Poll: What's your religion?

[Higurashi]

You are quite right, Iron Ninja. Scandinavian mythology is the coolest.
If I was religious, I would be a Buddhist. But the fact of the matter remains, I am more of a philosophical person, and thus, you may understand how I integrate Buddhism in my life. It is more of a philosophy to me.
But technically, I'd be an atheist then, in spite of being so spiritual.
Used to hate religion like the plague as I saw it to be a great tool of power. I still do, but I have an understanding for the people believing in it.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Druidism? what about wicha? its not that fringe and less "aggressive" than Christianity...

I suppose if I were to claim "religion" it would be the humble Christian god of love and peace.

If I boil it down more I believe in "god" and believe god/God is beyond human nature and comprehension, I believe god/God/faith is light,love I believe that pettiness, ignorance, arrogance deviousness is Satan work(darker nature,evil,ect), I believe in hell but for demons, begins that evolved beyond human sensibilities(viciousness,curtly,spite and hatred beyond logic and reason).

Mmmm I think I just made the world my emeny 0-o



edit
BTW god/God dose not have to be a being in a human image, on the contrary while it is kind and caring in a stern and aloof way it is still a conscious beyond "us".

 

[Ares Tyr]

I just realized that what I believe falls under pantheism. Whaddyaknow? I guess I should have wiki'd that before I voted for other, because I didn't know that it meant that, haha.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

For all intents and purposes I'm an atheist (joins the dance), but I guess some would say that I'm agnostic, because I can't in good conscience rule out that a deity might exist. But that's only an allowance I have to make to science. In the "real" world I regard that possibility as negligible.

That being said, should it be found that a deity indeed exists, I would choose not to "believe" in it (as in adhere to teachings), only acknowledge the existence. I wont, in the words of Hitchens, live in a celestial dictatorship.
So my vote goes to non-religious.

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

100% Atheist and proud of it.
I think that if science can prove that mankind evolved from apes, then why can't it explain how the Earth and the universe came into existence, we just don't know how yet.

I was reading Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and there is a a childish explaination for the existence of God:

'I bet you I can prove God exists!'
'Bet you can't'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now is that perfect perfect perfect thing real?'
'No, it's only in my mind'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All Atheists are fools'.

Ah, lulz all around.

Also do people forget that men wrote the Bible, not God?

 

[Xalmar]

I grew up with Christianity, since the family on my mother's side are pretty heavily into it, but now I'd classify myself as an agnostic. I have a hard time beleiving in the Christian view of God, but I don't beleive that there isn't any kind of higher power, just that whoever or whatever it is is beyond the realm of human understanding. It'll all be made clear when we die, so I don't worry much about it.

 

[laikenf]

I don't consider myself an athiest, but I'm not a religious person either. I was raised as a catholic, but at around 13 I just stopped going to church, I just don't feel I have faith, which is something that you must carry inside in order to believe in a higher power, and faith my friends is something you cannot teach to any human being, it is aquired through personal experiences and emotions.

 

[Calmaveth]

"Non-religious" isn't a religion. Also, why have you not included Pastafarianism - it is surely just as (if not a little more) legitimate a religion as the others listed?

 

[EeveeElectro]

Atheist

My opinion is, if God exists he hates me. I'm not going to love someone who doesn't love me back.


*waits to be attacked by bibles*

 

[BigKingBob]

What the hell is "the left hand path"?

 

[islagatt]

Being as I am genuinely afraid of religion's effects on people, I have none. I do however have tremendous faith in the existence of higher powers- and further in the potential of humanity to grow beyond even those bounds. I suppose then I would label myself polytheist.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

Philosophically Buddhist. I don't care if there's an afterlife or reincarnation since I live to make myself better and to treat people well anyway. I don't worship anything, but don't mind meditating on important figures of history for the ideas they represent.

I was reading Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and there is a a childish explaination for the existence of God:

'I bet you I can prove God exists!'
'Bet you can't'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now is that perfect perfect perfect thing real?'
'No, it's only in my mind'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All Atheists are fools'.

I was utterly atheist before and studied that argument (no it didn't change my mind). I forget the name of it (it is famous), but it says "If God is the greatest thing ever by definition how can he be contained only in imagination? Since imagination is less than reality and God is all encompassing he by logic of this definition can only exist in reality."

It's easier to show the above in a 2x2 matrix showing combination of In Reality/In Imagination and Does/Doesn't Adhere to Definition. The argument was (supposedly) intended to prove that God could exist even under the auspices of Logic, but doesn't account for many things (much like the 'brain in a box' stuff DesCartes discussed), such as whether the 'God' would be "sentient" or magnanimous. Of course the logic is also tied up in language due to the definition part.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

What the hell is "the left hand path"?

Satanism, Cthulhu-worship, black magic (or possibly black magick), that sort of thing. Revering the Forces of Darkness and Evil.

 

[Death Magnetic]

Satanism, Cthulhu-worship, black magic (or possibly black magick), that sort of thing. Revering the Forces of Darkness and Evil.

Sounds jolly.

 

[GothmogII]

What the hell is "the left hand path"?

Satanism, Cthulhu-worship, black magic (or possibly black magick), that sort of thing. Revering the Forces of Darkness and Evil.

People worship Cthulu? -_- Well...not the weirdest thing/person/un-imaginable entity one could worship. Although...the only real prospects you've got there is becoming a Deep One...even then you're more than likely to be driven mad.

Pheh, screw Cthulu! (please don't hurt me o Dread Lord!) Shub-Niggurath is -the- Great Old One to worship, all hail The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!

 

[s0ap sudz]

Atheist, like a lot of others here. Religion is bullshit to me, to put it bluntly.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I've noticed that some seem to think that not following a faith means that you are a bad person with nothing but evil in your heart.

Well I am, but it's incidental to the atheism

.
I think that if science can prove that mankind evolved from apes

Which is amazing, because we didn't.

We evolved from some ape-looking thing.

 

[Barkotron the Magnificent]

I was utterly atheist before and studied that argument (no it didn't change my mind). I forget the name of it (it is famous), but it says "If God is the greatest thing ever by definition how can he be contained only in imagination? Since imagination is less than reality and God is all encompassing he by logic of this definition can only exist in reality."

It's easier to show the above in a 2x2 matrix showing combination of In Reality/In Imagination and Does/Doesn't Adhere to Definition. The argument was (supposedly) intended to prove that God could exist even under the auspices of Logic, but doesn't account for many things (much like the 'brain in a box' stuff DesCartes discussed), such as whether the 'God' would be "sentient" or magnanimous. Of course the logic is also tied up in language due to the definition part.

It's the (or one of the) Ontological Argument(s) for the proof of God and it's patent bollocks, although tracking down exactly why it's bollocks has been a pastime of philosophers for several hundred years. Wikipedia actually has a pretty interesting and reasonably well-researched article on it/them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

I do find it interesting that it has progressed from something which was once conceived as a more or less reasonable proof (it wasn't ever really generally accepted) of god's existence towards something which is laughed at as blatantly ridiculous.

As for me, Dawkins gets my vote.

 

[Snik]

<--- Mormon