Is that they are all bullshit... based on "faith" and "belief" and every single one lack even the simplest shred of evidence that their god/supreme being actually exists.

But sure, let's make fun of the newer religions because the older they are the more genuine they must be... except for the Norse gods, or the Roman gods because they were all ridiculous. Or something.

although they are definitely ridiculed, or the very old religions that were squashed when Christianity took over the Western World, but it is most religions that are not based on Jesus Christ (as long as they don't dance with snakes or believe the end is here). But the Supreme Court has spoken on this in the past and said that it doesn't matter if one finds a religion to be silly...they still have protection.

When I see the progressive Christians here and elsewhere ridicule other beliefs, I find it to be very hypocritical.

...one that can do 'supernatural' things. Even Wiccans, tho they may not think their spirits can do miracles, nonetheless believe those spirits have effects on natural world. (all IMHO)

SSN as a 'mark of the beast' is a bit of a stretch - unless we were required to have it tattooed on us at birth. Of course, even then f/ it to be THE mark, one would need believe in the branch of Christianity that espouses The End Times. SSN fits closer to One World conspiracy crowd's fears.

Your question does pose interesting philosophical question. But since I don't accept the existence of a god in any form, I have to put your 'non-conventional believers' in the category of those seeking to explain away their lack of control over their own lives. Or folks just having fun (Pastavarians)

that the majority Christians talk of tolerance, but they make fun of all the other religions and belief systems. Well, at least the newer ones (or older ones that have gained in popularity again, such as paganism). Warren Burger explained that we do not have to accept the beliefs professed, nor do we have to find them credible, but that they should be protected. It seems that the only "protected" freedom of religion in this country is Christianity of some flavor.

AFA says Mormons are a cult. Evangelicals only like Catholics when they support evans' repressive social agenda - otherwise, they're idolaters. Religion these days is just an excuse to get an exemption from some law or regulation, or an excuse to discriminate and hate. No wonder unaffiliated, agnostics, & atheists are on the rise.

Fresh out of college, an acquaintance dragged me to an Erhard Seminar Training come-on.

It took me a short while to see all religion in the same way.

Pretty sure I'm right too.

acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others In order to be considered as legitimate. But they do have to be sincere.

I know that I can laugh at most religions, and think that many of the people who espouse them are not sincere by basing my opinion on how they act. But that really doesn't mean that they are not sincere.

I have been laughing out loud at the threads regarding Pastafarians, but the poster who is making an argument for his belief also seems sincere. He "seems" sincere. But I have no way of knowing if he really is or if he is making a mockery of it. Who is the judge?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I will get 5 completely different definitions. There does not seem to be one commonly accepted definition.

Given that, I have tried to come up with my own definition. This is my current working definition:[/font]

about religion, especially those that do not have a god to worship but are still considered religions. That certainly muddies the water.

I will have to ponder this for a while, but off the top of my head, I would say that in a working definition of religion, there has to be some ritual, or code to live by, or some belief that unites all people in that religion.

Indeed.

There must be some "rules" that distinguish it from other religions.

I think it's ancient government. It's a set of rules to live by, that gain their authority from the fact that our brains anthropomorphize nature and everything else and thus imagined the most useful tool of "the supernatural".... which of course can be moulded and changed any way (unlike the actual laws of physics) that is convenient for making the masses do whatever it is you want them to do.

But just believing in the supernatural is not enough for a religion. There must be rules.... and rituals to reinforce them.

Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I wonder if they would boot a scientologist too? How do mormons get a pass? What about jehovas witlesses?

it doesn't really matter if our religious (mainstream Christian) friends find it unacceptable. It doesn't have to be acceptable to others, as long as the believer has faith in it.

It is too bad that religions that are not mainstream are always being ridiculed by others of faith. It must be nice to have a belief in a well established religion that is not under such scrutiny.

I find EGO is huge part of being religious.

From "The Devil's Dictionary:"

is Pastafarianism a religion or not?

Why not?


If it uses metaphor and parable to make a point.

faith has been described as the "willing suspension of disbelief". It cannot be proven. I believe in the Easter Bunny, even though I have never seen him, because I got chocolate last year in a basket.

If people truly believe in something that is fine with me, as long as they do not try to force me to believe and behave in accordance with their beliefs.

As to who is right, believers or non-believers, can we not all be right for ourselves alone? There is a verse from a religious book that says "forget and forgive, live and let live". Sums it up for me.

Peace be upon you

if we really could all be right for ourselves. One of the biggest problems I see with religion is that it takes just the opposite tack. Believers of any one religion think that they are the ones who are right, and everyone else is wrong.

I personally do not care what others believe, and if it is right for them, I don't see it as a problem. If it makes them feel better, get through the hard times in life, and makes their lives feel fulfilled, I think that is great. When it does bother me is when they bring their personal beliefs into my life...and for some reason, they often do.

I am pondering your question of what is faith. I have my own definition of faith: Belief in an ideology in the absence of proof.

I agree with your sentiments completely. I think your definition of faith very nicely modifies what I wrote. I would add that I believe that many people also have a "nationalistic faith", or a faith in nation, that is just as closed-minded and narrow as theistic faith. The "America first" types are often followers of their own, non-fact based religion.

As to religion, my take is that I have read many comments from non-believers, when talking about believers, that are just as dismissive and hostile as the self righteous believer types can be when talking about others. I would ask non-believers to separate the faith/philosophy from the actions of those who claim to be faithful.

An example would be a rich Christian family, let us call them the Waltons, who pay the majority of their employees a non-living wage even as they talk loudly about their faith. Huge gap between what they claim to follow and believe and their actions.

and came up with "ideology" instead of "religion". It is true that faith can be a force in several different ways.

I see that you are rather new here. Welcome aboard. I agree that we non-believers are sometimes hostile or snarky. It has a long history here. This is one reason that I do not often go into the Religion group, since it is a place where frustration boils up on both sides. That group is the major reason that I have gone from not giving a shit about religion to being more outspoken against religion. I see how even liberal religious people are so willing to insert religion into our lives and our government, and I cannot be silent. Hang around long enough and you will see that we are often goaded. Not an excuse, but it is my reason for being more outspoken.

The Framers of the Constitution wisely put in the "establishment clause" to emphasize the idea that there must be an absolute separation of church and state. Very wise people, but that does not stop many Americans from working to establish a Christian theocracy in this country.
Many Tea Party types carry around a copy of the Constitution, but few show much understanding of what they carry. That is why I like going to Tea Party events. I went to one last year carrying a sign asking for the abolition of the military because the Constitution does not provide for a standing army. Talk about cognitive dissonance! The sign provoked some negative commentary.
All that said, thanks for the welcome. I find the threads in this section to be quite thought provoking.

You will find strong characters/viewpoints on both sides of the religion question around here (and by "here" I mean this side of DU).

Some of us in A&A get accused of being "militant", which simply means that we won't shut up and accord religion the privilege generally accorded it in the U.S. However, those of us who don't live in the US are often astonished by what the religious there think they are entitled to expect from everyone else just because they believe in what to many of us are ridiculous fantasies and laughable conceits.

Being an atheist in the UK bars one from nothing. Nobody here needs to be afraid that if someone finds out they don't believe in this irrational nonsense they may lose their job, their friends, their families... The fact that I'm an atheist never comes up in daily life here because, I think, nobody cares. I just imagine they all are too. Certainly almost everyone I know is.

When that nasty little creep Tony Blair was PM he was asked by a magazine editor whether his faith had allowed him to 'bond' with Bush; his director of strategy and communications interrupted the question to insist, "I'm sorry. We don't do God." Blair was prevented by his advisers from ending his address to the nation at the start of hostilities in Iraq with the message: "God bless you."

Bliar waited until after his term as PM was over before announcing that he was converting to Catholicism because, as he explained, if you talk in public here about God people will "think you are bonkers". And so we do. And so, indeed, he is.

So for a Brit to come to DU as I did 12 years ago, the culture shock is not just because of things like the very creepy reverence for the military or the obsession with guns (I'm in my 50s and I've never even seen a gun IRL) but over the way that no-one seemed willing to laugh at religion or even question its ludicrous claims. It seemed as if no one was allowed to do those things. Here, in the "land of the free".

So you have Hillary Clinton claiming that the bible is her favourite book. And nobody laughs! Does anyone really believe that or do they just understand that in the US that's the kind of thing a wise politician learns to say? Money talks and church money talks very loudly.

The worst thing that the right wingers can think to say about Obama - even worse than the ludicrous claim that he's "a Communist" - is that he's secretly "a Muslim". Oh, I know it's just code for saying "America-hater!" (or even "black!&quot but they have no idea how ridiculous that sounds outside the US. Which is where most of us live. Not that they care about the rest of the world, of course.

Anyway, enjoy your time here.

When Pauline Marois was running for Prime Minister in Quebec, she was asked by a television reporter about her religious beliefs. She replied that she is an atheist, and then commented on the irrelevance of the question.

The question was itself silly, and Marois' answer would have provoked more controversy in the 1960's, but reflective of the fact that Federal Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a born-again oil man from Alberta, the most Texas like of the provinces. Harper is trying to import US influences such as religion in public life, but there is little tolerance for that sort of theocratic nonsense in Quebec.

When I listen to many born-again politicians, with their constant references to their Christian faith, I am reminded of Jesus' reply when his disciples asked him how they should pray. Jesus said, go into the closet and pray in secret and my father, who hears in secret, will hear you.

My feeling is if you are a believer in a theology, let your actions show what type of person you are.

I agree with your very polite and understated phrase "creepy reverence for the military", but you might simply have used the word fascism.

It must ALWAYS end up that way....


Because all there is is reality. And if it does't go the way religionists want, they try to force it. This is inevitable in a social animal at the least, and certainly in an animal that makes rules for the group to live by....a group of individuals, some with their own ideas.

Is it something that must happen, where the majority religion rules and all others are subjected to their will, like it or not?

Didn't our founding fathers decide that this was not something that would happen here?

And yet.... tax free and an annual Prayer Breakfast. Haven't seen any Jews elected president.....

These things happened because no one was willing to take a stand against them. They have been taken for granted for so long, but with people willing to stand up against these things, the Constitution is on our side. It is just a long and hard battle that needs to be fought.

I remember when it was thought to be acceptable to have Christian prayer in schools. Although she is vilified to this day, Madeline O'Hare changed that. More things are changing all the time, because there are people who will speak out. And I think that it will get better over time if we continue putting pressure on the systems that allow it. I will probably not see it, but it will come....then again, I might still be here to rejoice. I never thought that I would see prayer taken out of the public schools either.

I don't think that works in....

A) a social animal
B) when reality is indifferent to what you want..... and it is.