Thread: What's Your Religion?

I'm sure this sounds incredibly cliche, but my religion is simply the exploration of answers (and questions.)

I love religions and belief systems, there are too many awesome ones to choose. I'm forced to take the bits and pieces I like and combine them into an eclectic mess of meaningful substances.

I was "raised" Methodist, but it has virtually no bearing on what I believe. Spiritually, I feel fit, but by no means do I ascribe the things I see to a 'God', but my feelings toward some 'Godliness'.

Originally Posted by Xei

It doesn't make any sense. If you say free thought is a religion you are essentially just using the word 'religion' to mean something that nobody else uses it to mean. Is liking chocolate also a religion? How about the colour blue, is that a religion? Use words in an intentionally contrary way to mean things that nobody else uses them to mean if you really want to, but it isn't achieving anything or communicating a meaningful message. Which is what words are for.

Jeez, such hostility.

I agree that word "religion" usually refers to belief in a God or gods and/or a system of faith, worship, morals, and symbols that affect and define one's worldview. However, the term "religion" could also refer to anything to which someone ascribes supreme importance. It is not hard to imagine how something that one ascribes this level of importance to could mirror aspects of traditional religion beyond level of importance. So, yes, liking chocolate could definitely be a religion. If someone loves chocolate so much that not only to they devote a large portion of their time to chocolate, but also participate in public worship service (getting together with other chocolate lovers once a week to eat chocolate), then that could be their religion. Religion need not necessitate a belief in god. Many Buddhists consider themselves atheist. I still say that calling "freethinker" a religion (ok, loosely a religion) is valid. Freethinker connotates a belief system and ethics derived from that system. Freethinkers even have their own symbols, literature, movement leaders, and organizations.

Besides, the beautiful thing about language is its fluidity. A word can bend or stretch to include new ideas. I view the term "religion" as I view "art". I believe art can be defined as anything the artist deems art (see Marcel Duchamp). Similarly, a personal religion can be nearly anything a person deems to be his (or her) religion.

To answer the OP:
I mostly consider myself Tibetan Buddhist, but sprinkle in a little occult such as Tarot cards and palm reading.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

I agree that word "religion" usually refers to belief in a God or gods and/or a system of faith, worship, morals, and symbols that affect and define one's worldview. However, the term "religion" could also refer to anything to which someone ascribes supreme importance. It is not hard to imagine how something that one ascribes this level of importance to could mirror aspects of traditional religion beyond level of importance. So, yes, liking chocolate could definitely be a religion. If someone loves chocolate so much that not only to they devote a large portion of their time to chocolate, but also participate in public worship service (getting together with other chocolate lovers once a week to eat chocolate), then that could be their religion. Religion need not necessitate a belief in god. Many Buddhists consider themselves atheist. I still say that calling "freethinker" a religion (ok, loosely a religion) is valid. Freethinker connotates a belief system and ethics derived from that system. Freethinkers even have their own symbols, literature, movement leaders, and organizations.

Besides, the beautiful thing about language is its fluidity. A word can bend or stretch to include new ideas. I view the term "religion" as I view "art". I believe art can be defined as anything the artist deems art (see Marcel Duchamp). Similarly, a personal religion can be nearly anything a person deems to be his (or her) religion.

I say that I hate semantics but I must be secretly obsessed with it... I'm strangely drawn to this issue every time it comes up.

I think you're on the right track with a broad definition of religion. I'm fine with letting this guy have it his way, in a literal sense:

The definition of religion is completely arbitrary and based on an artificial and dubious set of criteria.

I classify things a bit differently, for instance when a person's beliefs are based upon rigid circular logic about some infallible source of knowledge, I call that person a Dogmatist. But sometimes I use the word Inquisitor, especially if their dogma dictates anyone who is not converted to it will be posthumously tortured. Some people don't follow a strict tradition but apply a very reductionist, conceptually feasible model to esoteric concepts and ignore the complex relationship between the innerverse and outerverse et. al. This is a hard label to apply but I see them everywhere in the esoteric community. And I call them nutcases.

None. But God still loves me...

Originally Posted by Abra

I believe in all religions equally.

Not me. I refuse to believe that Scientology exists.

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

Jeez, such hostility.

I agree that word "religion" usually refers to belief in a God or gods and/or a system of faith, worship, morals, and symbols that affect and define one's worldview. However, the term "religion" could also refer to anything to which someone ascribes supreme importance. It is not hard to imagine how something that one ascribes this level of importance to could mirror aspects of traditional religion beyond level of importance. So, yes, liking chocolate could definitely be a religion. If someone loves chocolate so much that not only to they devote a large portion of their time to chocolate, but also participate in public worship service (getting together with other chocolate lovers once a week to eat chocolate), then that could be their religion. Religion need not necessitate a belief in god. Many Buddhists consider themselves atheist. I still say that calling "freethinker" a religion (ok, loosely a religion) is valid. Freethinker connotates a belief system and ethics derived from that system. Freethinkers even have their own symbols, literature, movement leaders, and organizations.

What is the belief system of freethinkers?

Certainly freethinkers don't share an ethical system... good luck reconciling hedonism or nihilism with humanism..?

I'm not being hostile, I just didn't agree with you. If you'd like me to patronise you and wrap my opinions up in blankets of fuzz then I can do that for you, but in my opinion you respect somebody by being honest with them.

I agree that the rich history and psychological origin of religion can provide beneficial ways of living. Retaining the concept of "sacred" for example might just be taking full advantage of our evolutionary developments if we carry it into the age of scientific perspective. It could embellish reality and the situation of humanity in a way that's more heartfelt and exciting. Giving a kind of humbling importance to the natural world, the future of humanity, exploration, etc. While it wouldn't be "religious" it would be coming directly from the human sensations that made religion inevitable for every human culture. So I think that religion could have some things to offer in example for how we should regard certain things.

Originally Posted by Xei

What is the belief system of freethinkers?

Certainly freethinkers don't share an ethical system... good luck reconciling hedonism or nihilism with humanism..?

I'm not being hostile, I just didn't agree with you. If you'd like me to patronise you and wrap my opinions up in blankets of fuzz then I can do that for you, but in my opinion you respect somebody by being honest with them.

I apologize if I misunderstood your disagreement as hostility. Seriously, I don't care if you think freethinker is a religion or not. It is more of semantic point since you said I wasn't using words to communicate anything meaningful. Of course I don't mean that freethinker is literally a religion the way Christianity or Islam is. My point was that, since language is fluid, someone saying that freethinker is their religion is meaningful. If I said "Heavy Metal music is my religion" - that is not a meaningless statement. It means that I have a religious-like devotion to Heavy Metal. I was not trying to convince you that freethinker is a religion. I was merely demonstrating how freethinker could be considered to be one's religion under certain circumstances.

Really, we are arguing two different points here. You are arguing philosophy and I am arguing semantics.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

None. But God still loves me...

It is my nature; don't fret.

I'm not a religious being, I'm a spiritual being. There are great lessons and information to take from all types of mythology the world over. The problem is when people get fanatical about it and portray such matters to the point of literalism, when such discussions and ideas are meant to be cryptic.

Originally Posted by Warheit

I'm not a religious being, I'm a spiritual being. There are great lessons and information to take from all types of mythology the world over. The problem is when people get fanatical about it and portray such matters to the point of literalism, when such discussions and ideas are meant to be cryptic.

I don't think they're meant to be crypitc (at least, not the ones worth taking seriously), most of them are just... really old, and people are generally bad at imagining the original context.

Who is one to decide what should be taken seriously? Why can't they all be? All the myths and stories from a given group of people have reasoning behind them. The key is finding the reasons, not taking a literal interpretation from them. The linguistic and metaphorical nature of myth indicates that they are cryptic. Part of the journey is discovering and finding out. It isn't something you will just *get* at a seconds glance. It takes a lifetime.

I basically agree with you, I think that all belief systems come together into a wonderful mosaic of human experience, and I think that the more of it I can comprehend, the more complete my own existence is, although it is a difficult undertaking. But, the point I was making by that is that it doesn't seem like all belief systems were honest attempts to relate humans to their universe; I have these ideas about certain social strata being closer to god, that common people were once told that the deeper truths were to complicated for them to understand. I don't think that any honest religious tradition is ever *meant* to be cryptic. Maybe that was just a unintended implication in your statement.

I did take care to say "take seriously", instead of "pay attention to"; even the ulterior motives of the more unsavory religions can be learned from.

I don't subscribe to any religion specifically, but I like elements of Tibetan Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and some later Taoism (Zhuangzi's 'philosophical Taoism'). A lot of it, whilst subjective, is highly intuitive and psychological... without recourse to externalised magic. I would say said elements are intuitive and subjective in the same sense that lucid dreaming is. And with focus on consciousness, mind and simplicity, I can't not like 'em.

You do have to read things metaphorically, and not literally. Eastern traditions are known for that.

For instance, "And X practiced for a 1000 years!" - It just means practice diligently and for a long time.

In fact, 1000 years = a long time. They're both unclear. In the West, we're just used to the latter as it makes more intuitive sense, despite its vagueness.

Nonsense people simply lived much longer back then

You'd be surprised how many people are immediately put off because they see such obvious metaphors in a literal sense. Actually, no you wouldn't.

I find when someone attempts to mix logistics with myth, it's like putting filet mignon and ice-cream in a blender, then tasting the final result and claiming that ice-cream is terrible.

I'm slowly becoming a Buddhist.

Once you realize that you don't need a religion, it's fun to have one. It's fun to 'chant and ring bells', but if you think you need these things, they will drag you down. By that same token, sometimes I think it's fun to be a Christian, sometimes it's fun to be a Hindu, etc.

I'd throw myself into Druidism, if I had to narrow it down. Nature, you awesome ^.^

I'm an agnostic atheist ^_^ I believe that a god or supernatural entity is about as likely as if "... between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit...". Both of these things are as equally impossible to disprove as they are improbable. So while I certainly would never say that there definitely are no supernatural entities, I would expect them to exist about as much as I would expect the tooth-fairy to exist.

All that being said, I am certainly no less capable of feeling an immensity of passion, emotion and meaning about significant concepts or phenomena than a religious, or "spiritual" person. I have had many spontaneous moments of rapture that someone with a more religious or spiritual mindset would describe as a supernatural, transcendental or religious experience. I see no reason to believe that anything outside the laws of physics exists, so I would ascribe such experiences to the wonders of the human brain and the physical universe.

That is not to say, however, that I find in such moments no significance or meaning. I am completely perplexed by those who assume that you need to believe in something outside of the laws of physics in order to be able to derive meaning from events or phenomena. Why should I need to believe in some sort of divine purpose or plan to ascribe purpose, meaning or significance from things? Yes, I believe that when I have a moment of rapture, all that is happening is that certain chemicals are being released in certain quantities in my body (that is to say, that it is a purely physical happening). But that subtracts no wonder from such an event to me! I do not find such a concept austere, in the sense that it is then impotent and lacks mystery. I am amazed by the perplexing intracacy of the physical universe, and I need nothing more than all that is to feel such rapture.

"The Cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths. Of exquisite interrelationships. Of the awesome machinery of nature" - Carl Sagan

I do not separate feelings, emotion, and meaning from science and physical phenomena. I feel much the same way when I look out upon a beautiful view or contemplate the immensity of the cosmos as a Christian would when singing praises to God and imagining the Holy Spirit moving through the crowd. Only I do not perscribe to any "... collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I am not bounded by the confines of dogmatism. I believe that such a stance is fundamentally detrimental, not only at the level of the individual, but at a cultural and societal level as well. I take the utmost pains to second guess every one of my beliefs. I strive to look at all things rationally and sceptically, to raise my mind's eye out above the mists of custom, that they might not be bound there and subjected to abject, despotic rule, by the whim of the collective, and the tacit consent of the majority. One should never be afraid to test the temper of the blade of their beliefs upon that of its contrary, that it may either shatter under the weight of truth, or be rendered victorious.

Do more for others than for yourself.

Shout out to secular humanism