What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?

[kyuuei]

I'm Pagan in the short and simple terms of things.

I was raised Christian (though not strictly), and veered like most teenagers about the age of 13-14 when I was a bit confused about the teachings and how they didn't jive with my multicultural friendships. Wicca led me along my way, but I'm not exactly aligned with Wiccan teachings either. I'm more skeptical of things and more science-based than Wicca generally allows for.

I find rituals soothing, and the physical items and aspects of prayer peaceful and focusing. I don't believe in spell books per say, or casting spells in the movie sense, or anything like that, though they were great to start out with. I think as a human being I'd prefer to have some explanations be supernatural, and to feel auras and connectivity to people and things. I think there is a real reason humans, even super intelligent smart ones that know science and stuff, still fall back on religion. Some people don't need it, and never have, and that's cool too. I think it takes all types and varieties and that religion was originally a survival skill and then a way to thrive, however backwards and insane people make it at times. Something that influential shapes thoughts and actions and ideas, and I don't denounce that sort of power in development and guidance of people so easily. I don't think one religion is a right one.. and I find the general basis of most religions are the same: treat others well, take care of yourself, sacrifice for the sake of the greater good, help others even if you don't think you have much to offer, don't take your own life, and accept others as they are and don't judge them so easily. Those things can be found nearly in any religion.. and they all have their flaws, but those principles are there for the taking. Some need religion to make them happen.. some do not.

 

[highlander]

I have believed in God as long as I can remember. I grew up Catholic but switched to Protestant when I got older. I thought the Catholic church was too regimented and conservative, felt the masses were uninteresting, and didn't think they had enough of a focus on reading and understanding what is in the Bible. Those were some reasons that I switched.

As to the existence of God, maybe one example would help. If you think about the human eye and incredibly complex it is, how could such a thing ever come into existence through sheer happenstance? It was designed.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

in the future people will say that in this age we performed the ritual of the happy hour, t.v. hour, and worshiped at the altar of the ATM.

We don't see it that way because subjectively we are biased, but in truth, religiousness is mostly unconscious. Even atheists worship and perform rituals. They must or the society will ostracize them...the social hierarchy is more impenetrable than a mountain.

As for my personal beliefs, I fall between the continuum of Christian and Pagan depending on the psychological demands of my inner community.

 

[Eska]

if the chair is just invisble that means it's physically there you can't see but you have the potential of bumping into it. god if he exists is both invisble and untouchable like a ghost, so he'd be the OG (orginal ghost, hah! I crack myself up *dodges rotten tomatoes being thrown). so you could prove the chair existed just have people run into it

By "invisible", I also meant immaterial.

 

[prplchknz]

By "invisible", I also meant immaterial.

are you sure? or are you now just claiming that cuz of what i said?

 

[Eska]

are you sure? or are you now just claiming that cuz of what i said?

Yes, I am sure, I think it's rather obvious that I meant that.

 

[prplchknz]

Yes, I am sure, I think it's rather obvious that I meant that.

clearly not

 

[Eska]

clearly not

How so?

 

[prplchknz]

How so?

you claimed the chair was just invisble not that we could not touch as well, and since we can neither see nor touch chair then yes it is impossible to prove, and most people would probably think you were insane or just joshing or something but with god people don't think you're insane and that is the difference. personally if you want to believe their is a chair that can neither be seen nor touch behind you knock yourself and same goes with believing in god.

 

[Eska]

you claimed the chair was just invisble not that we could not touch as well, and since we can neither see nor touch chair then yes it is impossible to prove, and most people would probably think you were insane or just joshing or something but with god people don't think you're insane and that is the difference. personally if you want to believe their is a chair that can neither be seen nor touch behind you knock yourself and same goes with believing in god.

I did claim that the chair was invisible, although, my mistake was to not add that it was also immaterial, although that it was I meant.

It is irrelevant that people would think I'm insane, the same could be said about religious people who believe in 'God'.

My point is that both are neither provable or unprovable, also that there are a multitude of reasons as to why religion would be built on lies and/or misinterpretations.

 

[Tellenbach]

Organized religion requires a level of discipline that I lack. I don't like to get dressed up for events; I don't like restrictions on diet or speech. I also don't like to believe in something just because an authority figure tells me to.

I'm not opposed to some religions and I think many people would benefit from the moral instruction taught in churches, temples, and synagogues.

As to the God question, I'm agnostic. I don't know enough to be an atheist.

 

[Passacaglia]

As to the existence of God, maybe one example would help. If you think about the human eye and incredibly complex it is, how could such a thing ever come into existence through sheer happenstance? It was designed.

The human eye -- along with all other Earthly eyes -- are actually poorly adapted to air-vision. Because life originally evolved in the water, eyes originally did too, and have only adapted imperfectly to life on land and in the air. Which is amazing in its own way, but I'd expect designed eyes to be much different from our own.

And this sort of example is one of the reasons I can't buy into religion, and there are many more. For example, when a shark chips a tooth or gets a cavity, it's no big deal because that tooth will soon enough be replaced. When I get a cavity, I have to pay a dentist a large chunk of my limited funds to have it filled or -- only once so far -- shot full of pain-killer and pulled out. Going back in history just a century or so, a person getting a cavity had to go to the town blacksmith to have it pulled even more painfully out of their skull. (And believe me, even with all the pain killer, getting a tooth pulled was one of the three most agonizing experiences of my life!) Not to mention the potentially fatal complications that come with losing, or suffering a life with one or more rotten teeth before the advent of modern medicine!

I don't begrudge anyone their faith, but I don't buy the 'works in mysterious ways' or other rationalizations. If this imperfect world is the result of intentional design, then an imperfect deity is behind it.

 

[Lark]

I have believed in God as long as I can remember. I grew up Catholic but switched to Protestant when I got older. I thought the Catholic church was too regimented and conservative, felt the masses were uninteresting, and didn't think they had enough of a focus on reading and understanding what is in the Bible. Those were some reasons that I switched.

As to the existence of God, maybe one example would help. If you think about the human eye and incredibly complex it is, how could such a thing ever come into existence through sheer happenstance? It was designed.

I'm sorry to hear that man but its your experience and your belief so I respect that.

I dont think that complexity is a proof of God, I know that its popular with a lot of intelligent designers and that sort of public but I think you have to ask the question of whether complexity permits the inference of anything other than complexity itself.

The existence of God is something that I believe is impossible to prove, that's pretty much because the absence of irrefutable, definitive proof of God's existence, with the possibilities of an afterlife, eternity, heaven, hell, divine retribution, divine reward and punishment (which are all seperate and distinction questions I dont believe are automatically in evidence by the belief in the existence of God), IS the human condition.

The certainty of God and kind of "seeing the matrix" which this would involve is the preserve of a few, given to them is grace maybe, although I dont want to use any fancy language which may serve to befog rather than reveal. I would say that Mary, the mother of God, Jesus, some of the prophets who had direct discussions with God, were among these sorts and as a result can be said to be without sin. I understand sin as turning away from God or doubt, the original sin of the species is doubt, that's to seperate sin from simply a question of personal ethics or social ethics even.

That said, some of the proofs which have interested me, and I know that the proofs change from time to time, I've never thought that invalidates the idea of proof per se and its never a case that the existence/non-existence question has been "done" already or that theists are moving goal posts, I think that's facetious and argumentative in a pretty juvenile way when it happens.

The most interesting ones I can think of presently are mathematical, the existence of the infinite as conceived of and proven, in so far as its possible, by equations and also the conception of beauty, particularly music, which serves no purpose what so ever from an evolutionary perspective.

To be honest there are much, much stranger hypothesis in physics, like quantum immortality, than anything conceived of within theism but atheists seldom seem to rail against it in quite the same way, which I think belies problems which are greater than the simple is there, isnt there an God in existence question.

 

[Lark]

Organized religion requires a level of discipline that I lack. I don't like to get dressed up for events; I don't like restrictions on diet or speech. I also don't like to believe in something just because an authority figure tells me to.

I'm not opposed to some religions and I think many people would benefit from the moral instruction taught in churches, temples, and synagogues.

As to the God question, I'm agnostic. I don't know enough to be an atheist.

Apart from whether or not they would benefit I can never understand how they simply are totally and utterly disinterested altogether.

Its like there's this who aspect of human life and existence, its something which has been around since day dot, literally day dot, with the dawn of consciousness it would appear there has been some kind of cosmic reckoning or existential musing.

And people are content to just say, nawh, none of that for me thanks.

 

[93JC]

As to the existence of God, maybe one example would help. If you think about the human eye and incredibly complex it is, how could such a thing ever come into existence through sheer happenstance? It was designed.

 

[Tellenbach]

Apart from whether or not they would benefit I can never understand how they simply are totally and utterly disinterested altogether.

It probably involves videogames or porn or Maslow's hierarchy thingy.

 

[Lark]

It probably involves videogames or porn or Maslow's hierarchy thingy.

Very possibly, Maslow's hierarchy comes in for a lot of ill conceived and barely clear criticism, which to me reads like a lot of people envious as fuck that they didnt think of it first but what it doesnt really explain is why if people meet the bottom rung of needs they, at least appear, to stay there and dont strive for anything greater.

This whole idea of adequacy and sufficiency has stuck with me laterly and I'm always shocked at how little people are prepared to settle for.

 

[Avocado]

I don't believe in any religion. They're all completely implausible to me. I don't like the label "atheist" because it implies I believe in an -ism, and I most definitely do not.

For the most part I avoid talking about religion, because I know my casual dismissal of any and all of them can be a little rude. Caustic even, if given the opportunity to rant at length about it.

To the religious people out there I'm not sure I could ever adequately explain my indifference. The most polite way I can is to say that the active religions of today seem as implausible as the (e.g.) Norse pantheon of gods would seem to any Jew, Muslim, Christian, etc. Taking communion is not unlike making a ritual sacrifice to Quetzalcoatl; praying to Allah not unlike making an offering to Athena at the Parthenon. The dogma just... doesn't jive with me.

I appreciate that a lot of religious dogma encourages us all to be good to each other, but I don't need belief to guide me. I know how to be good, and I'm pretty sure I am good.

Religion brings me no comfort in hard times, it brings me no more happiness or sadness about how the world around me plays out. It's probably hard for a devout believer in a religion to truly comprehend the feeling of disencumbrance I feel by having no religion. To me it's an extra 'thing'; a superfluous part of a life. I don't need it, and it's incredulous to me that others do.

Same.

 

[Passacaglia]

I find rituals soothing, and the physical items and aspects of prayer peaceful and focusing. I don't believe in spell books per say, or casting spells in the movie sense, or anything like that, though they were great to start out with. I think as a human being I'd prefer to have some explanations be supernatural, and to feel auras and connectivity to people and things. I think there is a real reason humans, even super intelligent smart ones that know science and stuff, still fall back on religion. Some people don't need it, and never have, and that's cool too. I think it takes all types and varieties and that religion was originally a survival skill and then a way to thrive, however backwards and insane people make it at times. Something that influential shapes thoughts and actions and ideas, and I don't denounce that sort of power in development and guidance of people so easily. I don't think one religion is a right one.. and I find the general basis of most religions are the same: treat others well, take care of yourself, sacrifice for the sake of the greater good, help others even if you don't think you have much to offer, don't take your own life, and accept others as they are and don't judge them so easily. Those things can be found nearly in any religion.. and they all have their flaws, but those principles are there for the taking. Some need religion to make them happen.. some do not.

I think you're onto something here. I'm highly skeptical of the idea that anyone needs religion specifically to teach them morality and ethics, but some people really do seem to yearn for the structure that religion provides. There are a lot of good things to be drawn from religion, but there are also a lot of bad things.

A common trait of, at least the three big western religions, is a holy book that appeals to a wide audience. The Tanakh, the Bible, and the Quran all contain many or all of the tenets you mention; but there's also some pretty fucked up shit in all three. And that's how we end up with fundy groups actively judging/oppressing/killing innocent people, genuinely decent believers working to make the world a better place, and every shade of religious group and individual in between. In fact I theorize that this breadth of messages that believers can pick and choose from is behind all or at least most of the world's successful religions.

(I use 'successful' as a shorthand of 'how many believers this religion has,' rather than as a value judgment.)

But I don't think that paganism or wicca have any generally accepted canonical texts? So I'm curious to hear your perspective on the double-edged sword that religion seems to be; whether your own faith and/or the big western three and/or others.

(Buddhism seems to be mostly lacking in terrible ideas, but then I'm not an expert on Buddhist texts.)

I think the yearning for spiritual structure is also very much a double-edged sword. There seem to be a lot of people who are all too happy to do whatever their religious leader or holy book says, regardless of compassion or reason, simply because it creates that feeling of structured fulfillment. If such a person falls into a group that focuses on all the positive aspects of religion, all well and good! But if such a person falls into a hateful and backwards religious group, s/he will live just as zealously by that hateful belief system. Thus some individuals and even entire congregations become cancers to society.

Anyhow, this post has gone on longer than I thought it would, so I'll just ask for your thoughts again.

 

[Tellenbach]

what it doesnt really explain is why if people meet the bottom rung of needs they, at least appear, to stay there and dont strive for anything greater.

Right. Why are hundreds of millions of people content to live in huts when they should strive for led lcd flatscreens and tablets? I think the limiting factors are time, economic opportunity, individual liberty, and natural resources. It may seem pointless to strive for anything greater if one is living in a desert or in a theocracy that discourages independent thinking.