknowable state of the universe therefore science doesn't touch it? I find it hard to parse also.

Non-religious. Non-spiritual ignostic atheist. Agnostic materialist.

Most of that except I've dropped the materialist bit. Not so much because I don't like it but because I haven't really given a fair shake to some of the other ideas out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist, but if pressed to name my religion I'd say Catholicism before atheism. Atheism simply isn't a religion to me, and while I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore I still feel a kind of cultural identification with it. It's hard to explain, but I don't think I'll ever lose that feeling. If it comes up on a form or survey I go with "no religion" or the closest formulation.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...