What is your religion?

[Show Me Love]

how many satanists here? none? so what the hell that ugly face on the top left doing here? its not funny, who is the admin/owner? get that shit outta here.

ok, the real question is
Does anybody believe in God here? How do u deal with that?

[Desperanto]

I am a Christian, Greek Orthodox Christian.God bless shemales...

Nondenominational Christian. Don't need anybody telling me how to find God.

[miss-aligned]

i'm atheist, or better put.. i'm not a theist.

the devill is cartoon character, like gods.

it could stay it could go, i wouldn't care.

[sesame]

Would you consider Humanity and empathy as my Religion?

Organised religion has failed bitterly.
Furthermore, religion divides and alienates fellow men.

I think the answer to the quest for Truth is spirituality;
Spirituality is personal and psychological.
Its practiced in private, inside ones mind.

While religion is acceptance of some social behavior, its about socializing.
Just imagine...many people gathering to communicate with the Supreme Being?
They are so utterly conscious of one another, sensitive of mutual interaction,
the whole thing is so shallow, that its very difficult to concentrate,
let alone entering a transcendental state.

[Bionca]

I'm an Agnostic Pagan who digs the idea of Gnosticism

[hankhavelock]

I'm a protestant and yes, I do believe in God. I live in a Muslim country with a moderate outlook on life and orientations - that said, misunderstood religion can in some instances become a serious obstacle for trans life.

[BlueRaven88]

technology > religion. there may be a higher power, there may not be. don't know and quite frankly don't really care. religion only brings death and hatred. i sure know that muslims bring me to hate them haha :P

[sesame]

Blueraven88:

i sure know that muslims bring me to hate them

Are you sure man? There are some really stunning Ladyboys belonging to that religion. You will say NO, if they propose you?

In reality, they are a bit fanatical and biased.
Thats sad.

[hankhavelock]

Ooops - I had no intentions of bringing gasoline to the highly flammable religious debate going on today... so let me hasten to say the majority of my transsexual friends and lovers are muslim! And I promise you guys that there's NOTHING hateful about them - on the contrary. They are muslims the way most westerners are christians - moderately and focussing on the positive aspects in stead of the potential conflict-points.

Well, not many conflict-points when we lie in bed sweaty and exhausted anyways :-)

My own little contribution to inter-religious understanding :-)

H

[BlueRaven88]

Originally Posted by sesame

You will say NO, if they propose you?

ya-huh i would say no. actually i would probably spit in their 'holier than thou' face

[Justme]

100% Agnostic. I don't believe in any type of god, simply because there is not proof of one. I'm not closed to the fact that it is possible though, but someone better have some proof outside of really old books.

[RedderZNZ]

Atheist with some Christian Russian Orthodox residue.

[cham]

Athiest, but I would love to worship Mint.

Cham

[ila]

Originally Posted by cham

Athiest, but I would love to worship Mint.

Cham

I like your answer.

[sesame]

Cham:

Athiest, but I would love to worship Mint

:D Will you let Mint sanctify you with her Ceremonial Staff
and Holy water from her private spring?

[cham]

Originally Posted by sesame

Cham:


:D Will you let Mint sanctify you with her Ceremonial Staff
and Holy water from her private spring?

Oh yes, indeed!

Cham

[sonya]

agnostic, a little buddhist and keep some mexican catholic traditions.

I am Muslim

[Joebad]

Nondenominational Christian, but I was raised as a Catholic.

[teimar]

hm... I have no religion. Religions are old kind of explain why something works. I am an empiryst. I believe in science. I think that god didn`t create such kind of people like tgirls. It is impossible, that this creature cam create somethig as perfect, as Bianca Freire

[twistedone]

An infidel and proud of it. Actually I'm a non-denominational Christian. I do believe in a higher being, this higher being is good, but don't believe in most of the religious procedures of worship.

I talk (pray) to this higher being just as I would a good friend.

Works for me. And its keeping me in line. LOL

[lebguy]

Originally Posted by BlueRaven88

i sure know that muslims bring me to hate them haha :P

my friend stop watching the news because you surely don't know what you're talking about. muslims are not bin laden, nor najad nor all these terrorist people who kill people in the name of islam. I am a christian living in a country which is divided between muslim and christians. I am catholic myslef and have a lot of muslim friends, a couple of them are my best friends. muslims are not those that you see on tv, these are extremist people and we see them in all religions, you want to hate, hate the people who are like that not a whole religion.

[ila]

Originally Posted by lebguy

my friend stop watching the news because you surely don't know what you're talking about. muslims are not bin laden, nor najad nor all these terrorist people who kill people in the name of islam. I am a christian living in a country which is divided between muslim and christians. I am catholic myslef and have a lot of muslim friends, a couple of them are my best friends. muslims are not those that you see on tv, these are extremist people and we see them in all religions, you want to hate, hate the people who are like that not a whole religion.

Words of wisdom.

[twistedone]

BRAVO!!

And if I might add, there are Muslims and Muslim organizations out there doing what they can to combat the extremists.

There are many Muslims in my community as well. Recently, during a flood threat, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and others were side by side filling sand bags.

Originally Posted by lebguy

my friend stop watching the news because you surely don't know what you're talking about. muslims are not bin laden, nor najad nor all these terrorist people who kill people in the name of islam. I am a christian living in a country which is divided between muslim and christians. I am catholic myslef and have a lot of muslim friends, a couple of them are my best friends. muslims are not those that you see on tv, these are extremist people and we see them in all religions, you want to hate, hate the people who are like that not a whole religion.

[Hot Rod]

raised catholic. not really sure what i believe now. I believe in a higher power. Still struggling with the purpose of life thing and what my creator wants of me. All i know is, i don't need a building or a priest to tell me how and what to believe. Out in nature, or building something with my own two hands..... thats my church and prayer.

[victornl]

Originally Posted by Justme

100% Agnostic. I don't believe in any type of god, simply because there is not proof of one. I'm not closed to the fact that it is possible though, but someone better have some proof outside of really old books.

This is exactly the way i think about relegion

[kraken111]

I am 100% CHRISTIAN.

[porno4lyfe]

everyone is christian. but my branch is luthren.

[Big_Willie]

I don't believe in any kind of gods. Not the Christian God, not any other. Though at least some of the others make some kind of sense. Unless I see some proof that shows, God (or any other god) excists, I'll just believe in myself.
Also religion is a very dangerous thing.

But I'll let George Carlin talk instead of me, he's better with words. :D
About religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
About the ten commandments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU

it is written Muslim on my ID card. In our country, when u born and when u take ur ID from government, its written Muslim, if ur family don't say different.

But i don't know i am Muslim or not but I believe in God or a power, i don't know...

i am a violent fundamentalist athiest, and think god and religeon have no place in a modern society and should be banned and replaced with and age of based on scientific breakthrough and disscovery and just foget all that mumbo jumbo crap

i hate it when people put down religeon as being rediculous or completly fictional i myself am always recieving jabs about my being a jedi.

[Excaliborg]

Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery

i am a violent fundamentalist athiest, and think god and religeon have no place in a modern society and should be banned and replaced with and age of based on scientific breakthrough and disscovery and just foget all that mumbo jumbo crap

Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery

i hate it when people put down religeon as being rediculous or completly fictional i myself am always recieving jabs about my being a jedi.

your two posts are somewhat at odds. in the first you are athiest and in the second you are jedi. while i respect a persons beliefs, two contradicting statements do tend to confuse. is the The Jediism Way not a religion? i can read all i want on teh internets, but you opinion and experiences would be most welcome.

or is it more a way of life than a religion?

[Excaliborg]

the is a science fiction novel, Wyrm by Mark Fabi. while the book itself received mixed reviews, it does have and interesting theory.

consider religion as a ,ind virus, of mind meme, that started because of some random inexplicable event that happened eons ago. naturaly this mind meme evolves into something greater over time. and the name for this meta mind meme? Group Overmind Daemon.

[GRH]

I would consider myself an Open Theist, mostly an amalgamation of Hindu and Christian beliefs.

Originally Posted by Excaliborg

your two posts are somewhat at odds. in the first you are athiest and in the second you are jedi. while i respect a persons beliefs, two contradicting statements do tend to confuse. is the The Jediism Way not a religion? i can read all i want on teh internets, but you opinion and experiences would be most welcome.

or is it more a way of life than a religion?

yeah my first post expressed my actual opinions and secind was a joke which in its self was actualy an jab at religeon as the religeon jedi is from the star wars films and most religeous people would concider being a jedi as rediculous as its clearly ficticious which is the exact view i have off all other religeons so the joke was trying to highlight to relgeous people that i concder christianty islam judayism budhism seekism and every other religeon as being exactly the same as jediism.
my favorit religon is scientology, thought up in the 1950 by science FICTION writer L ron hubard after he made a bet with a friend to see who could make a milion dollars quicker. its a religeon in which you have to pay to partake thus making its belivers as the most gulable fucking clows on the planet tom cruz amongst them

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Interesting Jedi fact of the day: according to the 2001 census, there are more Jedis in the UK than Jews, Buddhists or Sikhs.

[ziggybabie]

Agnostic. Atheist about all wordly theistic religions, but agnostic about the possibility of some unknown higher being, whether it's good natured, "evil", completely indifferent, or something totally beyond our understanding.

As far as the original "Satanist" comment, though, honestly a lot of people have a major misconception. LaVey Satanists are atheists. It's a non-theistic (no gods) religion, much like Buddhism or Taoism. More of a philosophy.

They do not believe in a devil or "boogeyman". The devil is just a metaphor for the things Christianity calls "sins". LaVeyan Satanists say things like "lust", "gluttony" and "pride" ("Tha DEVIL, Bobby Boo-shay!") are only human nature, and love should be shared for those who deserve it, not ingrates or enemies who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Instead of turning the other cheek or letting yourself be walked all over, seek vengeance. It's all about balance and moderation of these things.

Personally, some of it's a bit TOO abrasive for my tastes. I'm not big on vengeance, for example, or fighting, or the sort, unless it's a last resort. I'd be more with the passive aggressiveness of Buddhism on things like that. But, I do think a lot of things about the "religion" Anton LaVey created make sense. I respect philosophy over theology, but even that said, many theistic religions are still cool mythologies with some good lessons.

I'm not exactly an expert on anything though. My life philosophies are a random mishmash of things I learned from google searches or pop culture, mostly. lol

IF there is a truly loving God, I think being a good person should be enough to pass his/her "judgment". Sending Gandhi to hell for picking the "wrong path" (with little to no evidence to guide him since every religion is equally valid according to "blind faith" sans facts), but letting in a serial killer because he asks the "correct God" for forgiveness sounds like very flawed morals to me.

[chrisraid3]

i am just agnostic, too much of a historian

[Mel Asher]

Conventional Christian upbringing & background - fairly liberal. Totally disillusioned about hierarchical Religion which has repeatedly been abused in a quest for power, and as a consequence shamelessly exclusive. From my background I have been left with a deep conviction that God exists ( The Numinous ), a strong feeling that Gnosticism & Buddhism have found much of the path to oneness with the Creator, and a growing interest in Zoroastrianism and Taoism. ( The journey is long but the paths are many )
Otherwise I am an almost total Hedonist !

[TracyCoxx]

Atheist.

The universe and everything within it (and everything outside it?) runs entirely according to natural laws.

[nmlss]

I am 100% proud atheist and I've never been baptized. I believe in ME and my decisions.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by ziggybabie

As far as the original "Satanist" comment, though, honestly a lot of people have a major misconception. LaVey Satanists are atheists. It's a non-theistic (no gods) religion, much like Buddhism or Taoism. More of a philosophy.

They do not believe in a devil or "boogeyman". The devil is just a metaphor for the things Christianity calls "sins". LaVeyan Satanists say things like "lust", "gluttony" and "pride" ("Tha DEVIL, Bobby Boo-shay!") are only human nature, and love should be shared for those who deserve it, not ingrates or enemies who will not appreciate or reciprocate it. Instead of turning the other cheek or letting yourself be walked all over, seek vengeance. It's all about balance and moderation of these things.

Personally, some of it's a bit TOO abrasive for my tastes. I'm not big on vengeance, for example, or fighting, or the sort, unless it's a last resort. I'd be more with the passive aggressiveness of Buddhism on things like that. But, I do think a lot of things about the "religion" Anton LaVey created make sense. I respect philosophy over theology, but even that said, many theistic religions are still cool mythologies with some good lessons.

Quite right in your initial description of LaVeyan Satanism. As a person who has read, studied, and owned much of LaVey's published work, to me, it boils down to little more than a mystified and ritualized form of secular humanism. Personally, (regardless of the mysticism and ritual) the secular humanist perspective cuts too close to nihilism, and both philosophies leave me a bit empty at the end of the day. In my estimation, Anton LaVey would have made a more effective argument for his philosophy on life if he left out the obvious mockery of Christian ritual. I think I understand his motives in this, but by making a ritualized religion he accomplished two things: 1) He attempts to parody the predominant religion of the West, which is Christianity; 2) He succumbs to some of the same flaws of the regimented ritualism of contemporary religion. In this sense, I think the philosophy fails, it would have been more successful being espoused as a type of secular humanism, sans the symbolic ritual.

Even with that said, the premises of secular humanism I find, like you, to be a bit too abrasive in regards to the conclusions that follow. As I stated above, I find a Hindu metaphysical construct to best address some of the problems of duality of phenomenon, the nature of "good" and "evil," etc.

[DL_NL]

I've been brought up te be a roman catholic, but like my parents I've given up on religion.

It's great that we've put down some basic rules for living like a good person, but I really dislike the judgment over others that seems to come with religion and the fact that the people who shout the loudest are those who break most of their own rules.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Atheist.

The universe and everything within it (and everything outside it?) runs entirely according to natural laws.

There would seem to be a contradiction in the paradigm that you espouse as your belief. I would assume that you claim the title of "atheist" based largely on a materialist ontology that relates to the alleged superiority of logical empiricism in Western culture. (Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption, but it seems to be the statistically most popular claim to atheism, so grant me some leniency if you arrive at the atheistic paradigm through routes other than classical.)

Herein is the problem of your statement, it relies on a materialist and empirical ontology and then assumes a dualist (?) ontology perhaps? You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang. What then, if not natural law, guides this realm outside of the universe? (Various ontologists have referred to this realm as the "atemporal" in exploring these possibilities.)

So, by admitting a possibility of existence beyond the universe, you have to admit possibilities beyond the materialist and natural law-bound. You would perhaps better refer to yourself as an agnostic than an atheist, as you seem to have some leniency regarding your paradigm. No offense friend, I've met very few truly hard-core atheists, as the underlying architecture of their view does not in fact exclude the possibility of God. Alas, much of this discussion devolves into a matter of semantics of how we define words such as "atheist" and "agnostic," so I mean no offense if you care to disagree on semantic grounds.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang.

You make too many assumptions. Current science cannot describe what happens at a singularity. But current science does not define what the actual natural laws are. It is only our best educated guess at what it is. I see no reason to believe that natural law (not our version of it) reigns everywhere. There are theories that suggest that our universe is one of a countless number of universes. They possibly work differently then ours. You might suggest that they work according to a different set of laws, but I believe that there is a superset of physical laws that you can derive the laws of any universe from. When a universe is born, physical constants are possibly set, such as the speed of light, charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc. But there is a physical law superset that enables this to happen.

I'm not saying there are multiple universes, but it's a possibility. We've thought that our planet is the only one, only to be proven wrong. Same with our solar system. Our galaxy. Maybe our universe too.

There are two possibilities. Our universe (or whatever spawned it) came from nothing. And by 'nothing' I mean nothing - no energy or matter at all, no space/time, absolute nothingness. Nothingness could only be defined as a complete lack of any attributes because anything else used to describe it would be something.

The other possibility is that our universe came from something, or whatever spawned that, which has always been.

Either possibility seems shocking to me. But to say our universe came from God seems even more shocking. Because you'd have to ask where did God come from? Nothing? That's even more shocking that a god capable of creating the universe could have come from nothing. I don't think we will ever really know which of the two possibilities happened. But I would at least like to see plausible theories that explain, without any holes, how it possibly could have happened. But like I say, I doubt we would be able to test it.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You make too many assumptions. Current science cannot describe what happens at a singularity. But current science does not define what the actual natural laws are. It is only our best educated guess at what it is. I see no reason to believe that natural law (not our version of it) reigns everywhere. There are theories that suggest that our universe is one of a countless number of universes. They possibly work differently then ours. You might suggest that they work according to a different set of laws, but I believe that there is a superset of physical laws that you can derive the laws of any universe from. When a universe is born, physical constants are possibly set, such as the speed of light, charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc. But there is a physical law superset that enables this to happen.

If you employ the anthropic principal, we as an observer will always be subject to those physical constants necessary for our own existence. Granted, this principal leaves open the possibility of other types of existence outside of our own, but by its own premise, we the observer can never be subject to anything other than our original premises of existence. The fact that natural law devolves to a degree at a singularity also suggests that our ability to act as an observe similarly degrades. This to me makes the concept of observational and empirical science a moot point when arguing things like the anthropic principle...Other types of reality MAY exist outside of our observational realm, but by the same logic, we can never observe these realms, so they remain hypothetical entities...Much akin to the idea of "God."

Similarly, the hypothetical ideas of multiverse theory lack any sort of observational or empirical evidence. At best, they can make certain predictions within a mathematical construct, but the larger theory is not falsifiable based on the devolution of physical constants at a singularity. Within a materialist paradigm, I see NO material evidence to suggest that multiverse theory is even remotely more plausible than the standard big bang model. The latter is backed up by observational evidence, thus if you apply Occam's razor, what seems more likely, just when discussing cosmology? The more complex theory (lacking true empirical evidence) of a multiverse, or the standard big bang model (which is backed by observational evidence)?

I'm not saying there are multiple universes, but it's a possibility. We've thought that our planet is the only one, only to be proven wrong. Same with our solar system. Our galaxy. Maybe our universe too.

There are two possibilities. Our universe (or whatever spawned it) came from nothing. And by 'nothing' I mean nothing - no energy or matter at all, no space/time, absolute nothingness. Nothingness could only be defined as a complete lack of any attributes because anything else used to describe it would be something.

The other possibility is that our universe came from something, or whatever spawned that, which has always been.

I would agree, I will admit the possibility of a multiverse, based on the same logic that I would admit the possibility of some notion of "God." As I said, I fear I may have offended you on the linguistic difficulties associated with words like "atheist" and "agnostic." If the word "atheist" is dissected to mean "opposed to theism," I ask on what grounds. I have never met an atheist that can definitively prove the non-existence of God, and one of the fall-back arguments for an atheist is that science does not seek to prove a negative. Burden of proof shifts to assertions. Much of the semantic debate then falls onto what the default position of this thing called "science" should be??? This is an interesting question, but I in my interpretation, if science can admit possibilities that MAY not be falsifiable on observational evidence, things such as multiverse theory, it can equally admit possibilities of theism. How do we KNOW (beyond doubt) that there may not be some litmus test for the existence of a "god-like" force far in the future and assuming great scientific advances?

Ultimately, I think we agree. I think it remains a question for the ages, and one that science and empiricism will NEVER ultimately answer. It just perturbs me within the semantics of such discussion, that what is often called "atheism" is more often used to support the logical assertion of what amounts to an agnostic paradigm.

Either possibility seems shocking to me. But to say our universe came from God seems even more shocking. Because you'd have to ask where did God come from? Nothing? That's even more shocking that a god capable of creating the universe could have come from nothing. I don't think we will ever really know which of the two possibilities happened. But I would at least like to see plausible theories that explain, without any holes, how it possibly could have happened. But like I say, I doubt we would be able to test it.

Your proposition here makes certain assumptions about causality. As I stated earlier, some arguments in ontology and cosmology employ two words to describe the dichotomy between the manifest world that is governed by natural law and the unmanifest world that existed prior to the singularity of the big bang. The manifest world is called temporal, the unmanifest is called atemporal. If the entirety of physics (as we understand it) breaks down at the singularity of the big bang, does causality apply to the atemporal realm? I would argue, not necessarily, and this at least seems a cogent argument against "God" having to have a "beginning." "God" is beyond the duality of beginning, end, and temporal concepts such as causality.

Now to wager against myself, I will employ Occam's razor. What is more probable regarding conceptions about complexity? Here, I'm utterly clueless. The hypothetical existence of "God" obviously adds degrees of complexity to our view...But does not the existence of a multiverse? Which is more complex? Which is more likely? And ultimately, if you defer to things such as statistics, which is statistically more likely? And more importantly, WHAT is even used to evaluate probabilities that exist outside of our observational realm?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Within a materialist paradigm, I see NO material evidence to suggest that multiverse theory is even remotely more plausible than the standard big bang model. The latter is backed up by observational evidence, thus if you apply Occam's razor, what seems more likely, just when discussing cosmology? The more complex theory (lacking true empirical evidence) of a multiverse, or the standard big bang model (which is backed by observational evidence)?

If there are multiple universes that does not replace the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by GRH

I would agree, I will admit the possibility of a multiverse, based on the same logic that I would admit the possibility of some notion of "God."

I think a multiverse is more of a possibility than a god. Some process created our universe. It is not a stretch to say that that same process has created other universes. God is different. There is no observational evidence of even one.

Originally Posted by GRH

As I said, I fear I may have offended you on the linguistic difficulties associated with words like "atheist" and "agnostic." If the word "atheist" is dissected to mean "opposed to theism," I ask on what grounds. I have never met an atheist that can definitively prove the non-existence of God, and one of the fall-back arguments for an atheist is that science does not seek to prove a negative. Burden of proof shifts to assertions. Much of the semantic debate then falls onto what the default position of this thing called "science" should be???

No offense taken. In the absence of evidence, science would be agnostic about a god. One could hypothesize about a god, but then they would have to formulate an experiment to test the hypothesis. I know why people believe there is a god. They saw the sun come up, earthquakes, storms, or babies being born, or whatever. They saw things that couldn't be explained with their knowledge so they hypothesized that there's a god. For me, there's no problem that prompts me to formulate an hypothesis that there's a god because I have the analytical tools to find other better possibilities to hypothesize.

My life isn't all science though. I interact with the rest of society, and to me it seems that the progression of society is hampered by society's belief in a god. Many refuse to accept things like evolution, or the fact that the earth is over 6,000 years old or the big bang when there is abundant scientific evidence to support these theories, while their own theistic approaches to these phenomenon fail scientific tests. In that sense I am "opposed to theism" and an atheist.

Originally Posted by GRH

The hypothetical existence of "God" obviously adds degrees of complexity to our view...But does not the existence of a multiverse? Which is more complex? Which is more likely?

As I said above, we've seen one universe. It's not a big stretch to hypothesize that the process that created ours created other. As for a god, we haven't seen even one.

[mrtrebus]

Atheist, there is no great reason for existence, life is just a bunch of stuff that happens. Having said that if people have a faith & it gives them comfort, good luck to them unless they are hate filled fundamentalists, be they Muslim, Christian or any other denomination.

Religion & science though do have something in common, they are both attempts by mankind to explain life, the universe & everything.