Religion

[AzrailX]

 Ok I know this is a controversial topic,but it is worth discussion.What are your views on it?
  Personally I used to be a Christian,but became an atheist/Satanist because I doubt in God's existence.
  Now before you judge me,go and read into Satanism to find out what it's about.It's actually an atheist philosophy.
Satan represents the unknown factor of nature that permeates the cosmos.They actually have a Satanic Bible in print if you didn't know. A websearch might reveal more.
  I think religion is man made.
  The reasons I doubt in God's existence is look at all the cataclysms the human species has endured since the beginning of time.Evolution was kind to allow us to get this far.Based on the signs of the times,Mankind is danger of wiping itself out as we all know.Sadly,religionists wait for heaven and don't think of solving our problems in the world today,some of which they contribute to unconciously.
   What about all the killing in the name of God?God forbids it,but wills it when it so pleases him in the Bible and Koran.Heaven is built on a pile of bodies too high for anyone to get through.
   I commend religionists for their often times charitable views,but don't believe I'm going anywhere when I die.
Death is the end of it for me.
  Instead of mimicking Jesus in a righteous race,why not be hospitable just for the sake of preserving our species, which is critically ill?
    The dinosaurs were wiped out,what makes people think that someone will save them from life on Earth becoming a literal Hell?

[Baal Hadad]

I was wondering when there was going to be a proper thread on religion.

Anyway, as I said on another thread, my own views are panistic--which doesn't mean I worship the Greek god Pan, although I might give that as a "jokey" answer if people didn't know (might throw in something about Peter Pan as well in that case).  Basically, and this comes from my own observations and from a heavily scientific background (though also some philosophy/religion/other humanities thrown in there as well), what I believe is that everything that is possible is real.

I believe that we're all made of the same stuff ultimately, and while we can be broken down into constituent parts (strings or branes or whatever subatomic particles), these are fundamentally the same, and primarily exist in terms of how they impact and are impacted by others.  Therefore, while they remain separate themselves, they're like grains of clay which can be taken apart, put together, molded and shaped into any number of forms.  Thus I believe that any differences between, say, you and me are illusory and ultimately meaningless.  We're all part of a single UBER-self, which I like to call the Pan (means "all").

I also believe that all these entities are eternal, as science tells us that nothing is created or destroyed, it only changes form--and also conscious, as I have no way of explaining our consciousness unless everything is.  Thus "the Pan" is a conscious entity that we all make up, which is the closest thing to "God" that I believe, although I don't like to use the word "God."

Also, since quantum mechanics tells us that multiple realities exist and can interact with each other, I believe that every choice we make is not really a choice at all from the point of view of the Pan--it's simply a "splitting" of consciousness into two or more paths being traced into the Pan's face.  And since these can interact with each other, my only explanation for such effects on a macroscopic scale would be paranormal phenomena, which I'm not convinced is mere hokum.

I'm not one of those wackos who's quick to believe in psychic abilities and clairvoyance and such (nor do I pay any "professional" mind-readers for their supposed craft), but neither do I dismiss it outright.  Things happen that can't be explained by science, and I accept that.  Perhaps it is indeed a conscious "Pan" interacting with itself and allowing us, the pieces that make It up, to become aware of more than what is our right, which is our surroundings in the present and our pasts.

As for a "why," I can't explain that, but why does any conscious being do what it does?  Maybe having a better idea of the nature of things makes us more likely to act in harmony with it?  I've never had a paranormal/spiritual encounter myself, so I can't speculate on that for now.  Anyway, I believe that the Pan can't change fundamentally because it's effectively the sum total of all possible information in every location, past, present, and future.

Anyway, that's more or less what I believe just at present, the sum total of decades of learning information and trying to make some sense out of it all, and I call it "panism."

[Kipiru]

  Personally I used to be a Christian,but became an atheist/Satanist because I doubt in God's existence.
 

How can you be an atheist if you follow Satanism? An atheist should not believe in godly entities at all, including Satan. And don't hide it behind a philosophy, you can have a view even without associating yourself with a cult. The moment you say you follow a believe carrying the name of an entity- you are not an atheist. I'm not a religious fanatic, but I do follow christian holydays and go to church from time to time. My idea of god is, in my opinion, quite progressive. I believe that where humanity is considered- god is goodness, an idea of higher morale amongst people. For the universe, god is the laws that make reality tick- laws of physics and the universe. I never imagine a mild bearded man or some glowing entity in the sky. But I believe in the idea that god is a necessity as far as the need for man to believe in something higher than him and his petty life. All pseudo religions that search for a way to justify acts otherwise forbidden by official religion are just that- pitiful excuses. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I'm a big hater of sects.

[VSMIT]

Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

[Jairus]

I'm a baptized Presbyterian, but I'm basically atheist by this point. My reasons for this are somewhat hard to explain, and at the end of the day they're probably as convoluted as a religious person's reasons for believing in their chosen deity. However, I also feel that there's nothing wrong with believing in a god or following a religion, and respect the beliefs of others... provided they in turn respect my choices and what I believe in, as well as the beliefs of others, and let us believe in what we want to. And I'm actually kinda tired, and don't think I can go much deeper into this at this time. Maybe tomorrow.

[Darkdragon]

Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

I agree. I find agnosticism a fairly good middle ground which most people don't disagree with.

I also think the person who publicized the concept of a heaven for those who believe in their religion a genius. It has, probably single-handedly changed western history much more than any other concept.

On Satanism: Depends on who you ask - LaVey's Satanic Bible does state that Satanism is the worship of self (Best represented by the section on Satanist holidays, where LaVey stated your birthday, on the grounds that no other day could be more important to you as a person than the date of creation), and embraces Satan as an image against the selfless promotion the Christian church glorifies. However, there are sects which do worship Satan as they would revere any god.

[Baal Hadad]

Agnosticism for me.  Keeps people out of my hair about religion.

I agree. I find agnosticism a fairly good middle ground which most people don't disagree with.

I also think the person who publicized the concept of a heaven for those who believe in their religion a genius. It has, probably single-handedly changed western history much more than any other concept.

Technically "heaven" is just the sky.  I think what you mean is the idea of an eternal paradise in the afterlife for virtuous deeds, which isn't always called "heaven" and isn't always in the sky.

[Darkdragon]

Technically "heaven" is just the sky.  I think what you mean is the idea of an eternal paradise in the afterlife for virtuous deeds, which isn't always called "heaven" and isn't always in the sky.

Yes, that's true. I also apologize for not also looking at the less mainstream religions as their versions of paradise in afterlife. I think this is time I need to go to sleep so I don't make any more embarrassing lexical blunders. >.>

[Janus Whitefurr]

Born and raised as a Roman Catholic, complete with going to church and 'sunday' school as a child. Confessions, holy communion, confirmation... then when I reached around high school I just kind of stopped believing (this may tie in with the fact we also stopped attending church). I tend not to get into religious debates because it gets chaotic far, far too easily (especially online). I suppose I'm a technical agnostic (the definitions seem to change every few weeks amongst arguing types, so I don't know.) in that unless I see it for myself I'm not going to believe it, but I'm not particularly against the idea of the supernatural.

But again, I tend to hinge on the science side of "show me some nice solid evidence and I'll be happy". At least when the hardcore fundies get involved. I actually tend not to think about it much at all unless it... well... comes up. I do have to say the only thing I really missed about church is the fact that during that transitional stage between child and adult, most of the clergy here would refer to the youths as "young masters". Master always had a nice ring to it, always considered it cooler than "Mister", heh.

Master Janus~

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'm in for Apathetic Agnosticism. I don't think there's enough evidence either for, or against, a god-like entity, and I have better things to do with my time than argue with meat-headed morons who are determined to force it down my throat. Not that I'm suggesting anyone here is doing so, mind; you lot are more polite than that. ;-]

* llearch n'n'daCorna puts on mod hat*

I was wondering when there was going to be a proper thread on religion.

The mods tend to watch closely, as religion tends to be one of those "hot button" ideas where it can get out of hand quickly.

As long as everyone is polite and rational, we'll let it go on, but we are watching, and will step in and end it, should it take a turn for the worse.

* llearch n'n'daCorna doffs mod hat*

As you were...

[Vidar]

I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

I was raised as a fundamentalist christian (young earth creationist, waiting for jesus to return, etc). At some point I started taking a closer look at my faith, and found it faulty.
That was when I decided not to believe something just because someone said so, or because any holy book said so, but based on evidence and reason.
Since then I found ever more cracks in religion. It tends to make claims to know things it can't know, claims to grant abilities that defy the laws of physics to the 'true believer', and never, ever promotes questioning of anything.
The leaders of the various faiths also don't exactly inspire me to join any religion.

I'm currently an atheist, as most of you probably know by now.
Largely due to my upbringing in a very strickt religious environment, I now have a bitter hatred for religion. I find it authoritarian, opressive, and full of lies. It promotes ignorance, and condemns asking questions. In most religions even having doubts is punishable by eternal suffering in whatever hell it proposes. It almost invariably proclaims to have to complete, total and absolute truth, and continues to do so even after it can be shown to be wrong about damn near everything. I could go on, but then this post would turn into a rant.

[Mao]

How can you be an atheist if you follow Satanism?

Satanism isn't following the "devil" of Christianity.  That's Devil Worship.  Satanism is essentially a, pardon the slightly disparaging sounding description, a self-centered belief set.  Essentially they believe that there is no greater entity than themselves.  This is a very similar view that is ascribed to the biblical character Satan.  As such, it's impossible for them to believe in any divine or higher power.

There's more to it than that, by far, but that's the gist of it.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

You'll not anger us unless you start aiming the bile ;-]

Having said that, I note that you're generalising wildly; "all religion is like" rather than "every religion I've met". I find it's important to separate the difference between "my experience" and "this is what things are like". My experience leads me to agree with you, generally speaking, but I've run across some variations that suggest to me that it's more likely the people you're talking to, rather than the religion as a whole.

In other words, it's not religion, but how it's applied, that you're objecting to. Try talking to some Jesuits, just as an example; they seriously push for learning, and questioning things, and some of the more interesting scientific achievements have been done either by Jesuits, or by Jesuit-trained scholars. That factoid there doesn't gel with the "all religions stifle curiosity" stance you appear to be espousing above. I may be misunderstanding your explanation, of course, in which case I await, with interest, your response and clarification.

The better teachers of faiths don't tell you "this is what is; don't question it", in my experience; they tend to go for "this is how we see it, and this is what leads us to that conclusion; if you disagree, what information leads you to that? How can we correct our understanding? And can we help clarify your own?"

... This might just be I end up talking to some aberrant people, of course. *grin*

[Vidar]

I'll try not to anger the GodsMods too much while I spew my bile about religion.

You'll not anger us unless you start aiming the bile ;-]

Having said that, I note that you're generalising wildly; "all religion is like" rather than "every religion I've met". I find it's important to separate the difference between "my experience" and "this is what things are like". My experience leads me to agree with you, generally speaking, but I've run across some variations that suggest to me that it's more likely the people you're talking to, rather than the religion as a whole.

It was a generalisation for the sake of brevity. Not all instances of religion are equally abominable, but I do believe they all have at their heart a set of lies that enslave peoples minds to their dogma.
It's not just the people I talk to, like a certain church lady that is trying to convert me to her own security-blanket version of religion, but also with religion itself.
All religions (whithout exception) postulate something supernatural (if it doesn't, then it isn't religion). The supernatural, by definition, can't be observed, or measured in any way, directly, or indirectly, and is therefore unknowable. The religions then state things about the supernatural (be it god, heaven, a 'spirit plane', etc) as if these are fact, and not the mere baseless speculation it really is. Even the most benign (IMHO) religion that I know of ,buddhism, does this by invoking things like reincarnation and whatever realm the Buddha went to after he died.
None of these claims are based on evidence, because there can be no evidence for the supernatural since it is unknowable. That means that these claims are imagined, made up. They are lies.

In other words, it's not religion, but how it's applied, that you're objecting to. Try talking to some Jesuits, just as an example; they seriously push for learning, and questioning things, and some of the more interesting scientific achievements have been done either by Jesuits, or by Jesuit-trained scholars. That factoid there doesn't gel with the "all religions stifle curiosity" stance you appear to be espousing above. I may be misunderstanding your explanation, of course, in which case I await, with interest, your response and clarification.

I don't know all that much about the jesuits, but even if they do promote learning and questioning things, do they include their own religion in that stance?
Even if they do, that means that they are a small minority, and that doesn't make religion all that more benign.
Critical thought is highly corrosive to religion, since for every supernatural claim religion makes the listner only has to ask 'how do they know that'. The answer points almost invariable to blind faith or a holy book or a combination thereof, and not to demonstrable facts.

The better teachers of faiths don't tell you "this is what is; don't question it", in my experience; they tend to go for "this is how we see it, and this is what leads us to that conclusion; if you disagree, what information leads you to that? How can we correct our understanding? And can we help clarify your own?"

... This might just be I end up talking to some aberrant people, of course. *grin*

Most religious people I meet are more interested in converting me to their particular version of whatever faith they have, or they only ask questions that 'strengthen their faith' while cheerfully ignoring everything that goes against it. The church-lady I mentioned earlier is one example: whenever I make a point that she can't reason around she'll be quiet for a moment, and then ignores it completely with some appeal to emotion or an appeal to the imagined authority of the bible.
The only teachers of religion I've met have been preachers, and they all state their position as fact from the pulpit at people who are convinced that the preacher is always right. If you ask pointed questions to them then they'll instruct you to pray to god to help you understand the bible better or something along those lines.

I've never seen anyone either give a good answer to questions like "How do you know that all these claims of the supernatural are true?", nor have I ever seen any religious person revise his faith.
Most religious people can't question their faith because they have made it part of their own identity. Making changes to their faith is as difficult as re-arranging the bones in your own hand. Letting go of religion is even harder: it would be the spiritual equivalent of tearing off one of your limbs. This rigid position makes if often extremely frustrating to talk to devoutly religious people.

Poeple who are willing to closely examine their religious beliefs and correct them where they are wrong would, IMHO, quickly become agnostics or atheists since the supernatural claims of religion are untenable.

[Mao]

Vidar, just out of curiosity, how many religions have you researched?  I ask this because I've studied quite a few trying to find one that I identified with and I noted that quite a few of them (though certainly not the majority by any stretch) have little or nothing to do with anything supernatural, but rather place an emphasis on self fulfillment and realization.  I'm not trying to pick at you, I am honestly curious.

[Vidar]

Vidar, just out of curiosity, how many religions have you researched?  I ask this because I've studied quite a few trying to find one that I identified with and I noted that quite a few of them (though certainly not the majority by any stretch) have little or nothing to do with anything supernatural, but rather place an emphasis on self fulfillment and realization.  I'm not trying to pick at you, I am honestly curious.

Mainly christianity, because that's the dominant one in the western world. I have some superficial knowledge about islam, judaism and buddhism, and very little about hinduism. All of these have the supernatural at their base through their god(s)/heaven(s)/hell/unicorns/etc.
What religion, according to you, has nothing to do with the supernatural?

[Sunblink]

I'm Unitarian Universalist. Granted, I tend to adopt a bit from a lot of religions as is common among Univeralists. The key is diversity. A little of column A, a little from column B. I find that my beliefs are rooted in the idea of an all-loving, all-forgiving God.

So basically, I'm a hippie.

However, I was baptized as a child. My mom is a Universalist as well, and I ended up following her in that respect because I believe this is a religion I really feel is right for me.

Here and here are some links to useful information about Unitarian Universalism.

[Mao]

When learning about my own path, I found that while the older Druids held a lot with the supernatural, that aspect has been dropped for more pragmatic views.  Another one that I feel doesn't have to be supernatural is Buddhism as to follow it one does not have to embrace anything supernatural (though there are many sects who do).

To counter that though, there are those who question whether or not both Buddhism and Modern Druidism are even religions.  Many would describe them as either life philosophies or dismiss them as spiritualism (which to me says Religion, but it seems that this might not be the case).

In many cases, it's the view of the practitioner that will decide whether or not the the supernatural sections are to be taken literally, or as nothing more than mythology.

Edit:  Felt I should add that this is where the real problem with the argument is going to show.  Religion is ill defined.  Religion seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and most of them don't agree.  I think this is the very same thing that came up last time this discussion reared it's ugly head.

[Vidar]

When learning about my own path, I found that while the older Druids held a lot with the supernatural, that aspect has been dropped for more pragmatic views.  Another one that I feel doesn't have to be supernatural is Buddhism as to follow it one does not have to embrace anything supernatural (though there are many sects who do).

To counter that though, there are those who question whether or not both Buddhism and Modern Druidism are even religions.  Many would describe them as either life philosophies or dismiss them as spiritualism (which to me says Religion, but it seems that this might not be the case).

In many cases, it's the view of the practitioner that will decide whether or not the the supernatural sections are to be taken literally, or as nothing more than mythology.

Edit:  Felt I should add that this is where the real problem with the argument is going to show.  Religion is ill defined.  Religion seems to mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and most of them don't agree.  I think this is the very same thing that came up last time this discussion reared it's ugly head.

But, if you take the supernatural as mere mythology, are you then not actually an atheist?

[Mao]

Not necessarily.  Atheism, as I understand it, actively rejects them.  Calls bullshit on them if you will.  I guess to my view you just call it mythology and form no further opinion on the matter.  Maybe mythology isn't the right word for me to use, but I've never been all that eloquent.

The best I can do, I guess, is describe it from my own view:  I don't know if there's gods or not, or if there is anything supernatural about.  I won't assume there is, I won't assume there isn't.  I don't have the knowledge to back up either claim.  Instead, I will refuse to form any opinion until I have enough information to, in my opinion, substantiate one or the other.  Until then it's just a question I'll keep with me.

I apologize now if this approach doesn't mesh well with the logical method in which you approach things or if it doesn't answer your question, but as I said:  I've never been all that eloquent.

[bill]

Not necessarily.  Atheism, as I understand it, actively rejects them.  Calls bullshit on them if you will. 

I don't think it's 100% accurate to say this either. I certainly don't try to actively discredit religion, because I think that's just an assholish thing to do, but I don't buy into the "I won't assume there are, or aren't" view. I think there's a burden of proof for the supernatural to exist, and if it hasn't been proven, there's no reason to say that it might.

[Mao]

Which is part of the problem, I think, bill.  A lot of this stuff doesn't have a proper definition to it.  No one seems to be even on the same page about the terminology, and even if we agreed to a set here and now every one would likely be still colored by their own previous views on the terms.

To me, it's great to discuss this stuff, but it always seems so pointless as the exact same things happen every time.  This thread is even taking the exact same path as the last one that was like it.

[Vidar]

Which is part of the problem, I think, bill.  A lot of this stuff doesn't have a proper definition to it.  No one seems to be even on the same page about the terminology, and even if we agreed to a set here and now every one would likely be still colored by their own previous views on the terms.

To me, it's great to discuss this stuff, but it always seems so pointless as the exact same things happen every time.  This thread is even taking the exact same path as the last one that was like it.

That is a problem when discussing religion: every sect seems to have it's own definition of the various entities involved, if they have definitions at all.
For instance, my former sect of christianity held the belief that we are all trinities, like god, since we were made in god's image. A human supposedly has a body, soul and spirit, but no definition of either a soul or a spirit exists anywhere in the bible or in any other document that I've seen. I've asked what the difference is between a soul and a spirit, but all I got were non-answers like "we are not supposed to know", or "that's not really important", or "ask god in your prayers and maybe he'll give you the answer".

[Mao]

It goes even further than that, Vidar, in that there isn't a really stable definition of even what religion is.  Religion, as in the concept of religion not any particular one, means a lot of different things and everyone clings to their own view of it.  So it's no surprise that things that are called religions mean a lot of different things to people.

In the end, we've all got our own lives to live and experiences to color them.  We can say we're of one faith or another, try to put a label on it and what not, but no matter what you do it's all going to be completely different from person to person.  So rather than bother to point out the inadequacies or strengths of what one does or doesn't believe, why don't we all just walk our own paths?

[Alondro]

I would like to point out that the majority of 'Christian' religions focus very little on what Christ actually taught.  Jesus said, "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you".  In other words, if you want to learn, go ahead and keep looking for the answers.  Plus, the eternal hell concept was mainly a Greek-originating concept which Jesus used allegorically in parables, but when speaking factually about the punishment, the Greek/Hebrew terms translated as 'forever and ever' in Old English would be better translated as 'to the utmost end', indicating an absolute finality.  

Much Christian religion today is all about fear-mongering.  Same with Islam.  It's fundamentalist movements contrast vastly from its origins.

I follow the Commandments for the simple fact that they make more sense than the core laws of any other religion I've analyzed.  Let's take just the last 6 commandments, those that deal how we are to live with our fellow human beings.  If all people followed those laws, how much strife would be left in the world?  No murder, no theft, no adultery, no lies, no jealousy, and children behaving in an honorable way and obeying their parents; other than natural disasters, there would be no problems.

Now as far as people wondering why the world is so bad if God is so loving, you must really study to understand that.  It all came down to choice and why Lucifer became Satan.  The war in heaven was a battle of universal ideology: law and order vs anarchy and chaos.  This was not an easy battle.  Don't forget that Satan drew 1/3 of the host of heaven with him, a large percentage of beings which were (as far as we are told) eternal and vastly intelligent, which means his arguments must have been incredibly compelling and cleverly crafted!  This world, and perhaps others.   I highly doubt the 1/3 of all the host of heaven referred only to angelic entities.  Perhaps a full third of the universe followed Satan.  But that's only conjecture.  In any case, the result was that Satan was cast down and imprisoned here, according to the Bible.  The Garden of Eden, whether a real fact or only symbolism, demonstrated the beginning of a proof of concept case:  what would become of a world which chose Satan's way.  With 1/3 of the universe already following Satan and perhaps a good portion of the rest wondering, there had to be a test to put doubt to rest forever.  The test would be horrible, obviously, but with a universe at stake, it seems to have become the old adage "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".  And even then, God gave us a way out, by making a portion of his own being mortal to satisfy the letter of His law that death is the punishment for sin.  Basically, God, being omniscient, fit that little loophole into the framework for the disaster that was coming.

And that brings up another point I've heard made, that if God knew all of this was going to happen, why did He allow free will in the first place?  Well, simply "God is love".  He wished his creations to have minds of their own, for a robot cannot be happy, nor can it have any other emotions.  Without a will, a living thing is little more than a machine that only can move according to its programming.  A true Creator filled with love for the things He made could never simply create a universe filled with automatons.  It's a complex and difficult thing to understand.  Being a parent is the closest thing to it, which is why Jesus referred to us so often as God's children:  parents make rules for their children, they wish those rules to be obeyed, those who love their children make rules to keep their children safe and know that if followed, the rules will likely lead to the child becoming a responsible and good person.  Yet (most) know that their child must also make their own choices for some things, more and more as they mature.  They don't want their children to be nothing but obedient robots (and I would strongly argue that those who do don't even know what it means to love at all, and in a further extension of this concept, I would venture to say that most of the world today has never experienced actual love; being filled instead with lust, domination, and desire, which are purely selfish and lead to nothing but trouble) bound solely to the parents' will.

A parent knows that giving the child some freedom may lead the child to make painful mistakes, yet it is done out of love for the child.  It is the great contradiction of true love and freedom, that the one who receives these things is then able to harm themselves.  Our own basic constitutional laws hold a form of this, in that we grant freedoms of speech and religion and protect those freedoms even for those who spew nothing but hatred, for we feel that the freedom is an intrinsic right of intelligent life.  It is certain that the at least some of the founding fathers of the United States understood this, or else why would they write that God had endowed humanity with the basic rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  These things are true freedoms, given by true love, empathy and compassion.

I would also argue that mankind has proven that it strips away freedom when left to itself, for how many purely secular and anti-religious governments have ever led to freedom for the people under their rule?  Rather, such nations tend to quickly gravitate as much to brutality and oppression as the worst religious fundamentalism of the Dark Ages.

Atheism, as I see it, is no answer but instead the lack of an answer.  And the belief that the only thing important to a person is their own person is the very thing that leads to the demise of society.  A society functions best when all people care about each other.  Self-centeredness leads to apathy which leads to collapse.  It is also an extension of humanity's self-arrogance, the very arrogance that led man to believe he was the center of the entire universe for so many millennia.

If one decides to follow the Satanism philosophy of self-importance, yet also feels nations should show compassion, then they do not even believe in that Satanism!  The fullest extension of that belief removes the possibility for compassion and empathy, for those states require that one put one's own self-importance aside to help someone else.  The concepts are mutually exclusive by their very nature.  Any attempt to merge them is hypocritical.

And that's all from me for now because I'm out of time.  

[Cogidubnus]

I consider religion to be anything that a person believes that is true, and also bases their life and actions, as a larger whole, upon.

This is not to say that a person who believes that a sandwich with mayo has turned bad in the sun and does not eat it is acting our of religious impulse - although he may not -know- the sandwich with mayo is bad, and thus believes this to be so, he does not base his life's actions on the whole around the bad sandwich.
Were he to, however, cease eating sandwiches altogether, or indeed, to cease eating mayonnaise altogether, attempt to get other people to cease eating mayonnaise, attempt to get mayonnaise outlawed, espouse the evils of such condiment to whomever he could, and dedicate his life to the elimination of this sandwich greaser, to me, it would sound a little, perhaps, religious.

[Turnsky]

my own beliefs are simplistic enough, Born and raised roman catholic (complete with Eucharist medallion and whatnot) became rather disenchanted with the whole thing mid-way through high school, lost faith in the religious edifice entirely, as my grandfather put it, i still believe in "the bloke upstairs" but i also firmly believe that God, or any other higher power, isn't gonna do what man can do for himself. I am not a faithless man, i prefer to have more faith in myself, and relying on what i can do, instead of praying for 'divine intervention'.

I believe in the sanctity of all life, as well as that other religions shouldn't infringe or stamp out the beliefs of others. That one should not believe in a deity or others blindly, and without question, since that is idiocy.

Catholic Fear-mongering has been going for centuries, so old habits die hard.

Simple truth is, Fundamentalists twist the religion to their own ends, where it really does become the opiate of those people, and they follow that blindly, to the point where self preservation goes out the window.

i can hear people saying now "how can you not believe in the religious edifice if you believe in a higher power?" simply put? I believe that people are flawed beings, it's those flaws that make them interesting, but that also makes me not wish to have faith in flawed things. I'm not perfect either, but that's what makes things interesting.  

[Lysander]

Wow, just while reading through this topic 3 new posts were made.

Some people believe any religion is great, some believe none are, some believe only one religion is is the way, and I've even met some who believe that everyone will go to heaven as long as they don't belong to the religion that I do. It really doesn't matter how much physical evidence someone has, there really is no way to give physical evidence for any miracle in any bible. I find things like ancient structures that have been written about in the Bible quite interesting, but they don't prove that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons and I do believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but I know nothing I type will convince anyone of that. But still, even if you don't believe him to be godlike he can still probably be considered the greatest example for living a decent life for yourself and those around you, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned.

I'm fine with most anyone's beliefs. Fine as long as those beliefs aren't pressed upon anyone who really doesn't want it. I've traveled with various associates of the same religion as myself who do press things too strongly, and I know that doing such really isn't good for anyone. The only beliefs in particular I don't like come from people who claim to be of a religion but are extremists and fundamentalists who proclaim things very different and out of context to the religion they claim to be. People who say they are saved therefore they don't feel they should ever do anything decent again in their life are usually extremists. I was traveling with an associate when we came upon two people of that belief (they didn't know each other, they just lived in  the same city). My associate asked each of them that, according to what they believe with regards to being "saved" if it was then ok to go murder someone and they both said murder is just fine once you've been "saved."

Oh yeah, I also completely agree with the opinions stated in the three posts previous to this one.   

[Teh_Hobo]

Practicing Catholic, a Carmelite to be specific. We tend to be one of the quieter orders. I don't believe that the Catholic Church is completely right on everything, but on many things I do agree. I'm generally rather open minded, I'm not big on converting other people to my religion. In my opinion, the world will never be united under a common flag, the entire world will never be one religion, as so many sects seem to want. Really, belief is a deeply personal thing, and interfering in that is just wrong. I have no problems with any religion, so long as they don't attempt to convert me.

[Turnsky]

I am a member of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints aka Mormons and I do believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but I know nothing I type will convince anyone of that. But still, even if you don't believe him to be godlike he can still probably be considered the greatest example for living a decent life for yourself and those around you, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned.

i have a friend in the US who's in the LDS, truth be told, they're all an upstanding, unobtrusive bunch by any measure, they're fairly accepting of the beliefs of others.