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

[paddington]

Well I was christened Church of England, an I put that on official documents. Mostly because none/atheists just doesn't feel right (idk, it's not a logical thing). However I am pretty atheist.

[Hereward]

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.

Wesley. Methodists preach that the route to salvation lies through social service, particularly for the benefit of the poor. They had a big influence, and still do, on the Labour Party. Though perhaps their most famous daughter was Mrs Thatcher, though she later switched to the CofE.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

"Methodism is a rejection of Calvinism"

:P

[Wise Fool]

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.

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.

Could you list some of those reasons?

[Sci-2]

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.

Really? Curious as to some of those reasons.

Galactus, interested in your rationale as well.

And, as I like to give people options, here's some of stuff about 'Saint Death':

'Saint Death' Now Revered On Both Sides Of US-Mexico Frontier

Devotion to Santa Muerte remains controversial in Mexico because while she is regarded as an all-purpose deity to many working-class Mexicans, she is considered the patron saint of violent drug mafias.

"Santa Muerte is sacred for people who mostly are involved in illicit business, like smuggling drugs and people," says Juarez market shopkeeper Abel Ramirez. "For my part, I'll sell a statue, but I don't believe in her."

A short distance away, a botanica called La Patrona is named in honor of Saint Death. The shelves are filled with votive candles, incense, soap, perfumes and figurines in the image of the Bony Lady, as she's called.

The owner, who gives her name as Senora Tina, has neatly coiffed hair, and a small figure of Saint Death dangles from her neck. She says she has been a follower for 40 years.

"I have lots of clients who've turned away from Saint Jude [the saint of lost causes] and now follow La Santisima," she says. "Maybe they were in a terrible highway accident and they beseeched her to spare their life, and they walked away from the crash. She is the only one who can take a life because she is Saint Death."

[Phaing]

Misotheist = hater of God.

Dystheist = believes God is not good.

Interesting.... must take one hell of an ego to choose either of the above.

Kinda leaning towards the second one myself. :unsure:

[Sci-2]

Interesting.... must take one hell of an ego to choose either of the above.

Kinda leaning towards the second one myself. :unsure:

Why ego? Misotheism just means finding God to be your enemy. It doesn't mean you're going to win that battle.

The second just requires reading scriptures and coming to the conclusion that the deities described therein are morally repugnant.

=-=-=

"Why do you do these things Lilith? You were made for Adam. Why do you soil yourself with demons?"

"Why? Because it pleases me, I suppose. I may have been made for Adam--but I live for myself. Which is what living means."

-Mike Carey, Lucifer #50: Lilith

"Lucifer made rebelling sound so wonderful. To sing about You and how You felt."

-John Ney Rieber, Books of Magic

[Castel]

The ego thing probably comes from the fact that you think your opinion on morality is enough to condemn an eternal being that is superior to you in every possible way. It definitely takes a very high opinion of yourself.

[karaddin]

Or just a low opinion of the eternal being. Why assume it's remotely benevolent in the rules it hands down? If it's so much greater than us it seems not unlikely that it would see us as akin to ants or live stock and it's rules are entirely self serving.

[Castel]

Or just a low opinion of the eternal being. Why assume it's remotely benevolent in the rules it hands down? If it's so much greater than us it seems not unlikely that it would see us as akin to ants or live stock and it's rules are entirely self serving.

Oh, that is implied. The question is why your opinion is enough to condemn said being when by definition it has a much wider and all-encompassing view than you can imagine. This assumes a sort of belief in parity that can easily be considered egotistical.

As for God being amoral: perhaps. Of course, this assumes that you have some way to tell.

[karaddin]

It's not egostistical, it's just all I can do from my perspective. I wouldn't consider a cow egotistical for deciding we aren't a very nice species.

[Sci-2]

1) I'd say Karaddin has the right of it -> Moral repugnance is a gustatory reaction toward a being whose actions transgress against your convictions. The might & age of that being seems inconsequential.

2) Seems to me the majesty of the deity is a Mievillian Might Blade that cuts multiple ways. If the "ego" comes from assumptions made about this fantastical being isn't it then just as egotistical to assume God cares about the world or spoke exclusively, if at all, to the particular prophets one follows?

Heck, It could just have made all the world religions as an experiment, act of whimsy, or deliberate practical joke.

=-=-=

More options for the shoppers of religion:

The Kybalion - guide to Hermetic Principles. Only read a tiny bit, as I'm interested in these old magic systems for other reasons, but seems like you could carve out a belief system using these ideas.

Additionally that site is an internet archive of sacred texts of all sorts, so you can probably get an idea for any belief system you might want to take on.

We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road alone."

--Symmachus

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm not sure how being dystheistic is egotistical. The Ancient Greeks thought that Zeus and company weren't necessarily good. Ditto the Norse with Odin.

[Castel]

2) Seems to me the majesty of the deity is a Mievillian Might Blade that cuts multiple ways. If the "ego" comes from assumptions made about this fantastical being isn't it then just as egotistical to assume God cares about the world or spoke exclusively, if at all, to the particular prophets one follows?

This is indeed a cutting argument when we abandon the notion that this (type of )god exists (it started with a discussion of how misotheists reconcile two different beliefs). All discussion was based on the assumption that it did. It was implied when we asked how one could both believe in God and consider him an enemy by being a misotheist.Once we deny it then we're approaching skepticism and we need not have any discussions on the nature of any deity at all.

Quite frankly, in those cases, I find them extraneous ; getting into what such a being should look like can be argued from all sorts of directions. An example: it is egotistical of you to assume that the Supreme Being possesses a mind like yours. Just because people cannot focus on small things(to us) when they have a bunch of competing interests doesn't mean that God can't. You're using an argument that depends on our intuitions which really need not apply. And around and around we go.

1) I'd say Karaddin has the right of it -> Moral repugnance is a gustatory reaction toward a being whose actions transgress against your convictions. The might & age of that being seems inconsequential.

Repugnance is not necessarily a position. You can find things repugnant but not take a stand against them because you recognize the subjective issues at play that don't necessarily need to apply widely.

When you claim that god is evil or your enemy you are saying that you are not just disgusted because of your moral leanings,developed through reasoning and conditioning, you are saying that your disgust carries enough weight to let you take a stand against this being. And here we come against the same problem: you are putting your disgust up above said being. This is a choice. You can hate something and still submit yourself to its judgement. An explantion I ran across allowed me to frame it this way: look at it like a cognitive illusion: you can't think your way out of the certainty, you just have to accept that it is unreliable (of course, I wonder how this will be taken by religious people who believe in certainty as some sign from above).

Of course, you could argue that some people are psychologically incapable of submitting themselves to something that promises obscene punishment for their identity. This seems...possible. I'm just not sure how seriously we take this sort of determinism in general.

[Happy Ent]

The ego thing probably comes from the fact that you think your opinion on morality is enough to condemn an eternal being that is superior to you in every possible way. It definitely takes a very high opinion of yourself.

I disagree.

One of the few beliefs in a god that I think is plausible is the following: I am really just part of a computer simulation, and so are my perceptions. Everybody else is also part of a simulation. Highly advanced, strong artificial intelligences. We only “exist” in the supercomputer of a perverted 14-year old alien hacker, who invented this entire “reality” for his own pleasure. Call him Bob.

Kind of like the Sims, but with better AI.

Bob satisfies most of the requirements of a god. He’s omnipotent, he’s the Creator, he takes an interest in our lives, he watches us.

If Strong AI is possible (which is a plausible claim that I just disagree with) then the above scenario is highly plausible. What else should somebody like Bob spend his time on, than on inventing crazy worlds, populating them with self-aware agents, and watching things unfold? In particular, under the Strong AI assumption, there would be billions and billions of such simulations running everywhere. For pleasure (such as Bob’s), or maybe for genuine research purposes.

In fact, the population of the post-singularity aliens would be completely dwarfed by the population of simulated intelligences such as you and me. Most self-aware processes would be simulations, not “real”.

Thus, under the (completely plausible) Strong AI assumption, with very high probability, you and I live in a simulation. And there is a Supreme Being: Bob.

(This is one of the strongest arguments against Strong (or positive) Atheism: the idea that clearly no god exists. Of course, there are very few Strong Atheists, so it’s a useless argument.)

Would you worship Bob? To me, he’s just a perverse monster. I cannot imagine a more morally repugnant idea that coding up self-aware intelligences that are aware of their own death, living in a world that is callous and hopeless, a sad vale of tears. (Try. Try to put yourself in to Bob’s position. If he were really evil, what reality would he set up, in order to lap up as much misery as possible? Ours.)

Such a god I would proudly defy. As should you. Common decency dictates that, I believe. Not ego.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

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.)

It's a liberal congregationalist denomination. I'm still trying to figure them out as well. Some of the religious attitudes of their M.Div. students also rub me the wrong way.

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)

The Presbyterian Church (USA), largest of the American Reformed denominations, traces its origins back to the Church of Scotland and English presbyterians. Presbyterian governance is between congregationalist and episcopal organization, hence the joke among American denominations that Presbyterians are all about committees from top to bottom.

"Methodism is a rejection of Calvinism"

:P

Though they kept more than they rejected.

Could you list some of those reasons?

Really? Curious as to some of those reasons.

Galactus, interested in your rationale as well.

* It often comes across as an individualistic self-indulgence.

* It frequently ignores the emphasis of fellowship and community within institutionalized religions.

* It's often reductionist about institutionalized religions.

* SBNR people say that they don't like institutionalized religion because they find the divine in nature as if religious people do not experience the divine in nature too.

* There's the bizarre feeling that these people lack conviction but are a living in vacuous state of wishy-washy spiritual beliefs out of a fear of commitment or offending anyone.

* The mixing and matching of spiritual practices often comes across as cultural/religious misappropriation.

* Many people who claim to be SBNR do not seem very spiritual at all. They seem puzzled when I ask whether they have any spiritual practices.

* In fact, many seem to struggle when I ask what they believe in. "You believe that there are multiple ways to get to heaven/enlightenment? That's great. There are a number of institutionalized religions/denominations that espouse that too."

[sologdin]

The ego thing probably comes from the fact that you think your opinion on morality is enough to condemn an eternal being that is superior to you in every possible way. It definitely takes a very high opinion of yourself.

nah. i recognize that someone else is an asshole by its own alleged standards.

[TerraPrime]

nah. i recognize that someone else is an asshole by its own alleged standards.

Yes.

Also, for those who find a certain deity immoral, then, obviously, we do not consider it to be "superior in all ways." More powerful in all ways, yes. But not all superior. You're conflating might with rectitude. If that were the case, then the U.S. would be the world's most superior country since we have the largest military arsenal. That some being can snuff my existence out with a thought doesn't make its behavior superiror.

Or, to put it another way, if there were multiple supernatural beings, than the rightness of their conflicting moral codes is settled by a Death Cage match on who can defeat whom? Two gods enter, one god lives, and its code becomes the keystone for morality?

[Phaing]

The ego thing probably comes from the fact that you think your opinion on morality is enough to condemn an eternal being that is superior to you in every possible way. It definitely takes a very high opinion of yourself.

Bingo!

Its basically facing down some ancient being of spiritual energy that has been around forever and saying "I think you blew it.... asshole."

And yet, I find myself increasinbly drawn in that direction.

[Castel]

Bingo!

Its basically facing down some ancient being of spiritual energy that has been around forever and saying "I think you blew it.... asshole."

And yet, I find myself increasinbly drawn in that direction.

Yeah, despite my arguments I know that feel. Happy Ent and his compelling story about Bob the Programmer certainly doesn't help.

Also, for those who find a certain deity immoral, then, obviously, we do not consider it to be "superior in all ways." More powerful in all ways, yes. But not all superior. You're conflating might with rectitude. If that were the case, then the U.S. would be the world's most superior country since we have the largest military arsenal. That some being can snuff my existence out with a thought doesn't make its behavior superiror.

Might may not make right. Frankly, what makes right Right is another question in and of itself. But that's not necessarily what I was arguing. When I said superior in all ways I did mean in all ways,not just a narrow focus on power. The God of this thought experiment is the omniscient,all-powerful God. Can you imagine what the world looks like from the vantage of The God? How it thinks (when it's not sleeping)? Shit, human beings are critical of our own cognitive abilities, how do you think it matches up against this perfect construct?

We place great stock in our vision when in reality we see through a pinhole and think we see the whole horizon. I think Sci posted an article (that I will now be forced to read) of animals breeding with inanimate objects because they can't tell the difference because of their limited perception. Are we sure this is not us? Why? Science? Math?

I see the practical problem with this: it requires people to abandon their intuitions and place faith in this being (abandoning our tools may come back to bite you in the ass logically speaking but I'm too tired to think it out), which is of course difficult, but that's why it's humility.