What's new

What Religion do you belong to?

What religion do you belong to?

  • Buddhism

    Votes: 9 6.6%
  • Christianity

    Votes: 33 24.1%
  • Shintoism

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • Judaism

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Islam

    Votes: 19 13.9%
  • Wiccanism (I find this seperate to Paganism)

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Paganism

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Satanism

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • Hinduism

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Other (Please state in your post)

    Votes: 19 13.9%
  • None

    Votes: 45 32.8%

  • Total voters
As Engels told us, war is a continuation of economic development, and we should look for roots of war in economical system of society. Religion could be used as an excuse for war, but it never could be a reason a reason of. Just 2C.
I'm an eclectic and non-denominational Christian; to me Christ is larger than any single particular denomination that claims to be the sole repository of truth.

I also have a general interest in comparative religious study and philosophy, especially classical and medieval philosophy.
I used to be an atheist, but then I copped on to the fact its very illogical to be an atheist. It puts you in the same boat as assuming there is a God without proof to assume there isn't a God without proof.
So admitting I don't have any proof either way, and not willing to listen to my gut/ emotions/right brain which also tells me there is demon under the bed, among other silly notions, I am an agnostic.
When I was younger I could not tell the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, but now its night and day.
I voted none, but I wish there was a choice between atheist and agnostic in the poll because I don't want to be grouped with the atheists.

---------- Post added at 10:33 ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 ----------

Politics and religions are very often an reason to start a WAR

I really despise this sort of opinion concerning religion. There about a million reasons why wars start, and religion is just one. I don't see anyone condemning claims on unoccupied land with such spitting vehemence even though we have wars brewing in Asia over them.

Religion also stops and prevents wars, if the people truly believe. You would have a hard time finding wars started by Sufis for example. I can't think of any Buddist wars either.

And lets remember the Christmas truce of 1914 during World War I. One of the largest wars in history was put on hold because the soldiers refused to fight. And Christianity was at the heart of it, because back then, there were more serious believers almost worthy of being called Christians. Of course a true Christian would never pick up a weapon, but they sure are a rare breed these days! I think all religions are a bit nutty, but if more people were true honest to God Christians, Buddists and Sufis this world would be a much, much more peaceful place.

I could live with more of that sort of nut. Its the war loving nuts I can't stand! :auch:
How can one assume what another understands perfectly well? For all I know you might be under the impression Buddhists have a God to be honest to.

I won't even further acknowledge the abject silliness of picking apart a common expression in this way.

After all, you're under some misapprehension that there is something inherently nonviolent about Christianity.

No, I don't think I am confused at all. I understand Christianity to mean to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. And his non-violent teachings over-rule the violent teachings of the Old Testament. If not, then Christians are basically Jews (well, IMHO, many people who claim to be Christians are in fact quasi-Jews. You can see this when they dig deep into Leviticus and the OT in general to justify all sorts of sexism, oppression and violence. Hell, even most people claiming to be Jews avoid that garbage!)
Ah, the modern pop-psychology self-help feel-good surfer Jesus approach to Christianity. Christianity without God. Gotcha.

Matthew 10:34

You were saying?

Scroll down to start at Item 1156 if New Testament is all you accept as being relevant.
Actually Buddhism does not rule out God or God's per say.

you can actually cross buddhism with any religion you like. (which is why it became so popular, because it fitted in with existing doctrine)

The difference is that in a traditional religion. the God-head holds sole responsibility for your ascension to "heaven"
In Buddhism it is you yourself that is responsible.
Actually Buddhism does not rule out God or God's per se.

you can actually cross buddhism with any religion you like. (which is why it became so popular, because it fitted in with existing doctrine)

The difference is that in a traditional religion. the God-head holds sole responsibility for your ascension to "heaven"
In Buddhism it is you yourself that is responsible.

That is correct. Buddhism posits no creator-god and is perhaps unique among religions (certainly among major religions) in that it is entirely lacking a creation story. The central tenets of Buddhism which are common to all the various flavors of Buddhism which have developed are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, which arise from a basis of rationality and have nothing to do with any sort of divine revelation whatsoever. Even the concept of karma is seen as a self-regulating mechanism, a function of cause and effect, with no divine being meting out reward or punishment. Karma is neither good nor bad; it simply is.

There is no giver-of-laws God in Buddhism and consequently no God in whose name to dash about smiting your fellow human beings. Nor one in whose name there is reason to go about doing anything to anybody. While there is a heaven posited, getting there is not the goal; it is rather something not to be desired.

Buddhism has over the centuries absorbed any number of gods and other characters from its surrounding religious environment, and these remain part of the crew depending on the area and the particular branch of Buddhism, but for all of that none of them are assigned the nature of Creator, Supreme Being, or Giver-of-Laws. You may be a Buddhist and have one God, no God, or as many Gods as you wish; it is entirely irrelevant to the central tenets of Buddhism and doesn't interfere with them in any way. Consequently, you may choose to follow the path of Christianity, for example, and still qualify as a perfectly good Buddhist so long as you also follow the 4+8....although the Christians aren't likely to consider you a perfectly good Christian if you let them know about it.
Last edited:
As far as I'm concerned, agnostic (which I picked) could be an option on the list. I've read many posts in this thread where people either called themselves just that, or stated something very similar.
I think everyone who realises the same thing Socrates did millennia ago; that (s)he inherently cannot know anything, could be called agnostic.

Sorry for going off topic, but this calls on my curiosity:
As seen from the 大乗仏教 principle of 仏性, I can't not be a Buddhist, and I'm fine with that. Mark me down as Buddhist.
What does this mean in English?
大乗仏教 is Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism.
仏性 (or sometimes 仏種) is the principle of "Buddha spirit", which in short means the potential to achieve enlightenment (as Buddha did).
Then (forgive my ignorance) how do you mean "I can't not be a Buddhist"?

It's a little tongue-in-cheek.

If you start with the proposition that every sentient being has the potential to achieve Buddhahood....whether that being is currently striving for enlightenment or not....then effectively the dichotomy is not one of "Buddhist" or "non-Buddhist" but instead one of "Buddhist" and "Buddhist, but just hasn't realized it yet". Buddhism originated as an attempt to explain things through rationalization and empirical observation instead of divine revelation. One can argue whether Buddha got things right or not, but what he came up with was still an attempt to explain things rationally. Since it is just explaining the way things are then it is more an attempt at explaining natural law than anything else....and natural law applies to everybody, whether they are aware of it or not. From the Buddhist viewpoint, all the things that Buddha postulated apply equally to everybody. They're all just as much a part of the natural order of things as the law of gravity or Newton's laws of motion. No one on earth could be exempted from the law of gravity or from Newton's laws of motion merely by saying they don't believe in them.
Thanks, that cleared it up perfectly :)
I'd give you a rep point, but I cannot yet. It's the thought that counts, right? ;)
I do appreciate the thought and I am glad I was able to help.
The poll is perfectly alright as it is. The question is What religion do you belong to? If you are either an atheist or agnostic you do not belong to a religion.
Top Bottom