What is your Religion (if any)

[Kukul-Kan]

Atheists believe religiously in the non-existence of God, and if you dare question God’s non-existence they can act as the worst religious fanatics.

The problem I see with them is that their “religion” is not believing in God in the same way religious people believe in Him/Her/Them.

That’s why I can understand agnosticism much better than Atheism.

I'm Roman Catholic by the way.

[xxx]

K, the problem I see with atheists is that the denial of a supreme being defeats any purpose for humans in life, and leaves us dumped in a position where our very existance has the same reason of being than that of a rat.

Besides, if I were an atheist, why should I stick to any morality, ethics, or respect to anything or anyone?

A hippyish pagan, or even a primitive animist, is times more valuable than an atheist from any human point of view.

On the other hand Agnosticism, or at least my view on Agnosticism, does not deny the existance of a god, it simply makes no claims about the details of that god.

[rusalka]

Mynydd said:

K, the problem I see with atheists is that the denial of a supreme being defeats any purpose for humans in life, and leaves us dumped in a position where our very existance has the same reason of being than that of a rat.

Besides, if I were an atheist, why should I stick to any morality, ethics, or respect to anything or anyone?

I think this approach rather puts down the whole of humanity as "immoral mammals"; suggesting that their only reason to do good is the fear of a "supreme being". Well, I beg to differ. Ethics and morality have been around for a while and that "while" goes way back than any monotheistic belief system. The Norsemen had a strong sense of morals and ethics, directed to them by their being of a certain tribe. Their values were a part of their identity. Ancient Greeks and most philosophers, among them Socrates, having been labeled as an "atheist" had a strong sense of morals and duty.

Think Delphic Maxims. Think Stoics. Think Marcus Aurelius. Actually go get a copy and read it, it's a treasure of ancient morality and values in a nutshell. Rather straightforward and doesn't go around telling stories about people getting lost in whales' bellies and rather more on the sensible side but I'm sure it still appeals to a couple of people when it comes to "ethics" and "morality". I would like to point out that Marcus Aurelius was, of course, a pagan Roman Emperor, in case anyone had doubts what with him having strong values and such.

On the other hand Agnosticism, or at least my view on Agnosticism, does not deny the existance of a god, it simply makes no claims about the details of that god.

Agnosticism does not take *any* sides. Doesn't speculate on either if there is a God or not. It's not the details of the divinity, it's the whole notion of existance. The argument of agnosticism is that since we cannot know if there is a god or not (he or she (or them, if you like) doesn't seem to be much a people's person these days) we might as well not think about it. Buddhism, in fact, as the Buddha first teached it, is a good example of an agnostic faith. It's all about morals, values, the right path to living but never speculates on the existance of divinity and in fact, according to writings, Buddha deliberately shuns away from this question.


And my personal view on "religions" is, that each culture builds, or has built the best religious value system for itself. The Greek polytheism and the Roman Religion were great for Greeks and Romans. The Northern Faiths worked very well for the Northerners. Ditto for Oriental faiths: Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism (good thing that all these still survive). In fact, Hinduism is a good example of a still living polytheistic -hence pagan in the monotheistic sense- religion. No problems with morality or ethics is there?

I think Judaism had worked very well for the Hebrews, Islam for the Arabs and Jesus (or shall I say Yeoshua) was a great reformer of his own religion but did it really have to spread to Europe where both Christianity and Islam are actually alien to? Personally, I think not.

And as a side note for those who are inclined to see the whole of "pagandom" (and pagan is a word I really hate) as "new age hippies" -and I grant it, most of them, especially those in the US are- I suggest that they check out "native faiths" such as Lithuanian Romuva, Asatru, Norhvegr, Slavianstvo, Ukrainian Pravoslavya, Hellenism and Religio Romana. Far from bleary eyed hippies, I assure you.

[Melnorme]

rusalka said:

I think Judaism had worked very well for the Hebrews, Islam for the Arabs and Jesus (or shall I say Yeoshua) was a great reformer of his own religion but did it really have to spread to Europe where both Christianity and Islam are actually alien to? Personally, I think not.

Ah, but don't forget Judaism ( and Islam ) were 'alien' too at first.

www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/CanaaniteReligion.shtml

I'm not sure if your assignment of specific religions to specific continents isn't rather arbitrary. Good ideas spread...does it really matter from where? Whatever works...works.

[nobody you know]

Kukul-Kan said:

Atheists believe religiously in the non-existence of God, and if you dare question God’s non-existence they can act as the worst religious fanatics.

The problem I see with them is that their “religion” is not believing in God in the same way religious people believe in Him/Her/Them.

That’s why I can understand agnosticism much better than Atheism.

I'm Roman Catholic by the way.

ya totally agree

[Ioulianos]

The "punishment-reward" method ,is the proper way to train a dog,not a human.Unfortunally all 3 monotheistic religions are based in this motif.I think morality-ethics is about acting according your conciousness of what is right to do,not bacause of supreme orders,future punishments or afterlife bribes.

[Tautalos]

I am pagan, worshipper of Lusitanian and Latin Deities.

[citadel]

The problem with atheism is it has a gnostic nature. The truth is there are many things beyond the limits of our knowledge.

[xxx]

rusalka said:

I think this approach rather puts down the whole of humanity as "immoral mammals"; suggesting that their only reason to do good is the fear of a "supreme being". Well, I beg to differ. Ethics and morality have been around for a while and that "while" goes way back than any monotheistic belief system.

Your argument is right from a theoretical point of view. But try to imagine what it would be without the belief in the existance of an after-life "something".

The Norsemen had a strong sense of morals and ethics, directed to them by their being of a certain tribe. Their values were a part of their identity.

I think we would need a revision on the history of the norsemen, without the handicap of political correctness. I don't place them as an example of anything but barbaric behaviour. Oh, yes, Macedonians, Romans, Spaniards, ... all employed barbarism of some kind or another in their conquests, but the difference with the Vikings is still huge.

And, nevertheless, the Norsemen were pagan, not atheists.

Ancient Greeks and most philosophers, among them Socrates, having been labeled as an "atheist" had a strong sense of morals and duty.

Think Delphic Maxims. Think Stoics. Think Marcus Aurelius. Actually go get a copy and read it, it's a treasure of ancient morality and values in a nutshell.

They all lived in a society with religious beliefs. Again, don't think about atheist individuals but atheist societies.

Rather straightforward and doesn't go around telling stories about people getting lost in whales' bellies and rather more on the sensible side but I'm sure it still appeals to a couple of people when it comes to "ethics" and "morality".

There is more into religions than those simple tales. Are you suggesting that the philosophy of any religion is build around the story of someone travelling inside a whale's belly?

Agnosticism does not take *any* sides. Doesn't speculate on either if there is a God or not. It's not the details of the divinity, it's the whole notion of existance. The argument of agnosticism is that since we cannot know if there is a god or not (he or she (or them, if you like) doesn't seem to be much a people's person these days) we might as well not think about it.

Then, if that's an "official" definition on agnosticism, I might be out. I do believe (rather suspect) there must be a supreme being, a god or something like that. But I find that man has been giving this god a humanoid form to be able to understand it, and that is the foundation for all... most religious beliefs, no matter if they are monotheistic or polytheistic.

Then, around it, we've built a series of moral and ethic components in such a way that religions make up for a good platform for the spread of human rules of social behaviour. And, as an indirect result, every religion had developed according to the human sub-group that it belongs to.

Buddhism, in fact, as the Buddha first teached it, is a good example of an agnostic faith. It's all about morals, values, the right path to living but never speculates on the existance of divinity and in fact, according to writings, Buddha deliberately shuns away from this question.

See.. even in a world built around human ethics, there is a need to present them within a religious framework.

And my personal view on "religions" is, that each culture builds, or has built the best religious value system for itself.

On this point we seem to agree, though not completely...

The Greek polytheism and the Roman Religion were great for Greeks and Romans. The Northern Faiths worked very well for the Northerners. Ditto for Oriental faiths: Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism (good thing that all these still survive).

I doubt that Hinduism can be seen as a good value system for the Hindu society. Or may be I'm wrong about Hinduism. It may just be a personal perception from an outside vision.

In fact, Hinduism is a good example of a still living polytheistic -hence pagan in the monotheistic sense- religion. No problems with morality or ethics is there?

Some argue that the lack of belief on an after life punishment-reward make of Hindu a terrible society. I don't say I agree with it as I don't really know about Hinduism... is the re-incarnation based on deeds during one's life, or is it just a matter of "luck" or anything similar?

I think Judaism had worked very well for the Hebrews

So well that it has created a belief among Jews that they are virtually the only humans.

And as a side note for those who are inclined to see the whole of "pagandom" (and pagan is a word I really hate) as "new age hippies" -and I grant it, most of them, especially those in the US are- I suggest that they check out "native faiths" such as Lithuanian Romuva, Asatru, Norhvegr, Slavianstvo, Ukrainian Pravoslavya, Hellenism and Religio Romana. Far from bleary eyed hippies, I assure you.

Well, I don't know about many of those native faiths you speak about, but I'd be very surprised if they were worth to be taken seriously in present times. The Hellenic and Roman pantheons are nice as fetish of past times, but not for today's humans. If I ever get to see a pagan who is involved in something more serious than dancing naked around a firebone or similar rituals, I'll change my mind about pagans or some pagans. But so far all pagans I know are of that type.

[Tautalos]

What isn't Hinduism good for the Hindu society?

Why aren't the Hellenic and Roman pantheons available for the contemporary men?

[xxx]

Tautalos said:

What isn't Hinduism good for the Hindu society?

I don't see how pre-determinism can be good for any society or individual.

Why aren't the Hellenic and Roman pantheons available for the contemporary men?

In my view, if compared to higher concepts of spirituality and conceptions of a supreme being, they look a bit like fetichist religions. I'm not surprised when a Nordic claims to believe in their ancient gods. I am surprised when a Southerner does. Umh.. a god that controls war, a goddess that controls fertility, ... alright, if explained in other terms it could be valid somehow.

The argument of Christianism being fetichist too is not valid. Christian fetichism is the heritage of pagan beliefs. At least Christianism does have a more intelligent concept of their deity.

[Silveira]

The Hindu fanatics in India are not very sympathetic towards the Portuguese heritage and history of Goa, Damão and Díu, where the Portuguese introduced Catholicism which is still practiced by a large segment of the local population, especially in Goa. The BJP party changed the name of Bombay to Mumbai because "Bombay" was a word of Portuguese origin.

In the several decades since the invasion of Portuguese India, the Indian authorities have done their best to eliminate the use of Portuguese and promote the use of English. Ludicrous lies about imaginary persecutions carried out by the Portuguese inquisition are taught as fact in Indian schools.

[Graeme]

My parents are Roman Catholics. I don't like Christianity much and believe that the Jesus story is a lot of rubbish. I do have beliefs though, but they change regularly. I thought Buddhism was O.K until the supernatural stuff came up; being born out of side, speaking straight after being born etc. At the moment I am learning about Australian spiritual beliefs belonging to the Wurundjeri clan of the Woiworung nation. They are mainly creation stories and have nothing to do with fire and brimstone.

[geirr]

Ioulianos said:

The "punishment-reward" method ,is the proper way to train a dog,not a human

Punishment should never be used to train a dog or any animal for that matter.

[Tautalos]

«I don't see how pre-determinism can be good for any society or individual.»<br>
It can be good when it gives to someone a sense of duty and destiny.




«In my view, if compared to higher concepts of spirituality and conceptions of a supreme being, they look a bit like fetichist religions»<br>
Which «higher» conceptions of spirituality?



«I'm not surprised when a Nordic claims to believe in their ancient gods. I am surprised when a Southerner does.»<br>
Why, if the nordics also have some Gods very connected with specific functions?



«Umh.. a god that controls war, a goddess that controls fertility, ...»<br>
What's wrong about that?
Actually, it is a highly metaphysic vision of reality: the perception of the Divine dimension of each thing, being it the sky, the thunder, a woman's beaty or a man's courage.



«At least Christianism does have a more intelligent concept of their deity.»<br>
??