NationStates Jolt Archive

In view of the interesting debate on religious intolerance on NS, I'd like to find exactly what beliefs (or not) people on here do subscribe to. I haven't included any joke or “cop out” options as I'd like to try and get realistic picture of what people's beliefs actually are on this board, and then we can see whether or not religious people are in a minority, and how individual religions (or groups of religions) are also represented on this forum.

Feel free to post and explain a bit about why you believe what you do if you wish. Please keep it positive, respectful and relevent. That's all I ask.

For the record, I follow a re-con religion.

I'm sure there is an atheist/agnostic majority here.

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

I'm a Taoist, but I have reservations in calling it Confucian so, other.

I only became Taoist after reading the Tao Te Ching and finding it made perfect sense to me and what I believe. I suggest reading it even if you don't plan on converting, since it's a good read (and short too :))

Though it is more of a philosophy with a dash of religion mixed in...

I'm an atheist, though I was raised Roman Catholic. Over the years, I've studied a number of various religious beliefs, ranging from (of course) Christian, Jewish, and Islamic to Buddhist and Hindu. But none of them captivated me, and I simply couldn't find any of their "truths" about the universe to be plausible.

I'd be willing to write more on the subhect later, but I'm only half-awake right now as it is... so to sum up, I just have yet to find a religion that either makes me want to believe or gives me a convincing argument as to why I should.

I'd say atheist/doesn't care/this is what I'm doing with my Saturday

I'm sure there is an atheist/agnostic majority here.

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

I suspect so too... We shall see. I rmeber a wonderful T-shirt slogan someone had about Wicca, but I'm not going to post it here since I just wrote about being respectful. Damn!

In view of the interesting debate on religious intolerance on NS, I'd like to find exactly what beliefs (or not) people on here do subscribe to. I haven't included any joke or “cop out” options as I'd like to try and get realistic picture of what people's beliefs actually are on this board, and then we can see whether or not religious people are in a minority, and how individual religions (or groups of religions) are also represented on this forum.

Feel free to post and explain a bit about why you believe what you do if you wish. Please keep it positive, respectful and relevent. That's all I ask.

For the record, I follow a re-con religion.

I voted agnostic, I am an agnostic atheist.

Why do I believe what I do? Because it is, for me, the only sensible option. It is impossible to know with certainty whether or not there is a god or gods, so lacking any proof I don't believe there is any, although I could be wrong.

Agnostic the only one that seem to make sense to me, there Could be a god, though unlikely in my opinion but i refuse to believe in any organized religion as they all seem to want beleath with questioning

Click Stand;13565370']I'm a Taoist, but I have reservations in calling it Confucian so, other.

I only became Taoist after reading the Tao Te Ching and finding it made perfect sense to me and what I believe. I suggest reading it even if you don't plan on converting, since it's a good read (and short too :))

Though it is more of a philosophy with a dash of religion mixed in...

being a chinese religion is not enough to make it confucian. i agree that "other" is a better choice for you.

Wicca is anything but "new age".

I'm a karmic deist. No poll option, but I wasn't expecting one, so there y'go.

Wicca is anything but "new age".

I'm a karmic deist. No poll option, but I wasn't expecting one, so there y'go.

I am limited to 10 options so couldn't put everyone in. I put Wicca with New Age for the same reason (limit of 10) and being a completely new religion fits slightly closer to that catagory (having inadvertently started the New Age trend, or at least kicking it into high gear) than the recon catagory which would be defined as specific attempts to rebuild a paticular religion.

Agnostic, we seem to be the only ones that can look at several sides and understand better.

I'm what people call a "lapsed Catholic". That is to say someone who has left the church for the time being due to personal reasons.

The Catholic Church considers those who are baptized to be Catholics for life: once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Therefore, from a strictly dogmatic standpoint I cannot be an atheist or an agnostic (the latter would be the best definition at this point) because I am still a Catholic, albeit one who has "strayed".

...Though I would prefer to say that the Church has strayed from [I]me[I], but I am not so arrogant.

Though I still believe in God, and though I still respect the Catholic Church for the good that it has done in the world, as well as those who follow it, Catholicism and I have decided to "take a break", until either:

A: I become more conservative somehow.

OR

B: The Church gets its act together on issues that are too many to list here (The whole insistence on "abstinence" in HIV endemic nations among them).

The Catholic Church considers those who are baptized to be Catholics for life: once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Therefore, from a strictly dogmatic standpoint I cannot be an atheist or an agnostic (the latter would be the best definition at this point) because I am still a Catholic, albeit one who has "strayed".

In this it wouldn't be what the church believes about you that matters, but what you believe.

Agnostic, we seem to be the only ones that can look at several sides and understand better.

trust me there are ignorant agnostics too

I voted agnostic, I am an agnostic atheist.

Why do I believe what I do? Because it is, for me, the only sensible option. It is impossible to know with certainty whether or not there is a god or gods, so lacking any proof I don't believe there is any, although I could be wrong.

what is agnostic atheist?

i thought atheists say no god, and agnostics say higher power...
correct me please.

In this it wouldn't be what the church believes about you that matters, but what you believe.

DURH!

Like I said the Church strayed from me, not the other way around!

I kid. I'm actually not entirely certain what I believe.

what is agnostic atheist?

i thought atheists say no god, and agnostics say higher power...
correct me please.

an agnostic (There's no way to know if there is a god or gods/higher power) who defaults to there is no god/gods/higher power.

I'm what people call a "lapsed Catholic". That is to say someone who has left the church for the time being due to personal reasons.

The Catholic Church considers those who are baptized to be Catholics for life: once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Therefore, from a strictly dogmatic standpoint I cannot be an atheist or an agnostic (the latter would be the best definition at this point) because I am still a Catholic, albeit one who has "strayed".

...Though I would prefer to say that the Church has strayed from [I]me[I], but I am not so arrogant.

Though I still believe in God, and though I still respect the Catholic Church for the good that it has done in the world, as well as those who follow it, Catholicism and I have decided to "take a break", until either:

A: I become more conservative somehow.

OR

B: The Church gets its act together on issues that are too many to list here (The whole insistence on "abstinence" in HIV endemic nations among them).

of course you can be an atheist or an agnostic. you would be an atheist catholic or an agnostic catholic. that is what i sometimes call myself--an atheist catholic.

not that you seem to have a problem with god so much as the church so agnostic or atheist doesnt seem to describe your beilefs

trust me there are ignorant agnostics too

Well, there are ignorant people in every denomination. I just don´t consider myself or those here at NSG to fall under that category.

DURH!

Like I said the Church strayed from me, not the other way around!

I kid. I'm actually not entirely certain what I believe.

Believe in...




















http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Dyakovochu.jpg
Dyakovochu
:D

Proto-Indo-European Reconstructionist/Pan-Indo-European Syncretist.

what is agnostic atheist?

i thought atheists say no god, and agnostics say higher power...
correct me please.

an agnostic believes you cannot know the truth of god. but you can lean one way or the other. an agnostic atheist has no beliefs about god and doesnt think you could know the truth anyway. an agnostic theist believes that there is an entity that might be described by some as god but doesnt think that its possible to know the truth about it.

Well, there are ignorant people in every denomination. I just don´t consider myself or those here at NSG to fall under that category.
Aren't you forgetting about someone?
FASS

trust me there are ignorant agnostics too

"I don't really beleive in anything because I lack proof but all you who disagree with my disagreement and stoopid" :p

Well, there are ignorant people in every denomination. I just don´t consider myself or those here at NSG to fall under that category.

:eek:

an agnostic believes you cannot know the truth of god. but you can lean one way or the other. an agnostic atheist has no beliefs about god and doesnt think you could know the truth anyway. an agnostic theist believes that there is an entity that might be described by some as god but doesnt think that its possible to know the truth about it.

Gracias Ashmoria, you explained it better than I did.

Aren't you forgetting about someone?
FASS

I wouldn't call Fass ignorant, I'd say intolerant.

I'm agnostic myself... I was raised Roman Catholic (yuck) and that completely didn't make sense to me at all. Jesus sounds the most likely to be God to me, but thats just my own opinion. I just think that some guy that came down and taught everyone to be happy and get along and didn't get into any insane wars or anything sounds pretty cool to me.

Proto-Indo-European Reconstructionist/Pan-Indo-European Syncretist.

Curious, pls tell me more?

I wouldn't call Fass ignorant, I'd say intolerant.

more to the point hasn't been on NS in eons

atheist with occasional, mainly joking, lapses into an animist-inspired system i make up as i go.

what can i say - there aren't any gods, but the gods of irony seem pretty powerful, and sometimes i have to engage in elaborate rituals to appease the spirits of my car and computer.

"I don't really beleive in anything because I lack proof but all you who disagree with my disagreement and stoopid" :p



:eek:

Wut?:confused: It´s true, at least to me. To argue properly at a debate in NSG, either you file your fangs and learn your stuff or you´ll get floored.

Wut?:confused: It´s true, at least to me. To argue properly at a debate in NSG, either you file your fangs and learn your stuff or you´ll get floored.

As it is true with any semi-intelligent online community.

As it is true with any semi-intelligent online community.

Exactly.

atheist with occasional, mainly joking, lapses into an animist-inspired system i make up as i go.

what can i say - there aren't any gods, but the gods of irony seem pretty powerful, and sometimes i have to engage in elaborate rituals to appease the spirits of my car and computer.

The only way to appease the gods of the computer are regular offerings of lage quanities of RAM and system restore disks. Tis an expensive god to worship, especially in his "Vista Aero" manifestation.

Other - specifically, non-denominational agnostic theist. I choose to believe in God, but I don't feel the need to place any faith in organized religions run by entirely fallible people.

Atheist.

Although it makes it harder to judge the resulting data, I think this poll needs to have check boxes rather than radio buttons. I am agnostic, and voted as such, but I have studied Wicca, witchcraft and different pagan paths for 12 years, and I have studied Buddhism for about 8 years, and I incorporate both of these into my spiritual views. Buddhism is generally non-theistic, and while Wicca generally is, witchcraft does not need to be.

I'm sure there is an atheist/agnostic majority here.

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

Agreed, but I started studying Wicca at 13 (12 years ago) and continue to today. So, not really contradicting you, just saying... sometimes what we dabble in as stupid teenagers actually turns into an honest pursuit. :)

Why is agnostic even on the list?

Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you believe - it's a modifier to an answer, not an answer of itself.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Although it makes it harder to judge the resulting data, I think this poll needs to have check boxes rather than radio buttons. I am agnostic, and voted as such, but I have studied Wicca, witchcraft and different pagan paths for 12 years, and I have studied Buddhism for about 8 years, and I incorporate both of these into my spiritual views. Buddhism is generally non-theistic, and while Wicca generally is, witchcraft does not need to be.

*cheers Ryadn*
You´re my hero!!! Finally, someone puts stupid 14-year-old girls who think they´re Goth and the world hates them (dressing like that, we certainly do dislike you) on their place!!! W00T!!!!:D

Why is agnostic even on the list?

Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you believe - it's a modifier to an answer, not an answer of itself.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

Because a lot of people don't understand that.

Why is agnostic even on the list?

Agnosticism doesn't has nothing to do with whether or not you believe - it's a modifier to an answer, not an answer of itself.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

doesn't has nothing? Thats a double negative with the wrong helping verb, yuck.

I'm what people call a "lapsed Catholic". That is to say someone who has left the church for the time being due to personal reasons.

The Catholic Church considers those who are baptized to be Catholics for life: once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Therefore, from a strictly dogmatic standpoint I cannot be an atheist or an agnostic (the latter would be the best definition at this point) because I am still a Catholic, albeit one who has "strayed".


Unless...unless we find a way for you to get excommunicated. Hmm, let me think on this a little.

Oh, and just to satisfy my curiosity: do you still believe in the basic message of the Church (Jesus is the son of God, etc.) or do you doubt that as well?

Why is agnostic even on the list?

Agnosticism doesn't has nothing to do with whether or not you believe - it's a modifier to an answer, not an answer of itself.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

As any dictionary will clearly show you agnostic is a person who doubts but does not deny the existence a supreme being. An atheist is a person who denies the existence of a supreme being. Try www.dictionary.com

doesn't has nothing? Thats a double negative with the wrong helping verb, yuck.

No, it's an incomplete edit. Which is now complete. And - let's be charitable - that's hardly the point of the thread, or my comment, yes?

As any dictionary will clearly show you agnostic is a person who doubts but does not deny the existence a supreme being. An atheist is a person who denies the existence of a supreme being. Try www.dictionary.com

Etymologically, a-gnostic clearly means 'not knowing' - which refers to the central premise that an agnostic considers it impossible to know for sure whether there is a god or not.

An atheist either believes there is no god, or lacks belief in gods.

From your own source: Agnostic: "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

That doesn't mean they can't believe - they just do not KNOW for sure.

From your own source, again: Atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods".

So - you can either deny, OR you can simply disbelieve.

I personally know agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I stand by it - agnosticism isn't a whole answer.

No, it's an incomplete edit. Which is now complete. And - let's be charitable - that's hardly the point of the thread, or my comment, yes?

That is a good point, and on your comment I would have to agree with you. Agnosticism is more of a modifier than an answer.

umm... I thought Confucism was more of a philosophic and social practice, and not a religion. Shinto and Taoism/Daoism, though, are religions.

I follow my own religious concepts, which are probably closest to agnosticism with spirituality.

I would hope everyone is partly agnostic, it is the only rational choice.

umm... I thought Confucism was more of a philosophic and social practice, and not a religion. Shinto and Taoism/Daoism, though, are religions.

I agree, but someone seems to think that Confucism is a religion, without remembering that Confusius wasn´t a religious leader nor his teachings were religiously oriented.

One of these days I'll have to make my own 'wats ur religion' thread. Maybe then there'll be at least one where I don't think the poll fails.
As any dictionary will clearly show you agnostic is a person who doubts but does not deny the existence a supreme being. An atheist is a person who denies the existence of a supreme being. Try www.dictionary.com

Next time you tell someone to look a word up in the dictionary, you should look it up yourself first. It'll save you some embarrassment.

ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

sometimes i have to engage in elaborate rituals to appease the spirits of my car and computer.

Does it work?

I personally know agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I stand by it - agnosticism isn't a whole answer.

Certainly. Believer and atheist are black and white. (You can decide which is which.) Agnosticism is the many shades of grey between.

I would hope everyone is partly agnostic, it is the only rational choice.

Well... I describe myself as more of an atheist with agnostic tendencies.

Certainly. Believer and atheist are black and white. (You can decide which is which.) Agnosticism is the many shades of grey between.

I disagree. Theism/atheism is much the same as gnosticism/agnosticism. Each is a type of belief, with it's 'believers' and 'unbelievers'. The subject of the belief is what differs.

Does it work?

seems to

and this certainly has nothing to do with any confirmation bias...

umm... I thought Confucism was more of a philosophic and social practice, and not a religion. Shinto and Taoism/Daoism, though, are religions.

confucianism is a religion too.

I was about to say Agnostic (although really i could argue for athiest), then i saw Confucist and i admit i am very confused about religion as a whole, then i realised it is some sort of religion but i wasn't sure what it's about so i left that and went with Agnostic.
I'd like an option of, i have no idea but whatever i do seems to work for me.
*wiki's Confucism*

I would hope everyone is partly agnostic, it is the only rational choice.

but only in the sense that we should be partly agnostic about most everything. which is to say that adding the term in that sense is superfluous.

it only makes sense to add if what is meant is that it is impossible to determine whether any gods exist or not, whether due to the nature of knowing and gods, or due to a possibly temporary lack of evidence. which are specific epistemic claims, and broader than just not have certainty on the subject.

The only way to appease the gods of the computer are regular offerings of lage quanities of RAM and system restore disks. Tis an expensive god to worship, especially in his "Vista Aero" manifestation.

its not even really worship - i mean, clearly there are some who worship the computer spirits, but i think they take things a bit too far and offer their gods far too much for what the computer spirits are really able to give back. i think of the relationship more like one between me and archetypical tricksters.

In view of the interesting debate on religious intolerance on NS, I'd like to find exactly what beliefs (or not) people on here do subscribe to. I haven't included any joke or “cop out” options as I'd like to try and get realistic picture of what people's beliefs actually are on this board, and then we can see whether or not religious people are in a minority, and how individual religions (or groups of religions) are also represented on this forum.

Feel free to post and explain a bit about why you believe what you do if you wish. Please keep it positive, respectful and relevent. That's all I ask.

For the record, I follow a re-con religion.
NSG = Atheist central

There is a God and I am not Him. :)

Click Stand;13565370']I'm a Taoist, but I have reservations in calling it Confucian so, other.

I only became Taoist after reading the Tao Te Ching and finding it made perfect sense to me and what I believe. I suggest reading it even if you don't plan on converting, since it's a good read (and short too :))

Though it is more of a philosophy with a dash of religion mixed in...
I studied Taoism at University. I never understood how it counted as a religion; it appeared to have no tenets.

but only in the sense that we should be partly agnostic about most everything. which is to say that adding the term in that sense is superfluous.

Sometimes I feel a lot of people are so certain in their beliefs that they would never change, even in face of overwhelming evidence against; so I use 'agnostic' in the sense that I am not certain and it is unwise for anyone to be absolutely certain, as that would prevent the questioning that we should all employ towards our beliefs.

it only makes sense to add if what is meant is that it is impossible to determine whether any gods exist or not, whether due to the nature of knowing and gods, or due to a possibly temporary lack of evidence. which are specific epistemic claims, and broader than just not have certainty on the subject.

Fair enough, but I would say that 'not having certainty' includes the other factors. The uncertainty is there because there is no way to determine the existence of a god.

In fact, I find 'agnostic atheist' the most rational, personally, as it includes the possibilities that I may be wrong or ignorant, that the existence or not cannot be shown, and in lack of evidence absence is the logical choice.

I studied Taoism at University. I never understood how it counted as a religion; it appeared to have no tenets.

western study of taoism tends to leave out the supernatural and spiritual aspects. they are there but chinese religions work differently than western religions. they arent so big on tenets and dogma.

western study of taoism tends to leave out the supernatural and spiritual aspects. they are there but chinese religions work differently than western religions. they arent so big on tenets and dogma.
Without the dogma, what makes it a religion? And without tenets, what's the point?

Without the dogma, what makes it a religion? And without tenets, what's the point?

guess youd have to ask a religious taoist that question.

I disagree. Theism/atheism is much the same as gnosticism/agnosticism. Each is a type of belief, with it's 'believers' and 'unbelievers'. The subject of the belief is what differs.

I disagree. I view it that certainty in any doctrine is one edge of the spectrum (black or white) and that absolutely declining to say with certainty is the other. Atheism is a belief like any other, an absolute and certain faith that there are no gods...

Other.

I'm an agnostic, Taoist, neo-pagan (none of this is necessarily incompatible).

I'm a Lutheran, coming back to the church after a painful period of atheism. Christianity, for me, is the only thing that makes sense in a senseless life.

I would hope everyone is partly agnostic, it is the only rational choice.
Well, most religous people admit that they do not know everything about how God(s) work(s), so that's probably true.
That being said, I do not remember when rational ever being the same as morally good, or even true.

I disagree. I view it that certainty in any doctrine is one edge of the spectrum (black or white) and that absolutely declining to say with certainty is the other.
I don't believe I've said anything that contradicts this.
Atheism is a belief like any other, an absolute and certain faith that there are no gods...

I disagree. Theism/atheism is much the same as gnosticism/agnosticism. Each is a type of belief, with it's 'believers' and 'unbelievers'. The subject of the belief is what differs.

My ethics and worldview are informed mainly by the Christian tradition, but I suppose I'd class myself as ignostic, if not agnostic.

Wicca is anything but "new age".

I'm a karmic deist. No poll option, but I wasn't expecting one, so there y'go.

Wicca is new age, look at the history, it was invent by an English civil servant in the 50's.

If Wicca isn't new-age, then I'm a flying purple monkey from Planet Y.


Anyway, good to know I'm not the only recon around NS or NSG. Although for a long time I was.

If Wicca isn't new-age, then I'm a flying purple monkey from Planet Y.


Anyway, good to know I'm not the only recon around NS or NSG. Although for a long time I was.

What is Re-constructionist religion?
Is it taking old religions and...reviving them?
:confused:

What is Re-constructionist religion?
Is it taking old religions and...reviving them?
:confused:

No, reconstructing them.



:p

Wicca is new age, look at the history, it was invent by an English civil servant in the 50's.

New Age is a modern concept and Wicca, although a modern denomination for the ´religion´, is a practice that encompasses traditions that predate Christianity. Wicca, per se, was popularized in England in the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

What is Re-constructionist religion?
Is it taking old religions and...reviving them?
:confused:

Sort of. First, the religion has to not exist (or the form has to not exist) anymore.

Then there's several ways of doing it. One way is the literal way, learn everything you can about that religion, culture, and such, and apply it to modern life exactly as they did.

The other way, which is much more common (and by far 99% of those "reconstructionists" who are into the same as me tend to do this), is to take the names/words/symbols of some ancient religion, and apply them to an existing framework. The vast majority of say, reconstructionist Babylonian or Sumerian religious people, do this, they take the names and apply a Wiccan framework (Wiccan most common).

Then there's the people like me. Who learn everything we can about the religion, culture, language, and all that, and attempt to apply the principle of it, through the framework of that religion, to modern day life. I think this is by far the hardest to do because it takes a lot more effort then the other two, and can be very confusing, plus takes forever.

And of course, there's little in-between. But in basic form, the idea is adopting a dead religion (Or form of a religion) and practicing it today.

I disagree. Theism/atheism is much the same as gnosticism/agnosticism. Each is a type of belief, with it's 'believers' and 'unbelievers'. The subject of the belief is what differs.

How can a lack of belief be a type of belief? Surely, it's an absence?

How can a lack of belief be a type of belief? Surely, it's an absence?

Well there's the "believing there isn't a god" atheism and "not believing there is a god" atheism.

Atheism is a belief like any other, an absolute and certain faith that there are no gods...

No, it isn't.

I'm an Atheist (Implicit).

I don't deny the existence of a god or gods - I simply don't accept that there are any.

Well there's the "believing there isn't a god" atheism and "not believing there is a god" atheism.

Yes. And for those that 'lack belief', it isn't a 'type of belief'.

Yes. And for those that 'lack belief', it isn't a 'type of belief'.

No, but my point, ultimately, is that agnosticism shouldn't be on the poll since it has nothing to do with whether any god or gods exist(as both kinds of atheism do) and isn't a religion.

No, but my point, ultimately, is that agnosticism shouldn't be on the poll since it has nothing to do with whether any god or gods exist(as both kinds of atheism do) and isn't a religion.

Agreed. Agnosticism doesn't provide ANY answer to whether there are gods, or which (if any) you believe.

On the other hand - atheism isn't a religion either.. if anything, it's the absence of one.

Agreed. Agnosticism doesn't provide ANY answer to whether there are gods, or which (if any) you believe.

On the other hand - atheism isn't a religion either.. if anything, it's the absence of one.

No, it isn't. It's sort of a none of the above option, though, so I'd leave it. Maybe change it to 'Non-religious atheist', and have a 'Non-religious theist option too.

I generally see agnostic as the root with adjectives added on to it, not the other way around. Strong, weak, militant, atheist, theist, deist, apathetic, etc. are all used to describe agnostic when used with it.

I'm somewhere between a strong and deist agnostic myself. Believing that everyone else is dead wrong is still a belief. Besides, how can you say I'm not following a religion when I'm actively converting people?

I am a Bahá'i, wheres that on the poll?

I reject liberalist and rationalist atheism, my atheism comes from a more materialist argument than 'Nature of Man' arguments. I understand why religion exists and it's purpose in society, and on the grounds of understanding it's material basis I reject it.

I reject liberalist and rationalist atheism, my atheism comes from a more materialist argument than 'Nature of Man' arguments. I understand why religion exists and it's purpose in society, and on the grounds of understanding it's material basis I reject it.

What are "Nature of Man" arguments?

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

Yes.

I'm an atheist, by the way.

That being said, I do not remember when rational ever being the same as morally good, or even true.

How is any religious belief morally better than any other? And 'truth' is entirely in the perspective of the person. When being presented with no evidence the most rational choice is to assume an absence and the possibility that further information may change the perspective.

I'm a naturalistic pantheist involved in shamanic practice.

Atheist. Former Jew.

Athiest. Was a Catholic a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, as a child. I grew out of God like I grew out of Santa Clause, really.

Of the answers offered, 'reconstructionist' would have to be my choice, for several complicated reasons it's not worth your time to read. In fact, only certain elements of my religion are a wilful attempt to reconstruct anything; the associated philosophy is, as far as I'm aware, personal to me.

On another point - although it's inevitable that any thread dealing with religion is going to attract its share of... shall we say, 'pointed' remarks from atheists, it's depressing that this poll didn't manage to rack up two clear posts before someone decided it was necessary to take a swipe at a viewpoint they didn't like - albeit one that hadn't had any input into the thread by that point:

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

Yes - it's true, there are a lot of kids who like the sound of Wicca because they've seen it represented on TV; and many of them don't do it any real justice. By and large they grow out of the fad pretty quickly while the genuine Wiccans remain committed to their religion. But I can't work out why this comment was called for. No wonder it's nigh impossible to have a calm discussion about religion.

You should've put a "Other (explain)" option.

I'm sure there is an atheist/agnostic majority here.

And by the way kids, if you are 14 year old girl who dresses in all black and listens to emo music, you are not a Wiccan and probably don't know shit about the religion.

Dressing in black is irrelevant to being or knowing anything. So is listening to emo no matter how annoying it is.

Agreed, but I started studying Wicca at 13 (12 years ago) and continue to today. So, not really contradicting you, just saying... sometimes what we dabble in as stupid teenagers actually turns into an honest pursuit. :)

And some teenagers BEGIN as an honest pursuit.

Atheist, though unlike a lot of atheists it was hardly a rebellious thing.
Both my parents are atheists, one sibling is. Plus an agnostic and a Wiccan as siblings.

Christian, and proud of it.

wow, we have a lot of christians around here

I like to consider myself a Pagan because I believe in the Holy Trinity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Deist, here.

New Age is a modern concept and Wicca, although a modern denomination for the ´religion´, is a practice that encompasses traditions that predate Christianity. Wicca, per se, was popularized in England in the 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

And the very first paragraph

[QUOTE=wikipedia]Wicca is a nature-based religion popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. He said that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witchcraft religion which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe. The veracity of Gardner's statements cannot be independently proven, however, and it is possible that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s.[QUOTE]

wicca is not even 100 years old, read your evidence before quoting it.

wicca is not even 100 years old, read your evidence before quoting it.

That article on Wikipedia isn't paticularly well written, though Gothicbob's statement is accurate historically, as far as I'm aware. For a well written study of the history of the religion I would reccomend reading "Triumph of the moon" by Ronald Hutton, published by Oxford Uni Press. Very well grounded and well researched work.

Why no Catholic option? They're not Christians. I'm Atheist by the way, I'm just wondering why you left out Catholicism.

I'm Catholic.. :)

That article on Wikipedia isn't paticularly well written, though Gothicbob's statement is accurate historically, as far as I'm aware.Gothicbob is right, yes. Gardner and associates created Wicca lock, stock and barrel and 'released' it in the 50s with the repeal of the Witchcraft Act in Britain (and yes, he might well have been practising it before that). He borrowed heavily from existing occult traditions such as Ordo Templis Orientis and Golden Dawn, and his rituals are liberally decorated with the trimmings of Freemasonry. Most modern Wiccan rituals bear little resemblance to Gardner's originals, since it's now widely accepted that you 'do whatever feels right to you' (although Gardnerians would no doubt disagree).

Most of what Gardner claimed for Wicca was rooted in the work of Egyptologist Margaret Murray, who inexplicably (given it wasn't her area of expertise) turned her attention to proving the existence of a pre-Christian European woman-centred 'witch cult', which she claimed was persecuted by Christians. She is one of the sources of the Wiccan myth about the 'Burning Times', when innocent witch-women were burned by evil Christians and... Well, I tell you what, if you're interested just read this site (http://wicca.timerift.net/). Otherwise, we'll just settle for saying that Murray's work is now thoroughly discredited and Gardner's claims for ancient Wicca pretty much sank with it. But his religion didn't.

The common assumption is that the failure of Murray's theories, and Gardner's claims based on them, makes Wicca invalid as a religion, and this is why so many Wiccans put so much effort into defending the 'pre-Christian' model of their faith: "well, all right; it wasn't called Wicca, and okay, it didn't bear any resemblance to modern Wicca; and it didn't worship the same gods; and it wasn't a single, common religion but a wide range of smaller traditions - but it was still Wicca!".

However, most rational people (and I mean the sort of 'rational' who can tolerate the notion of someone being religious at all) realise that it's what the religion says that determines its validity, and not who invented it and when. Wicca is a religion - a perfectly valid, legitimate religion which warrants as much respect as any other (and no doubt there'll be plenty of disagreement on just how much respect that is).

Incidentally - the Wicca article on Wikipedia is badly-written, I'm guessing, because too many people have too many opinions about the religion, and there's precious little verifiable fact about it and its history.

Why no Catholic option? They're not Christians. I'm Atheist by the way, I'm just wondering why you left out Catholicism.
Then I suggest that you're in no place to tell Catholics what they are or aren't.

why shouldn't christianity be a minority? islam is to christianity what christianity is to judaism, and baha'i, which i guess a lot of people still haven't heard of or understand yet, is the next chapter in sequence after islam.

but also why shouldn't christianity be a minority for other reasons as well.

not the least of which being that there are more valid, revealed, organized beliefs, then there are maximum option slots on the poll script.

revealed, valid beliefs, both organized and individual, that all come ulitmately from the same source. no not the same two legs and a mouth walking around on this earth, but the same invisible big something out there that gives great hugs they were all channeling.

=^^=
.../\...

Gothicbob is right, yes. Gardner and associates created Wicca lock, stock and barrel and 'released' it in the 50s with the repeal of the Witchcraft Act in Britain (and yes, he might well have been practising it before that). He borrowed heavily from existing occult traditions such as Ordo Templis Orientis and Golden Dawn, and his rituals are liberally decorated with the trimmings of Freemasonry. Most modern Wiccan rituals bear little resemblance to Gardner's originals, since it's now widely accepted that you 'do whatever feels right to you' (although Gardnerians would no doubt disagree).

Most of what Gardner claimed for Wicca was rooted in the work of Egyptologist Margaret Murray, who inexplicably (given it wasn't her area of expertise) turned her attention to proving the existence of a pre-Christian European woman-centred 'witch cult', which she claimed was persecuted by Christians. She is one of the sources of the Wiccan myth about the 'Burning Times', when innocent witch-women were burned by evil Christians and... Well, I tell you what, if you're interested just read this site (http://wicca.timerift.net/). Otherwise, we'll just settle for saying that Murray's work is now thoroughly discredited and Gardner's claims for ancient Wicca pretty much sank with it. But his religion didn't.

The common assumption is that the failure of Murray's theories, and Gardner's claims based on them, makes Wicca invalid as a religion, and this is why so many Wiccans put so much effort into defending the 'pre-Christian' model of their faith: "well, all right; it wasn't called Wicca, and okay, it didn't bear any resemblance to modern Wicca; and it didn't worship the same gods; and it wasn't a single, common religion but a wide range of smaller traditions - but it was still Wicca!".

However, most rational people (and I mean the sort of 'rational' who can tolerate the notion of someone being religious at all) realise that it's what the religion says that determines its validity, and not who invented it and when. Wicca is a religion - a perfectly valid, legitimate religion which warrants as much respect as any other (and no doubt there'll be plenty of disagreement on just how much respect that is).

Incidentally - the Wicca article on Wikipedia is badly-written, I'm guessing, because too many people have too many opinions about the religion, and there's precious little verifiable fact about it and its history.

thank you, i got no prob's with Wicca being a religion but i know too many who claim it old and get very angry when i tell them it not. I was merely saying its new age religion as someone claim it was not.

Does "Jedi Knight" count as New Age or Reconstructionist?

Why no Catholic option? They're not Christians.

<Grabs popcorn>

This ought to be good. How, exactly, are Catholics NOT Christian?

<Grabs popcorn>

This ought to be good. How, exactly, are Catholics NOT Christian?

That's when I say: "Let it be, he's just crazy"

Why no Catholic option? They're not Christians.

Yes they are. I suggest you learn a little bit before you open your mouth.

Does "Jedi Knight" count as New Age or Reconstructionist?

I'd say New Age. But would that make Sithism and Kreiaism Reconstructionist religions?

Why no Catholic option? They're not Christians. I'm Atheist by the way, I'm just wondering why you left out Catholicism.

Uh, yes they are...

That's when I say: "Let it be, he's just crazy"

<Shhh! I can't hear the show! And down in front you're blocking my view!>

Mormon. Option #1.

(And thanks for making a point of including that :) )

Yes they are. I suggest you learn a little bit before you open your mouth.
I suspect this was a little bit of anti-Catholic trolling.

Where is the Druid option?

Where is the Druid option?

That would technicly be recon, although reconed a while back.

Agnostic.

I refuse to believe anything without special revelation.

Atheist thank God!

Most modern Wiccan rituals bear little resemblance to Gardner's originals, since it's now widely accepted that you 'do whatever feels right to you' (although Gardnerians would no doubt disagree).

I think this is where a lot of the angst comes in, from people who have not been officially initiated into the religion using the name to describe themselves, regardless that their own belief may only be loosely related.

Most of what Gardner claimed for Wicca was rooted in the work of Egyptologist Margaret Murray, who inexplicably (given it wasn't her area of expertise) turned her attention to proving the existence of a pre-Christian European woman-centred 'witch cult', which she claimed was persecuted by Christians. She is one of the sources of the Wiccan myth about the 'Burning Times', when innocent witch-women were burned by evil Christians and...

Murray is how I came to look into this in more detail. Interesting woman, though I won't get started on her work in Egypt, suffice to say a lot of what she wrote in that field has been discredited. Lemuria and all that...

...this is why so many Wiccans put so much effort into defending the 'pre-Christian' model of their faith: "well, all right; it wasn't called Wicca, and okay, it didn't bear any resemblance to modern Wicca; and it didn't worship the same gods; and it wasn't a single, common religion but a wide range of smaller traditions - but it was still Wicca!".

I think initiated Wiccans would probably be best off defending their beliefs completely honestly. "Yes, this is a new religion, and some of the historical theories postulated by those who were involved in creating it were wrong, but that doesn't mean the religion itself is useless". After all, of all the new age faiths, Wicca is probably the strongest, in terms of visibility, general respect and recognition.

Incidentally - the Wicca article on Wikipedia is badly-written, I'm guessing, because too many people have too many opinions about the religion, and there's precious little verifiable fact about it and its history.

I think that's true of most articles on history of religions. Few people will look critically and rationally at historical earthly aspects of their religion, nor welcome others doing so.

I voted agnostic, I am an agnostic atheist.

How can you be an agnostic atheist?

How can you be an agnostic atheist?

Easily...

How can you be an agnostic atheist?

You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Any agnostic will be one or the other.

Agnosticism describes a viewpoint that certain things (ie. the existence/nature of the divine) are inherently unknowable. Basically, that we will never know for certain whether or not there is a deity/deities or what the nature of any such being is.

It is possible to believe that something is unknowable but to still have beliefs (or a lack of belief) on that subject, so it is possible to be both agnostic and either atheist or theist.

Atheism describes the state in which one does not believe in the existence of a deity/deities. One can either be an implicit atheist (simply does not believe) or an explicit atheist (actively declares the lack of any deity). An agnostic atheist is most likely an implicit atheist, although explicit would be possible.

Theism describes the state in which one believes that the divine, in some form, does exist. An agnostic theist most likely believes that, because of the subjective nature of our own experiences, the Truth about the divine (and even its existence) cannot be known, but still has religious beliefs based upon that subjective experience.

Then I suggest that you're in no place to tell Catholics what they are or aren't.

Interesting theory, do you mind telling me then, if you asked a Catholic if they were Christian you would get a no?

Besides that, why does being a member of one group stop me from knowing about another group?

Interesting theory, do you mind telling me then, if you asked a Catholic if they were Christian you would get a no?

Besides that, why does being a member of one group stop me from knowing about another group?

1) you may have made an error in your post that made it mean the opposite of what you wanted it to mean

2) the poll had christians (all sects) so that covers any kind of christian you might be thinking of.

Interesting theory, do you mind telling me then, if you asked a Catholic if they were Christian you would get a no?


Most Catholics would say yes. Especially if they knew anything.


My dads whole family (one of 8 kids) is Roman Catholic. They will say theyre Christian.

Interesting theory, do you mind telling me then, if you asked a Catholic if they were Christian you would get a no?

No, probably not. You'd most likely get a yes.

Besides that, why does being a member of one group stop me from knowing about another group?

Religion is largely a matter of self-categorization. You could tell me I'm not a Christian if you really wanted, but it wouldn't mean anything. I could tell you you're not an atheist and it would mean about the same thing.

<Grabs popcorn>

This ought to be good. How, exactly, are Catholics NOT Christian?

In essence, because they don't believe all the same things as Christians. Besides, this poll could never really work because there aren't enough options to support all the different religions. Heaping them together just causes conflict as members of one religion seek to differentiate themselves from another. One example on a similar thread was a Christian who violently disagreed with Mormons being called Christian.

In essence, because they don't believe all the same things as Christians.

Really?

What do Christians believe?

Do tell us, O Prophet, what true Christianity entails.

In essence, because they don't believe all the same things as Christians.


Yes...yes they do.

No, probably not. You'd most likely get a yes.

So if I asked a Christian and a Catholic to tell me what religion they were, I would get two identical answers?

Yes...yes they do.

Then why do they have a different church?

So if I asked a Christian and a Catholic to tell me what religion they were, I would get two identical answers?

Yes.

They are the same.


pst...Catholics and Orthodox were the first forms of Christianity.

Then why do they have a different church?

Theyre different sects. They disagree on minor things, but their core beliefs are the same.

Same reason Baptists and Lutherans have different churches.

Really?

What do Christians believe?

Do tell us, O Prophet, what true Christianity entails.

I didn't pretend to know everything, I merely followed the logic that a different church would entail different teachings/beliefs

I didn't pretend to know everything, I merely followed the logic that a different church would entail different teachings/beliefs

Well, youre wrong. Now you know.


They do have some minor differances, but they both believe all that jazz about Jesus and both use the same book.

Ergo, they are both Christian.

So if I asked a Christian and a Catholic to tell me what religion they were, I would get two identical answers?

christian is a generic term. all followers of jesus are christians.

do you think that a baptist is a christian?

Theyre different sects. They disagree on minor things, but their core beliefs are the same.

Same reason Baptists and Lutherans have different churches.

And that is what I'm saying, they do have the same main beliefs, but they differ on other, smaller, issues. To take it to the extreme I could say Muslims were Christians since they follow the same God, but they aren't the same.

I was honestly surprised we have so many atheists. I knew we had a lot, but I figured it would be about at parity with the Christians, not twice as many.

Also, I love the false Dichotomy. It's not "Christians and Catholics" it's "Catholics and Protestants" with protestants splitting into even more groupings. All of them are Christians, in the same way that a German Shepherd and a Great Dane are both dogs.

christian is a generic term. all followers of jesus are christians.

do you think that a baptist is a christian?

A generic term? Perhaps. But it can also be specifically the followers of a single group i.e Christianity.

Then why do they have a different church?

different church from what?

the roman catholic church is the largest christian denomination in the world with over a billion members.

the protestant christian churches all became a "different church" by breaking off from the roman catholic church.

the roman catholic and orthodox denominations split into "different churches" centuries ago.

So if I asked a Christian and a Catholic to tell me what religion they were, I would get two identical answers?

Possibly. Depends on how detailed they wanted to get.

If you ask a Methodist what their religion is, they might say Methodist and they might say Christian. Same thing with Catholics.

It's only us non-denoms that always just use the term Christian. And even we can get more descriptive, but we don't tend to have specific labels.

I didn't pretend to know everything, I merely followed the logic that a different church would entail different teachings/beliefs

They do. That's why there are different churches that are all Christian churches.

Different denominations off the top of my head:
Roman Catholic
First Baptist
Southern Baptist
Primitive Baptist
Methodist
Pentacostal
Presbyterian
Lutheran
7th Day Adventists
Mormon
Jehovah's Witnesses

They all hold varying beliefs, and they aren't the whole of the group of Christians.

Disclaimer: I apologize if I left your denomination out. This was just off the top of my head.

A generic term? Perhaps. But it can also be specifically the followers of a single group i.e Christianity.

well answer the second question for me and ill know where you stand...

is a baptist a christian?

A generic term? Perhaps. But it can also be specifically the followers of a single group i.e Christianity.

If you think the term "Christianity" has ever referred to a "single group", you need to do some more reading on it.

Even the very early Christian churches held varied beliefs.

different church from what?

the roman catholic church is the largest christian denomination in the world with over a billion members.

the protestant christian churches all became a "different church" by breaking off from the roman catholic church.

the roman catholic and orthodox denominations split into "different churches" centuries ago.

My point exactly, they split into different churches, effectively becoming a new group.

I was honestly surprised we have so many atheists. I knew we had a lot, but I figured it would be about at parity with the Christians, not twice as many.

all the cool kids are atheists!

i think many of our christian members stay away from religious threads because they get so ugly.

My point exactly, they split into different churches, effectively becoming a new group.

....all of which still fall under the umbrella of Christianity.

My point exactly, they split into different churches, effectively becoming a new group.

yeah a new group known as protestants.

If you think the term "Christianity" has ever referred to a "single group", you need to do some more reading on it.

Even the very early Christian churches held varied beliefs.

That would depend on your point of view wouldn't it? Some Christians don't think of Mormons as Christians but the Mormons think they are. You're probably right though, I do need to do some more reading into the subject, I don't know that much, I was merely expressing my point of view.

yeah a new group known as protestants.

So Protestant is therefore not Christian.

So Protestant is therefore not Christian.

protestant is most certainly christian.

protestant is most certainly christian.

Well, you two obviously know a lot more on the subject than I, I merely tried to express my point of view and then tried to explain why I thought so. You have certainly helped expand my knowledge on the subject and I shall now retire from this thread in shame. My opinion has been swayed by your arguments and I thank you for correcting me, much appreciated.

Well, you two obviously know a lot more on the subject than I, I merely tried to express my point of view and then tried to explain why I thought so. You have certainly helped expand my knowledge on the subject and I shall now retire from this thread in shame. My opinion has been swayed by your arguments and I thank you for correcting me, much appreciated.

oh.

well.

come back any time. we like people who defend their points but are able to learn a bit here and there.

Then why do they have a different church?

A Catholic Christian has a different church for the same reason a Baptist Christian, a Lutheran Christian and a Methodist Christian go to different churches. Saying Catholics are not Christian is like saying peanut butter cookies are not a form of cookie.

I didn't pretend to know everything, I merely followed the logic that a different church would entail different teachings/beliefs

Or, in fact, anything.

A generic term? Perhaps. But it can also be specifically the followers of a single group i.e Christianity.

Of which Catholics are a part via the whole believing Jesus Christ (or Josephs kid, Josh to those of us who think he was just a pretty nice guy) to be the messiah thing.

Hey, this is not exactly an acurate survey because this only applies to people that play this game. And people that play this game might mostly be of certain belifs. im christian (figures).

Hey, this is not exactly an acurate survey because this only applies to people that play this game. And people that play this game might mostly be of certain belifs. im christian (figures).

it might be an accurate survey of the people who play this game. (not that it is). it doesnt pretend to be anything else.

I object to this poll. My religion wasn't listed.

Or, in fact, anything.

Perhaps a little too far there.

Or, in fact, anything.

Rofl.. so the individual didn't pretend to know anything. Which hints that said individual did know quite a deal.

Interesting theory, do you mind telling me then, if you asked a Catholic if they were Christian you would get a no?

Well, first, you should probably know that the Catholic Church occasionally comes in for stick from other branches of Christianity on the basis of supposedly having 'more than one god': a claim usually based on a simplistic conception of the doctrine of Trinity. Often, when someone declares that the Catholic Church "isn't Christian", that's what they're getting at: "it's not properly Christian because it's not the Christianity I believe in".

(Of course, the Trinity doesn't represent three gods at all. I'm polytheistic, so I know what having lots of gods entails, and Catholicism doesn't qualify.)

Anyway, to answer your question: if I asked a Catholic whether they were Christian, I would imagine that in most cases I'd probably get a fairly firm, moderately puzzled 'yes'. Roman Catholicism is generally accepted as the largest denomination of Christianity; its history and traditions are founded on its beliefs about Jesus Christ, and the doctrine that he was the Son of God. It has been a Christian denomination for almost two thousand years, and was in effect the only Christian church for quite a chunk of that time.

I don't think many Catholics would take issue with the label of 'Christian'.

However, if (and it's a really skinny 'if') I asked a Catholic whether they were Christian, and they said, "no, I'm Catholic", then (depending on my relationship with them) I'd either ask them what they mean, and find out how they view things, or I'd simply accept that this person considers themselves Catholic but not Christian, and be careful not to confuse the two in their presence. That's simply showing respect for someone's beliefs, even though I don't necessarily agree with or understand their views.

I still think that'd be a pretty unlikely scenario, though.

Besides that, why does being a member of one group stop me from knowing about another group?

It doesn't. I'm not Catholic either, but I like to think I know a reasonable amount about the faith. You can, too - but when you declare that Catholics aren't Christians, it suggests that you haven't read enough on the subject or talked to enough Catholics.

Rofl.. so the individual didn't pretend to know anything. Which hints that said individual did know quite a deal.

Thanks. Sometimes it's better to ignore people when they make unprovoked attacks on you.

Well, first, you should probably know that the Catholic Church occasionally comes in for stick from other branches of Christianity on the basis of supposedly having 'more than one god': a claim usually based on a simplistic conception of the doctrine of Trinity. Often, when someone declares that the Catholic Church "isn't Christian", that's what they're getting at: "it's not properly Christian because it's not the Christianity I believe in".

(Of course, the Trinity doesn't represent three gods at all. I'm polytheistic, so I know what having lots of gods entails, and Catholicism doesn't qualify.)

Anyway, to answer your question: if I asked a Catholic whether they were Christian, I would imagine that in most cases I'd probably get a fairly firm, moderately puzzled 'yes'. Roman Catholicism is generally accepted as the largest denomination of Christianity; its history and traditions are founded on its beliefs about Jesus Christ, and the doctrine that he was the Son of God. It has been a Christian denomination for almost two thousand years, and was in effect the only Christian church for quite a chunk of that time.

I don't think many Catholics would take issue with the label of 'Christian'.

However, if (and it's a really skinny 'if') I asked a Catholic whether they were Christian, and they said, "no, I'm Catholic", then (depending on my relationship with them) I'd either ask them what they mean, and find out how they view things, or I'd simply accept that this person considers themselves Catholic but not Christian, and be careful not to confuse the two in their presence. That's simply showing respect for someone's beliefs, even though I don't necessarily agree with or understand their views.

I still think that'd be a pretty unlikely scenario, though.



It doesn't. I'm not Catholic either, but I like to think I know a reasonable amount about the faith. You can, too - but when you declare that Catholics aren't Christians, it suggests that you haven't read enough on the subject or talked to enough Catholics.

Thank you, that was a very detailed answer and I am wiser now for having read it than I was before. I like people like you, you can actually show me why I am wrong, rather than just screaming "No, you're wrong!"

Possibly. Depends on how detailed they wanted to get.

If you ask a Methodist what their religion is, they might say Methodist and they might say Christian. Same thing with Catholics.

It's only us non-denoms that always just use the term Christian. And even we can get more descriptive, but we don't tend to have specific labels.



They do. That's why there are different churches that are all Christian churches.

Different denominations off the top of my head:
Roman Catholic
First Baptist
Southern Baptist
Primitive Baptist
Methodist
Pentacostal
Presbyterian
Lutheran
7th Day Adventists
Mormon
Jehovah's Witnesses

They all hold varying beliefs, and they aren't the whole of the group of Christians.

Disclaimer: I apologize if I left your denomination out. This was just off the top of my head.

Yeah, that was where I got confused, see I thought
"Different church, different religion"
But I was, rather obviously now, mistaken, thank you to everyone who helped me with that.

Which choice is for the general all-around Pagan living in modern American suburbia?

Is pastafarianism New Age?

Well, youre wrong. Now you know.


They do have some minor differances, but they both believe all that jazz about Jesus and both use the same book.

Ergo, they are both Christian.

Thank you for that, I had however, worked it out by now.

Is pastafarianism New Age?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say yes to that one.

I know for the sake of the poll you listed many religions together. I would have to say however that when listing something like "Christian (All sects, including JW and Mormonism)" be wary. I know (from being a very devoted christian (my church is non-denominational with strong baptist undertones), and as aunt that is JW) that they are not usually considered the same by either party. It would be safe to say that:

First Baptist
Southern Baptist
Primitive Baptist
Methodist
Pentacostal
Presbyterian
Lutheran
7th Day Adventists

as listed above would fall into the same catogory. But I wouldn't group Mormons and JW in the same thing. Before I get labled as narrowminded I will say that my fiances mother is wiccan, his father was an anglican priest, my grandfather was a mason for awhile, one aunt is JW, and one is eastern star. And I myself at one time was reading up on druidisum, so I'm not unfamiler with religions of all differnt kinds. I'm very happy where I'm at and though times may get tough, I know God is there for me.

(Please forgive any speeling errors, it's late and I'm very tired)