What is your religion? And why do you believe in your religion?

[karaddin]

I was raised Catholic and at the age of about 10 sitting in church one day I was filled with rage and the desire to jump up the front and shout that it was all bullshit (in those words and I didn't swear at the time so it was really unusual). After that any potential I had for faith leaked out of me and I've not had the slightest capacity to believe since.

As to the whole debate I find myself on the same side as Terra. It's less of a choice for me though, I can be myself and be damned for that or I can kill myself and be damned for that. Any God that arbitrarily judges someone for who they fundamentally are doesn't deserve worship. You can try tell me I'm wrong and morally equivalent to a serial killer if you want, but I'll just think you are wrong.

[Castel]

As to the whole debate I find myself on the same side as Terra. It's less of a choice for me though, I can be myself and be damned for that or I can kill myself and be damned for that. Any God that arbitrarily judges someone for who they fundamentally are doesn't deserve worship. You can try tell me I'm wrong and morally equivalent to a serial killer if you want, but I'll just think you are wrong.

I was not overly (or to be fair,only) concerned with what God deserved in our opinions. Once you accept the thought experiment that sort of question seems a bit moot.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The first time I responded to this thread, I didn't quite take it seriously, so maybe this will make some sense.

I don't have a religion. Religions are created by others to control people. That does not mean I'm an atheist. While I do not believe in an anthropomorphic deity, I cannot ignore that there is an order to the universe that precludes its existence as being random chance. What the force that created the universe wants, is unknowable and all the priests, rabbis and imams in the world, don't know, either. There are no prophets or messiahs. There are only people who have said things that registered with others emotionally. If the individual is incapable of determining what is moral or right, the blind acceptance of what others say is right, is illogical.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

May I ask what claims of his piss you off? Some sort of general "religion slowed down advancement" argument? Because I can see that, but I'm not sure that that is his general strategy.

That and how Dawkins tends to paint all Christians with the same brush while ignoring the plethora of religious diversity within world Christianity as well as American Christianity, often completely pretending away the existence of liberal and mainstream Christian strands and their critiques of conservative Christianity. His grasp of biblical scholarship is also pretty abysmal, leading to some gross generalizations and literary/historical simplifications. (His Marcionite views of the Old Testament are especially infuriating.)

[Happy Ent]

(His Marcionite views of the Old Testament are especially infuriating.)

You know of a good book about this? It seems as if a “Where Dawkins misrepresents Christianity” would be a perfect hook for an informative book that lays out various aspects of Christian denominations. (Just as books of the type “What Creationists don’t grok” turn out to be great introductions to evolutionary biology.)

[Sci-2]

Good news about the "spiritual but not religious"

...After spending more than five years speaking with hundreds of “spiritual but not religious” folk across North America, I’ve come to see a certain set of core ideas among them. Because of their common themes, I think it’s fair to refer to them by the acronym: SBNR.

But before we explore what the SBNRs believe, we first need to learn what they protest.

Interesting article. I'm always curious about what people and how those trends shift in society. I also like the acronym.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics always seemed up for grabs, perhaps now more than ever when you have interesting "marriages" between someone like Chopra and an actual scientist like Lothar Schafer. I'm not really worried about this, but it might be nice for people to read up a bit on the actual science before coming down one way or another... I'm probably as guilty as anyone about not dusting off the math books though.

Beyond that, I think this open spirituality can lead to people trying dangerous herbal cures or avoiding actual medicine, which is the problem I have with criticisms what the blogger seems to misidentify as "secularism". I had a friend who studied at Cambridge trying to remove wax from his ear via "candling" (And for sake of adventure I too almost burned my hair off.)

Anyway, in the vein of new religious movements the aforementioned relationship between psychedelics and the Judeo-Christian tradition, Strassman's book is coming out in September:

DMT and the Soul of Prophecy (first chapter here)

While the phenomenological properties of the two states overlap convincingly, the information content of the prophetic state appears to be much more highly articulated, enduring, and pervasive as evidenced by the Hebrew Bible’s influence throughout the world over the last 2500 years. The striking differences in the prophetic message versus the DMT one then led me to propose fundamental differences in how the two states come about. This finally led to a novel model of spiritual experience—either prophetic or psychedelic— that works from a top-down rather than bottom-up perspective. The bottom-up perspective is represented by neurotheology wherein changes in brain chemistry give the impression of communicating with the divine, whereas my new model, theoneurology, posits that God communicates with us via the agency of the brain.

[naz]

Not for noting is Mahammud Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. admired for their civil disobedience of injustice at the cost to their own well-being.

You really are a troublemaker, aren't you? ;)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

You know of a good book about this? It seems as if a “Where Dawkins misrepresents Christianity” would be a perfect hook for an informative book that lays out various aspects of Christian denominations. (Just as books of the type “What Creationists don’t grok” turn out to be great introductions to evolutionary biology.)

I'm afraid not. It was more a case of my own education within a series of religious institutions did not jive with Dawkin's representations with my experiences with American Christianity, mostly Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, and Roman Catholics.

Good news about the "spiritual but not religious"

Interesting article. I'm always curious about what people and how those trends shift in society. I also like the acronym.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics always seemed up for grabs, perhaps now more than ever when you have interesting "marriages" between someone like Chopra and an actual scientist like Lothar Schafer. I'm not really worried about this, but it might be nice for people to read up a bit on the actual science before coming down one way or another... I'm probably as guilty as anyone about not dusting off the math books though.

Beyond that, I think this open spirituality can lead to people trying dangerous herbal cures or avoiding actual medicine, which is the problem I have with criticisms what the blogger seems to misidentify as "secularism". I had a friend who studied at Cambridge trying to remove wax from his ear via "candling" (And for sake of adventure I too almost burned my hair off.)

Anyway, in the vein of new religious movements the aforementioned relationship between psychedelics and the Judeo-Christian tradition, Strassman's book is coming out in September:

DMT and the Soul of Prophecy (first chapter here)

I would sooner identify as "religious but not spiritual" than I would want to identify as "spiritual but not religious," which is a label that rubs me the wrong way for all too many reasons.

[sologdin]

anti-theist here. i.e., i believe that all of it is true, but i am their enemy. makes my life like a lovecraft story. i dig that.

[Galactus]

I would sooner identify as "religious but not spiritual" than I would want to identify as "spiritual but not religious," which is a label that rubs me the wrong way for all too many reasons.

Hehe, same here. (and I'm neither spiritual nor religious)

[Happy Ent]

I'm afraid not. It was more a case of my own education within a series of religious institutions did not jive with Dawkin's representations with my experiences with American Christianity, mostly Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, and Roman Catholics.

Exactly! Precisely why this would be an informative book. Some kind of Christian zoology for the perplexed. (I would be hard pressed to explain what UCoC even means, for instance.)

[Galactus]

I have a basic idea of some of these, but very little about the specific american denominations.

Presbyterians are calvinists (I believe it's originally a scottish church) the defining feature is one of organization, rather than being run by bishops they have councils of elders. (although not all presbyterian churches are Presbyterians, which mostly seems to include the scottish/english branches and their descendants)

Episcopalians have bishops, that's what it means. In the US they're specifically the descendants of the anglican church that became independent after the American Revolution, they're still in communion with the Anglican Church, IIRC.

Methodists are based on an english preacher (Wesley?`Wellesley? Something with W) who had an amazing way of writing his diary. (one excerpt goes something like "Today, at 3.15 P.M. I was suddenly filled with the most amazing and great love for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.") I'm actually a bit unclear on their actual theology.

UcOC is apparently a continuation of the Congregationalist churches. (which is yet another organisational form, basically parish democracy, where the congregations themselves run the church, without a college of elders or a bishop)

[The Marquis de Leech]

anti-theist here. i.e., i believe that all of it is true, but i am their enemy. makes my life like a lovecraft story. i dig that.

Misotheist = hater of God.

Dystheist = believes God is not good.

[Castel]

anti-theist here. i.e., i believe that all of it is true, but i am their enemy. makes my life like a lovecraft story. i dig that.

The inevitable madness is quite liberating I suppose?

[Gears of the Beast]

I thought an anti-theist was someone opposed to theism. I don't think you can be opposed to the notion that there is a god and still believe there's a god.

[Castel]

I thought an anti-theist was someone opposed to theism. I don't think you can be opposed to the notion that there is a god and still believe there's a god.

You could be opposed to the particular flavor of any religion.

[Gears of the Beast]

You could be opposed to the particular flavor of any religion.

That would make you anti(insert flavour of religion). Theism is simply the position that there is a God.

[Castel]

Why not anti-theist as a general term for it though?

[Gears of the Beast]

Why not anti-theist as a general term for it though?

Because 'theist' is too broad, it tells me nothing about someone's religion other than the fact they believe in a deity. How could one extrapolate which religion someone was opposed to if they just referred to themself an anti-theist?

[Castel]

Because 'theist' is too broad, it tells me nothing about someone's religion other than the fact they believe in a deity. How could one extrapolate which religion someone was opposed to if they just referred to themself an anti-theist?

Good point.