Does everyone have their own 'religion'?

Post Reply New Topic

My first name is Robin. People at work know I'm quirky. They've always wondered what makes me tick, so they ask me, "What religion are you?" I tell them, "I'm a Robinist. I practice the religion of Robin. It's called Robinism. Our belief is in the preservation of Robin." It usually keeps them quiet!

How do you define religion.
When religion is only that everybody belief the same, do the same and think the same about for this religion important books, or that everybody celebrate exactly the same religios ceremonies, than there are 7 billion religions on the world.
When religion means only to have the same values and the same "holy" book than there are not so much religions on the world.

A central fundamental part of every religion is to believe something. I think that even when a religion is splitted up in several groups (who fight against each other) are one religion. (many times there are only arguments about ceremonies or interpretation not about the fundamental aspects)

Everybody has own ideas about the universe. Even many atheists.
But in my opinion, own ideas aren't a independent religion.
In my opinion even atheism is a religion, because you believe that there isn't any God.
In fact we don't know if there is any God or not (or how many). So atheists believe something,
even when they say that they had no faith.

Not all Jews Muslims or Christians think the same about their religion.

Of course not. But the differences are mostly not very important. Also it isn't another religion when person A celebrated his religion on an other way than person B.
Also you are part of one religion when you think that you are part of this religion.
I think it is better to see inside a religion a wide space for different ideas.
But when you think that religion means that everybody think the same, than there are in your opinion more religions in the world as in my opinion.
It is only a question about how to define religion.

I define at as I believe in God life after death heaven hell and living my life based on my faith. Thats how I define having a religion.

The concept of religion is flawed, in my opinion. I remember reading about that anthropologists apparently don't like it very much, and that the fact that we base it on "faith" or "belief" is, in the end, a piece of eurocentrist heritage, and that they prefer "broader systems of thought" or something like that. I must say I can't arbitrate on the case, it is far off my field of knowledge, but anyway...

What is certain, however, is that atheism is not a religion, not with a sensible definition of "religion". At the very least, any proper religion must have some kind of cult, which atheism doesn't. Besides, there is a vast difference between an ontological position (such as atheism, deism and agnosticism) and an organised cult (such as Christianity). Of course, many atheists are so for the wrong reasons, are strangely dogmatic and stupid and use terms without care about what they mean or if they actually equate with their beliefs, but then, religion doesn't have the monopoly of stupidity.

Christianity certainly didn't begin until Jesus's death, and the general opinion seems to be that it started as a distinct religion (as opposed to one of many Jewish sects) when the Greeks started philosophising about it.

Christianity began with Jesus while he was alive.

Since the whole basis of the religion is what happened after the crucifixion, no.

Of course, Jesus taught during his life, but he didn't create a new religion, just another of many sects.

That is because the early Christians where Jewish the Crucifiction had nothing to do with Christianity becoming a religion. You should at least do some research befor making false claims about a religion.

I have not expressed myself with sufficient accuracy. Of course atheism has no ceremonies or "holy" houses, books, organizations ... like normal religions. But they believe something.
It sounds so that you think that a religion need ceremonies or "holy" houses, books, organizations ... .
But what would be if there is person A who believes to a religion but he dislike ceremonies or "holy" houses, books, organizations ... .
Is he member of a religion?
When he is member of a religion, than there is the only difference between a religion and a ontological position, that that a ontological position had not so much thoughts than a religion.
What would be if there is a religion which is based only on one sentence.
And what would be the difference between the small religion to an ontological position?

(Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker and so on the philosophical debate is focused, that I'm too lazy to correct my mistakes)

Without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection. The last time I checked, that bit was quite fundamental.


My point was mostly that the definition of a religion as belief in something is flawed.

Besides, being myself agnostic (in the true sense of the word, that is, that the existence or non-existence of a creator of the universe is unknowable), I must say my position is not really a "belief": I just think it is the only suitable one, the one which is best supported by satisfactory arguments and evidence. This is also the way I would describe my position on the death penalty, economic policy, the evolution of levantine trade in the 13th century and the comparative values of different brands of pens (random examples). I certainly don't see my position in this ontological debate as anything meaningful. If I were to give a full description of myself, the word "agnostic" would probably be excluded because I would not think about it. It has no bearing on my life at all.

Even in the case of militant atheist, e.g. Richard Dawkins, for whom that God question is obviously very important and meaningful, I still think it does not apply. Of course, there are very interesting similarities between the behaviour of Richard Dawkins and that of Christian missionaries of the past. To me, that just means analyzing such systems of ideas in terms of "religion" is just not a good approach, and the fact that people try to brand atheism as a religion is a proof that the concept of religion is badly defined.

A point I would like to bring up is that often, the opposition is between, on one side, atheism/pseudo-agnosticism, and on the other, Christianity. That is purely strange. If, for some strange and magic reason, atheism were suddenly to be proved as false (which I think is impossible), it would probably make a stronger case to deism, not Christianity. I don't see any way to see Christianity as true without a basis of pure dogmatism -- it may be useful, comforting or interesting, but certainly not true.

If you define Christian belief as the belief that Jesus is the resurrected messiah, then yes, this belief would have origined after his death. Probably much later, when the story of his crucifixion had turned into a legend with mystical elements like the resurrection and ascension (a crucifiction, as Joker might put it I love that typo )

But if you define Christians as followers of Jesus, the first disciples would already have been Christians, assuming that the gospel stories are based on historical events. I'm not really convinced that there was a historical Jesus.

No, that's exactly what they DON'T do. Its a state of disbelief.

I do believe in things. If the weather forecast predicts rain, I believe that it's very likely to rain tomorrow But that's not atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in deities. My beliefs are based on something else and have nothing to do with the fact that I'm an atheist.

Many people say the same thing about Muhammad. Religion is a mystery really so much to wonder about even if you don't agree you are still wondering many atheists that I know do that often as do the religious.

Religion really does make me wonder a lot I usually shake my head and sigh while I'm wondering.