What's your religion?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Akka

A poll would have been nice

Strongly atheist here. Unlikely to ever change (unless some actual proof about supernatural entities are actually uncovered, of course, but I think it's quite a bit unlikely).

The problem with a poll is that it pigeonholes a person. Many people I know (including me) cobble together their own "story of reality" that at least amuses them.

Myself... practically speaking - I'm an atheist in that the method of science leads my way. BUT I tend to practice the principles of Buddhism and I like describing the world in animist terms, specifically Shinto with occasional splurges of Celtic folk mythos.

[Revelation]

Hopefully this is on-topic, but I just wanted to share my confusion on semantics and read more opinions; do you think that belief is binary, or is it more of a threshold (continuous)? To be more clear, I've seen a common argument that belief is an all or nothing game, binary, when debating against the validity of agnosticism, in that all people are either theists or atheists.

It's just that, as an agnostic, I can't hold that to be true when I look at reality. You can never be completely sure about anything. But when people argue that two conflicting beliefs are an impossible, illogical stance to make, I can't bring myself to find the words to express my disagreement, if that makes sense?

[Sumeragi]

Shinto, with a strong Christian influence (my Korean grandparents being devout Catholics and all that).

[Ridwan]

Culturally muslim agnostic nowadays, while parents belong to different denominations from each other (Papa Aegir is Shiite-Kejawenist while Mama Aegir is Orthodox Syafi'ite Sunni.)

[Inverno]

I was christian (like my whole family). Today i consider myself agnostic, and i'm proud of it!

[Guido]

I'm a Catholic with an open mindset.

I hate the extremists of all religions imposing their views upon others and threatening with persecution just like I dislike when members of any religion (including mine) try to monopolize the view of Heaven by stating that if anyone does not convert to their religion they'll never enter Heaven in the afterlife.

People, I sincerely believe that the problem is not religion per se but peoples' attitudes. Those latter are the real problem.

A friend of mine once told me that one of humanity's very first blunders (or stupidities) was to institutionalize (or even worse militarize) religion and not leaving it open free for anyone.

[SaintessHeart]

Agnostic. Though I am abit of an outcast since my parents are Taoist-Buddhist mixed, my sis converted to corporate Christianity and my maternal side has a few Muslim relatives.

Originally Posted by Aegir

Culturally muslim agnostic nowadays, while parents belong to different denominations from each other (Papa Aegir is Shiite-Kejawenist while Mama Aegir is Orthodox Syafiite Sunni.)

If Mideast is to go to war between the Sunni-Shiite factions, choose one.

[Ridwan]

South East Asia has been mainly connected to Hadhramaut and Hejaz, so we have no business with those Twelvers and Hanafites up north. Heck, we don't even know who they are

[willx]

Agnostic Secular Humanist? I'm not terribly interested in the metaphysical or spiritual to begin with on a personal level, although I'm intensely curious about it from a demographic and third-party perspective. One of my best friends is buddhist and is a "qi gong" martial arts practitioner -- which I've always prodded him to explain to me in terms I could comprehend.

Parents are "kind of" Buddhist, particularly mum, although it's a weird Chinese Buddhism and she worships all these gods. Dad couldn't be bothered by spirituality at all.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

Agnostic Secular Humanist? I'm not terribly interested in the metaphysical or spiritual to begin with on a personal level, although I'm intensely curious about it from a demographic and third-party perspective. One of my best friends is buddhism and is a "qi gong" martial arts practitioner -- which I've always prodded him to explain to me in terms I could comprehend.

Parents are "kind of" Buddhist, particularly mum, although it's a weird Chinese Buddhism and she worships all these gods. Dad couldn't be bothered by spirituality at all.

I am more inclined to think that buddhism is a concept and a way of living rather than a religion, like Gandhism. The small little nuggets of wisdom are really fine answers to the nuances of erratic behaviour of others you meet everyday.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If Mideast is to go to war between the Sunni-Shiite factions, choose one.

Where's Kira Yamato and co when you need it?

[RRW]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

Where's Kira Yamato and co when you need it?

well he have other religion to take care

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by RRW

well he have other religion to take care

I’m afraid if Kira can’t come and save the day, Setsuna (Soran Ibrahim) will come instead and simply blast both factions away with his Exia to eliminate the conflict.

[Ridwan]

Soran should've served the Ottoman Empire.

[GenjiChan]

Living with a faith, without stepping or harming other people would the best religion one could have.. unless.. you want to live with a faith that insist you in doing more harm to others than good....

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Revelation

Hopefully this is on-topic, but I just wanted to share my confusion on semantics and read more opinions; do you think that belief is binary, or is it more of a threshold (continuous)? To be more clear, I've seen a common argument that belief is an all or nothing game, binary, when debating against the validity of agnosticism, in that all people are either theists or atheists.

It's just that, as an agnostic, I can't hold that to be true when I look at reality. You can never be completely sure about anything. But when people argue that two conflicting beliefs are an impossible, illogical stance to make, I can't bring myself to find the words to express my disagreement, if that makes sense?

In a way, atheism is no different from other religions compared with agnosticism. Whether you believe in God or believe that there is no god, you're choosing to believe in something that isn't based on evidence. That is, there is no direct evidence that God exists, but there is also no direct evidence that God does not exist. No matter what anyone says, neither can directly be proven.

By comparison, agnosticism is unique. Agnosticism is open to the idea that God may exist, but it's also open to the idea that God may not exist.

People often try to polarize it one way or another. To a staunch atheist, if you have any inkling that God does exist, then you're a believer. To a staunch follower of some religion, if you sort-of-believe but don't wholeheartedly take the religious teachings to heart, then you're a non-believer.

I can see where the thinking of each comes from. It's a matter of having a set belief and then measuring up someone else's belief compared to yours; they either match your belief or they don't, and there's no gray zone. However, if you examine a person's belief on its own, then there certainly can be a "range of belief."

[Vexx]

You go with the evidence you have and keep collecting more evidence. You modify your model as you go along.

If you aren't doing that then, you've sort of stopped thinking.

[Endless Soul]

I don't believe there is a all powerful omnipresent-yet-invisible god or gods, however I do believe that there are beings in the universe that are far older and much more learned than our own kind, which to us, would look like gods.

Endless "Universe" Soul

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

In a way, atheism is no different from other religions compared with agnosticism. Whether you believe in God or believe that there is no god, you're choosing to believe in something that isn't based on evidence. That is, there is no direct evidence that God exists, but there is also no direct evidence that God does not exist. No matter what anyone says, neither can directly be proven.

You know, there could be a Giant Swiss Cheese floating in the Atlantic Ocean, and I can't completely disprove that there is one, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to hem and haw about it. If someone were to tell me that this Cheese exists, I'm going to say "you're wrong, it doesn't". When someone shows me physical evidence of the Cheese, then I'll change my mind, but I'm not going to entertain that every absurd thing out there might exist.

If no evidence exists pertaining to something's existence, the automatic stance pretty much everyone takes is a negative. There's no reason that God should be given any special treatment. If I'm God Agnostic, I have to be Giant Cheese agnostic and everything else agnostic too.

[Qilin]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If no evidence exists pertaining to something's existence, the automatic stance pretty much everyone takes is a negative. There's no reason that God should be given any special treatment. If I'm God Agnostic, I have to be Giant Cheese agnostic and everything else agnostic too.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging possibilities. For example, even if I say that fairies, flying pigs, or even a Giant Swiss Cheese crossing over the Atlantic might exist, the fact is that the chance remains astronomically low in the absence of evidence. Given such a low probability, there's really no reason to reject any claims outright since such claims are much too unlikely to influence any sort of change in thought. Take note that skepticism is a neutral position rather than a negative one, so indiscriminate rejection is no different from covering your ears to anything outside your own perspective.

Claims of "possibility" or "impossibility" can only be used relative to a particular framework. As such, insistence on claiming the impossibility of something is to claim the infallibility of a particular knowledge construct.