I'm a negative atheist. So yeah, it's really just a personal belief. No big organisations or communities or anything.

traditional Scottish Protestantism promoted personal critical reading of the bible (as it was the work of flawed and fallible men) in search of the deeper religious truth hidden within "between the lines".

sec... aren't you Dutch ? you should know this stuff! :P we got it from you...

im "not religious" but that's the tradition i was born into. like most people in the UK i belong to a certain church only culturally.

i have my own theories as to why the universe might actually be here and maybe one day i'll share them.

Not part of any religion, don't really believe in Jesus/Allah/Buddha or anything like that.

Also, I thought was going to be about schisms within the various Churches

I'm an apatheist. I really enjoy studying religion, though as I find it to be a fascinating part of humanity. If I had to pick a religion, it would probably be something similar to Sikhism.

I rigidly follow the doctrine of my religion, but that might not count, seeing as how I came up with it.

Captcha: fairy tale

Hey!

Danyal, I wish you'd have included one of those self-disparaging anti-Danyal choices just so that I'd have *something* to click, because I'm sorry, but the Christian-based assumptions are so overwhelming in this poll that there's no possible way for me to answer it.

My religion doesn't *have* a set doctrine. Short of "the Norse did things we find valuable", I defy anyone to come up with doctrines that everyone agrees on-- and if they did, I can't imagine such a thing as a doctrine everyone interprets the same way. Hell, we can't even agree on exactly which things the Norse did that were valuable, or how they were valuable. Not to mention that there is, by definition, no possible "official" doctrine because "official" requires an office. Since we have no central authority, there's no possible official doctrine. (Individual groups do have established ideas for their group-- well, a few established ideas, but groups are autonomous and don't speak for the entire religion-- and not everyone is in one.)

So you're asking me to define myself relative to something that doesn't exist. You're also asking me to believe that someone who thinks for themselves in my religion is some kind of maverick when the *whole point* is that we believe humans to be gifted with the ability to make our own judgments and sound out our own reason. That, actually, is about the closest thing we've got to a doctrine everyone agrees on.

Moreover, Neo-Pagans as a group tend to be more polyamorous in our religious ideas than most, both because most Pagan religions value individual freedom of thought (o children of the Enlightenment that we are, reconstruction or no reconstruction) and because many of us, for a variety of reasons mostly related to our minority status and relative scarcity, tend to be engaged in a lot of dialogue and socializing with other Pagans who aren't necessarily the same type of Pagan that we are, so we're exposed to more outgroup ideas than many members of larger religions. So borrowing ideas from other religions for one's own personal beliefs tends to be pretty common.

I don't know how useful your answers would be for Christians, but I can tell you that the premises are completely wrong for Pagans.

I suppose you could imagine religion like a fractal. You get a very big religion, such as Christianity, which splinters into various different subsets, which have smaller sects within them. Also most major religions share some common roots, so it's not too far off.

So essentially, each person's belief makes up the smallest splinter, and we group similar splinters together, in broader and broader terms. Or maybe this is all bs and I've been spending too much time making fractals in the GIMP :P

I'm not, I'm an Atheist. I've been interested in biology and astronomy since a very young age, my family and I watched pop-science shows en massé and while I attended religious classes in school, I never felt like I was forced to believe in something or not. It's frankly the advantage of living in a European country (Northern and Middle in particular, Southern is more religious); there's relatively little pressure on you, unless you live in rural areas of high religiosity. Least that's how I experienced it.

Polarity27:
Danyal, I wish you'd have included one of those self-disparaging anti-Danyal choices just so that I'd have *something* to click, because I'm sorry, but the Christian-based assumptions are so overwhelming in this poll that there's no possible way for me to answer it.

My religion doesn't *have* a set doctrine. Short of "the Norse did things we find valuable", I defy anyone to come up with doctrines that everyone agrees on-- and if they did, I can't imagine such a thing as a doctrine everyone interprets the same way. Hell, we can't even agree on exactly which things the Norse did that were valuable, or how they were valuable. Not to mention that there is, by definition, no possible "official" doctrine because "official" requires an office. Since we have no central authority, there's no possible official doctrine. (Individual groups do have established ideas for their group-- well, a few established ideas, but groups are autonomous and don't speak for the entire religion-- and not everyone is in one.)

So you're asking me to define myself relative to something that doesn't exist. You're also asking me to believe that someone who thinks for themselves in my religion is some kind of maverick when the *whole point* is that we believe humans to be gifted with the ability to make our own judgments and sound out our own reason. That, actually, is about the closest thing we've got to a doctrine everyone agrees on.

Moreover, Neo-Pagans as a group tend to be more polyamorous in our religious ideas than most, both because most Pagan religions value individual freedom of thought (o children of the Enlightenment that we are, reconstruction or no reconstruction) and because many of us, for a variety of reasons mostly related to our minority status and relative scarcity, tend to be engaged in a lot of dialogue and socializing with other Pagans who aren't necessarily the same type of Pagan that we are, so we're exposed to more outgroup ideas than many members of larger religions. So borrowing ideas from other religions for one's own personal beliefs tends to be pretty common.

I don't know how useful your answers would be for Christians, but I can tell you that the premises are completely wrong for Pagans.

Though I do agree with all your points, I feel that the best choice above for that would be the first one. As like you said, there is no doctrine so all our beliefs are individual to some extent.

Also by elimination we can determine that there are two sound options for us to pick. We certaintly aren't a "Very big group that has many splinters" because our group is extremely small even if we included every form of neo-pagan there is; though it's possible that some of us haven't given it much thought, those members either start to think about it a whole lot more very quickly, or they move on to something else; we have no official doctrine as you said, and lastly we do have beliefs. That leaves the first answer and the answer of "a mix of several religions" and though I would expect either fits many people well, neither of them fits most of the pagans on know personally (myself included) to a T.

Kendarik:
Hmm, two surveys in a row that the answers don't fit. What if you are a part of a smaller religion that requires you to think?

Wouldn't your answer just be Orthodox Judaism?

Trent Lynch:

Also by elimination we can determine that there are two sound options for us to pick. We certaintly aren't a "Very big group that has many splinters" because our group is extremely small even if we included every form of neo-pagan there is; though it's possible that some of us haven't given it much thought, those members either start to think about it a whole lot more very quickly, or they move on to something else; we have no official doctrine as you said, and lastly we do have beliefs. That leaves the first answer and the answer of "a mix of several religions" and though I would expect either fits many people well, neither of them fits most of the pagans on know personally (myself included) to a T.

I thought about that. I also thought about dissecting why I'm uncomfortable with that option, ultimately deciding it was too much of a distraction from my main point. It's... closest. It's more or less right, for me, but most of my beliefs are from *somewhere*, they're just not all from the same somewhere.

I just don't like the resulting image that there's nothing about us that coheres. We have coherent ideas, they're just different in structure and thrust than Christian ideas are, and unless all of the Christian thinking in this post was removed, they're not captured. My point was basically "you're an atheist but you still think very much like a Christian (not surprisingly, many atheists do-- many Pagans do, too), and until you realize that, you'd be better off not trying to speak of "religion" as a unified field at all".

Aren't all religions a collection of ideas from various different sources lumped together?

I mean, there's probably some pure form of Zororastrianism practiced somewhere that hasn't been affected by Abrahamic ideas or other religions, but in most cases, religions have evolved and adapted over time.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:
Hmm, two surveys in a row that the answers don't fit. What if you are a part of a smaller religion that requires you to think?

Wouldn't your answer just be Orthodox Judaism?

I identify as traditional conservative actually. While I still find myself drawn to Orthodoxy at times, I converted Conservative.

But either way, it doesn't make a difference. Jewish law expects you to think and debate. As the old joke says, what happens if you put 5 Rabbis in a room to get an opinion on one question of law? 8 answers. We are all about debate and discussion.

So, while we are required to follow Torah, there is very much that is more fluid and subject to understanding, interpretation, and free thought. We have no "central authority" that sets law, even if there are common understandings.

Fair enough.

I realize that there is no "pope", but wouldn't you agree that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are a kind of "central authority"?

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:

I identify as traditional conservative actually. While I still find myself drawn to Orthodoxy at times, I converted Conservative.

But either way, it doesn't make a difference. Jewish law expects you to think and debate. As the old joke says, what happens if you put 5 Rabbis in a room to get an opinion on one question of law? 8 answers. We are all about debate and discussion.

So, while we are required to follow Torah, there is very much that is more fluid and subject to understanding, interpretation, and free thought. We have no "central authority" that sets law, even if there are common understandings.

Fair enough.

I realize that there is no "pope", but wouldn't you agree that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are a kind of "central authority"?

No, not at all. They have authority in Israel alone (and not even over all Jews in Israel except where their role is required by Israeli law)

For example, in North America, where Ashkenazi are more common than Sefardim, he has little to no weight at all. He's just a foreign Rabbi from a different cultural tradition.

I think your forgetting that there are two rabbis, and that while one might be Sephardi(Shlomo Amar), the other(Yona Metzger) is Ashkenazi.

Polarity27:

Trent Lynch:

Also by elimination we can determine that there are two sound options for us to pick. We certaintly aren't a "Very big group that has many splinters" because our group is extremely small even if we included every form of neo-pagan there is; though it's possible that some of us haven't given it much thought, those members either start to think about it a whole lot more very quickly, or they move on to something else; we have no official doctrine as you said, and lastly we do have beliefs. That leaves the first answer and the answer of "a mix of several religions" and though I would expect either fits many people well, neither of them fits most of the pagans on know personally (myself included) to a T.

I thought about that. I also thought about dissecting why I'm uncomfortable with that option, ultimately deciding it was too much of a distraction from my main point. It's... closest. It's more or less right, for me, but most of my beliefs are from *somewhere*, they're just not all from the same somewhere.

I just don't like the resulting image that there's nothing about us that coheres. We have coherent ideas, they're just different in structure and thrust than Christian ideas are, and unless all of the Christian thinking in this post was removed, they're not captured. My point was basically "you're an atheist but you still think very much like a Christian (not surprisingly, many atheists do-- many Pagans do, too), and until you realize that, you'd be better off not trying to speak of "religion" as a unified field at all".

Seems like we've come to an agreement then. None of the answers above fit us very well and there is a strong Abrahamic overtone in the poll and topic.

Danyal, my advice is to think better about your medium for analyzing the "splintered-ness" of religion. If you are trying to grasp the larger scope, the escapist is a poor medium because the population in the R&P section does not even closely reflect your example of North America. Here your group is much more diverse (by percentage) in religious beliefs than NA, even with the large majority being atheists (also very dissimilar to NA).

Danyal:
It looks like a lot of people here don't actually go to church and are an active member of a specific denomination, but they have started interpreting and thinking themselves. A lot of deists, a lot of 'agnostic theists', people who follow Jesus but ignore large parts of the Bible...

So I'd like to ask you; are you part of an 'official, big' denomination, or is your belief way more individualized?

As a citizen of a self-proclaimed Christian nation (Poland), I can say this about religious people (well, Christians but lately, living in the UK, I've met several Muslims and it's pretty much the same thing, maybe a little stronger):
Most of them don't know the teachings of their religion, have never touched the "holy books", have their own vision of what god is and his moral code usually reflects their moral code - in short, it differs from person to person.
If they do know the teachings, they tend to cherry pick the ones that they agree with and leave out the ones they don't. Again, it differs from person to person.
The groups that have a more unified belief system are often the more extreme ones (or just the clergy of a particular denomination). The weaker the impact of religion on your life, the more your religious views will differ from others.

To sum up, I think that there are millions of Jahwes and Allahs (and other deities) in the world and pretty much every individual belief system differs from other belief systems, even if just in the most minor details. It depends on the believer.

Religion conceptually is never splintered; By its very definition, it is a shared set of beliefs, just as Theology is not the study of the personal preferences of random adherents, but of the authoritative teachings of "god(s)" (i.e. in actuality the religious dogma itself).

So the real question is, how many have blatantly mislabeled themselves as part of something they do not actually submit to?

Beliefs, be they secular or of a more silly nature, can be personal and individual. Religion is then a dogmatic set of authoritative beliefs, shared by a group of followers ("sheep of a flock, guided by a shepherd", as the Catholic imagery goes). Was it for each man to decide on his own, then the study of theology would logically be nothing but determining and validating the individual preferences of each adherent; It is not, and for good reason.

Sleekit:
traditional Scottish Protestantism promoted personal critical reading of the bible (as it was the work of flawed and fallible men) in search of the deeper religious truth hidden within "between the lines".

sec... aren't you Dutch ? you should know this stuff! :P we got it from you...

im "not religious" but that's the tradition i was born into. like most people in the UK i belong to a certain church only culturally.

i have my own theories as to why the universe might actually be here and maybe one day i'll share them.

.
You mean Calvinism?

Religion is very splintered as a whole. Check how many thousands of sub-sects on the SINGULAR religion of Christianity there are... As well as the bigger branches of Catholicism, and orthodoxy. Each of them having sub-sects too.

And don't even get me started on other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.

i'm just muliti-culteral so i try and say i'm more than one religon (my family is catholic and not the over the top kind we my grandma only goes to church on satday unless she is doing something immportiant) i also see the views of scince.

Why did you necro this thread?

(And dear hell, was it only me who saw this and thought "how the hell is he BACK?")

Yup, necroing the thread of a banned user is particularly spooky...

Polarity27:
Why did you necro this thread?

(And dear hell, was it only me who saw this and thought "how the hell is he BACK?")

Why Polarity it nearly sounded like you missed ol' Dan. ;)

aPod:

Why Polarity it nearly sounded like you missed ol' Dan. ;)

His threads were definitely entertaining, you've got to admit that. But seeing his name on the front page of the board again nearly gave me a heart attack...

Okay, so imagine a tree that was cut down, and forced to float down the River Euphrates for a good long while, then washed up on a dry, dry desert area beneath the merciless sun for another good long while, then shot at with a 50 caliber bullet... There you go...