I was raised in a Catholic household. No longer have any religious affiliation but my parents still love me anyways so that's cool.

...
No. Just... no.
None of the other definitions you present, are anywhere close to accurate, either, but your explanation of agnostic, is especially wrong.

You do realise, that this site is available, 24/7, right?

By the time this was posted, the poll was only an hour old mmm...
But I guess the number doesn't change much since then, so I guess there are just too many people from those region using mangaupdates mmm...

Last edited by VawX at 10:37 pm, Oct 23 2023

________________
I will change this world mmm...
So the world can change me mmm...

I found religion later in life.
My wife had passed away and my doctor had suggested that some people find strength in their religion to overcome the unhappiness.
I had a religious experience sometime after that; I find that helps you decide if it's real to you, or just cosplay.

Orthodox Christian. And always will be, though I'm not very dedicated like I was when a child, I still follow some traditions.

"Christian - Catholic" is what I answered, since I am a practicing Catholic, a traditionalist at that. Thing is, upbringing-wise it's a bit different.

You see, my parents are both Jews who converted to Christianity, and they never went through some kind of cultural transplant (oddly enough, your attitudes and views won't necessarily change just because you convert, and your food and humour certainly won't). Moreover, while my dad is a Traditionalist Catholic (as in, we go to a church which celebrates the Tridentine Mass in Latin), my mum is a High Church Anglo-Catholic; theologically these are actually quite close (more of a schismatic difference, which is why I answered "Catholic" ). When it came to raising my siblings and me, we were given a combination of Traditionalist/High Church Christianity and Jewish practices and attitudes (more attitudes than practices, especially when it comes to the importance of tradition), with lots of conversations at the dinner table over different theological points. Ultimately, my siblings and I were left to choose what to practice: two of us became Traditionalist Catholic, and one became High Church Anglo-Catholic (although he was considering becoming Eastern/Greek Orthodox for a while). There was a time when I was little, when I considered becoming Jewish, religiously speaking, and my parents would have been completely accepting if I had done so. The result: my entire immediate family is practicing and proud of our Jewish heritage.

Thanks to my background, I find Christian - Protestant or Evangelical too broad: there's the Lutheran lineage of Protestantism which does allow for tradition and taking joy in God's creation and the Calvinist and Arminian lineages which at best allow those in limited amounts (and typically believe in predestination, rather the form known as theological determinism). (Theological explanation: "Predestination" in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Lutheran-lineage Protestantism is essentially moot from a human perspective; it only exists from God's perspective, because He is essentially outside of time, thus things both have and have not yet occurred — like a person relative to the events in a book or story they've read — God's being all-knowing is not causal; foreknowledge does not cause anything to occur or choices to be made. (St. Augustine of Hippo explains this better, obviously.) In Calvinist and Arminian-lineage Protestantism, "predestination" means that God's foreknowledge causes your choices and the course of events. Also, nearly all Protestant denominations are "bad" about the forgiveness of sins, with some believing that all will be forgiven regardless of whether the sinner repents, others being ambivalent, and some effectively not believing in it at all.) (Interesting historical tidbit regarding the differences between the former group and the latter group: there's a town in Switzerland which kept very good records regarding the causes of death of its populace throughout the Reformation there (so from Catholicism (possible forgiveness of sins and no determinism) to Calvinism (determinism and no possible forgiveness of sins)) — the numbers of murders and suicides before and after the Reformation switched such that the total number of violent deaths remained the same. The decline in mental health appals me, but, on the other hand, fewer innocents were being hurt.)

That said, I'm well aware that since this is a poll involving as many religions globally as possible, the choices can only be divided so much, but some of these distinctions can be quite significant (like Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism, as VawX pointed out; or Karaite Judaism as opposed to Rabbinical Judaism). Additionally, as 狂気 pointed out, Confucianism really shouldn't be together with Daoism (for one thing, Confucianism is really a subset of what is referred to in English as "Chinese folk-religion," while Daoism isn't). More importantly, there should be a choice for "multiple religions," because your parents/guardians might not practice the same religion and not all religions prohibit syncrentism. But the poll is what it is.

Last edited by blackluna at 12:27 am, Oct 25 2023

That's not agnosticism, that's deism or theism (the former holds that the divine does not intervene in Creation, whilst the latter holds that Divine does intervene in Creation). (You also had theism wrong.) Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the Divine or the existence thereof. Agnosticism can also be used to refer to an ambivalence about religious matters. Either way, it is clearly not the same thing as atheism — the religious belief that there is no deity or Divine (yes, that's a religious belief, although some like to argue otherwise, usually the types who see a need to evangelize others into their fold).

Please use a dictionary. Especially before criticising others' usage.

Last edited by blackluna at 11:48 pm, Oct 24 2023

I beg to differ: most Christians do actually read the Bible (not merely memorize portions of it). The same might well be true of the Quran and Muslims (but my knowledge of Islam is far too limited; I wouldn't be surprised either way). In fact, most for denominations of Christianity, you are supposed to genuinely read the Bible; additionally, studying the Tenakh (the Jewish Bible) is a religious duty for Jews (mostly for those who have had a bar/bat mitzvah). Your generalizations seem to be based on knowledge of maybe a few more-outspoken individuals — contrary to your experience, most practicing thinking religious individuals have read their scriptures, and sometimes parts of others' too.

And telling religious stories in school isn't necessarily advocating for the practice of said religion (thus not breaking religious neutrality) — it depends on whether the stories had to do with the subject of the class at hand (if it didn't, then you may well be correct, assuming the school was government-run, if not, then you have no argument what so ever). (For example, in a history class, the story might have something to do with the motivations of a specific figure; for a literature class, a religious story might be referenced in a work. In both cases, the story may be told to assist the students' understanding without breaking religious neutrality.) I should also point out that some people object to religious students privately saying prayers, which is exactly what religious neutrality is supposed to allow — forbidding it would be imposing atheism (as a student, I've been scolded for praying to myself silently). So do tread carefully.

Last edited by blackluna at 11:48 pm, Oct 24 2023

That may have something to do with the number of Muslim-raised users on this website. Same goes for people raised with "no religion."

Last edited by blackluna at 12:09 am, Oct 25 2023

No, there are many other definitions of agnosticism.
Also, neither of those options, involve a belief in a god or gods, which thus means that they are ateist.

Nope.
Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a deity or deities.
It is not a belief.
The notion that there is no god(s), sometimes called "strong atheism", is a belief, but atheism doesn't require that, so...

Also, the belief that there is no god(s), is not a religious belief, by any stretch of the imagination. It's a belief, that is (actually only indirectly) related to religion, but it is not a religious belief.
(indirect, as you can have belief in god, without any hint of religion, as well as a religion, without any god)

Last edited by zarlan at 9:21 am, Oct 25 2023

Nope. That is demonstrably false.

Wrong again.

It did not. In any way, whatsoever. It was also only ever biblical stories. Jesus stuff, mainly.
And it wasn't studying the story, nor any form of explaining any aspect of culture or history, or anything like that.
I am strongly in favour, of teaching about religions, in school. (as long as there is no special focus on any one religion, or covering only the abrahamic ones, mind you)

As long as the school has no part in it, and it is purely individual students, freely deciding to pray, and they aren't disturbing anyone, then yes, that should be allowed, in accordance with freedom of religion. Secularism is about the State not involving itself with religion. Not giving it any special treatment, good or bad.

No. Not in any way, shape, or form.
It would be unjustified discrimination, on religious grounds, but in no way, would it impose a lack of belief in god(s).

How about you say that, AFTER I say anything that could possibly be problematic
...which I have not done, and will never do.

Last edited by zarlan at 9:14 am, Oct 25 2023

This thread is the perfect example of why I never discuss religion

...and that, despite how no one has even argued for/against any religion.
I totally get why most people want to just avoid the topic.
(I don't ...but I don't go out of my way to bring it up, either. Don't want to needlessly disturb people. When it is brought up, however...)

Please re-read your and my posts and try again. Something clearly messed with your reading comprehension if you can reach any of these conclusions from that. (It seems to me that someone or something gave you cause to be bitter. I'm sorry if that's the case. But, as someone who's been there — albeit with regard to something else — that's all the more reason to be careful with anything affected by that bitterness.) I'm also guessing that my phrasing was less-than-helpful, so I want to clarify and correct a few things here.

First off, regarding the appropriateness of telling a religious story in schools, you didn't exactly give any information beyond "a teacher told a religious story in school in a country whose government is secular" — which is what I was responding to. I did not have any information beyond what you had provided at the time, nor could I have. Yet, you seem to be assuming that I knew more than that, especially about the context. As to the specific situation you mentioned, from what you gave in your response, clearly the teacher was not using the story as I mentioned above, so, assuming the school in question was government-run, yes, the teacher was in the wrong.

Regarding the "imposing atheism" thing on my end — that was partially a bit of bitterness from me, I admit. Especially since my example was purely social. On the flip side, I once had a teacher say in class, as an aside, that no one believes in Heaven and Hell anymore (the way it was phrased implied that believing in either is absurd in this day and age), and just as you feel you ought to have reported your teacher teaching an unrelated religious story, I ought to have reported my teacher. All that said, forbidding practice of religion is a form and means of stamping out the belief or beliefs in question — the primary one, at that. (So the use of "imposing" may be considered more of a definition/semantics thing.)

My "do tread carefully" was not in reference to your story directly, but rather the broad statements you appeared to making in connection to it. I simply am very wary about judging such matters with such broad strokes — history and current events alike show that it would be better to err on the side of caution and judge each situation on a case-by-case basis. I might well have been reading too far into your statements, which is my fault (I tend to do that with everything, so sorry if I have). Regardless, I still don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was condemning your actions. (What actions were there to condemn?)

All that said, your most problematic statement if the one you began your post with. Your broad claim that most religious believers don't read their scriptures (or least most Christians don't) being "demonstrably false." If it were "demonstrable," it would be possible to provide solid, provable facts. However, this isn't the sort of area where there even can be statistics, so "demonstrably" it clearly cannot possibly be, one way or another. That's why I concluded that you were generalizing (and probably are also dealing with some unintentional sampling bias — most people run into that a few times in their lives, and some even publish based on such evidence, notably Freud).

"Most" Christians reading was hyperbole on my part (sorry). Please allow me to properly state what seems to me to be the actual case: In my own experience, it is at worst two thirds read-but-not-actually and one third read — and my experience includes multiple denominations, among other things, so I think it isn't that far off. I would also like to point out that in the religious services of Catholics, Anglicans, and the like, the sermon of any given service is about one of the readings from the Bible which were part of said service and is intended to provoke contemplation and to provide assistance in interpretation. As a result, it's kind of hard not to do some serious thinking about those passages, at the very least. Thus, actually reading is encouraged in a lot of ways; tradition is given as a guide or assist, so to speak. (Like when a literature teacher gives you information about the historical period, language use, and customs from when the text was written to prevent anachronism and the like. It's the same type of thing.) To counter your apparent claim that non-believers read scripture more than believers, I have to point out that there are also an alarming number of atheists who disregard anything which so much as takes religious views seriously as superstitious frippery and refuse to so much as touch such things, let alone anyone's scriptures. (Appallingly, even great minds are far from immune: Bertrand Russell tossed aside all Mediaeval philosophy on such a basis.) At best, such people "read" it as the source text of nonsense or conspiracy — not what either of us would call reading, I presume. I've had to deal with far too many of such atheists, just as you appear to have had to deal with far too many non-reading believers. Correcting for general experience, I'm guessing the norm is more around 25 to 35 percent who actually read, since that's the normal range for literate people to actually read things overall (albeit, somewhat optimistic). I doubt the subject matter of the text ultimately has much to do with whether a specific individual reads or just goes through the motions of reading.

I hope this clarifies things.

Last edited by blackluna at 2:55 pm, Oct 27 2023