What religion are you?

[Türkisblau]

Roman Catholic.

[H. Ross Peron]

Affiliated with a CRC Church

[free my dawg]

I don't really know what I identify as. My friend apparently thinks I'm agnostic though so I guess I'll go with that

[Arturo Belano]

Agnostic

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Atheist, drifting towards Unitarianism as of late.

[JerryArkansas]

Deist, with some tendencies to being Agnostic.

[anvi]

I don't believe in deities of any kind.  I do, though, like the religion of learning.

[RI]

Converted to Roman Catholicism almost five years ago (Easter 2010). I was raised vaguely Protestant, drifting from denomination to denomination before my dad basically stopped taking us to church. I became a nominal atheist in middle school, which lasted until about 2008.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Atheism is not a religion.  Petition to change thread title to "What religion (or type of non-religion) are you?"  And yes, I'm aware that "other non-religious" is an option, but it should be made more clear. 

[angus]

Atheism is not a religion. 

That's not a defensible statement.  In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

[The Dowager Mod]

All of those protestant options yet Theravada, Mahayana & Vajrayana get lumped together.
I am offended being put in the same category as those creepy Theravadas. Kidding

[Alcon]

Atheism is not a religion. 

That's not a defensible statement.  In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

What does that have to do with atheism not being a religion?

Religion is the assertion of some metaphysical truth.  It's not merely a strong conviction in something, or even an irrational one.  Hard atheists assert the absence of a metaphysical truth of God, but that's a belief about metaphysics, not a belief in metaphysics.  But there are few hard atheists anyway -- even among the ranks of anti-religious zealots.  Most of them, even the Dawkins types, are soft atheists (agnostics).  They don't actively assert belief in the non-existence of God, but instead claim belief in the existence of God is completely unreasonable.  That's even further from a religion.  It's a belief about beliefs about metaphysics.  Again, definitely not a "religion" by any coherent definition I know.

tl;dr It may remind you of religious zealotry, but that doesn't make it a "religion."

[angus]

It may remind you of religious zealotry, but that doesn't make it a "religion."

I agree with that, and I said exactly as much.

To answer your question, I'd say that considering atheism to be a religion is rather like considering Christianity to be a religion, in a sense.  In a very specific sense.  Christianity, of course, is a broad umbrella term which includes many religions.  More, I'd argue, than even the OP included in his poll.  But, hey, you have to draw the line somewhere.  The term atheism works sort of that way as well.

Of course one classification system for religions--but probably not the only one--is to group them by the number of deities supported.  Thus, a religion might be called mono-, poly-, or atheistic.  So in that sense atheism, while not specifically a term referring to a single religion, might be a characteristic of a large number of religions, mostly extinct I'd imagine.   

Atheism, of course, can also refer to the non-religious variety, and, increasingly, to the anti-religious variety.  Anyway, Hockeydude's schtick has always been more anti-religious rather than irreligious.  It's fine, of course.  I just think we should call it like it is.

As for your definition of religion, it's not bad.  It used to be the three Cs  (and Hockeydude's brand of anti-religion certainly has all of those), but now it also includes something about Ultimate Reality, or what you call "metaphysical truth."  This, of course, is lacking in Hockeydude's on-line persona, although whether it exists in his real persona I can only speculate.  This is precisely why I used the subjunctive, and I would not argue with the statement you made that I quoted.

Certainly I have nothing against the irreligious, and consider myself among them, but the anti-religous are another matter altogether.  They can be as zealous as the most zealous inquisitor, and might go to similar lengths to install their own philosophy if circumstances allowed.  Hockeydude is young, though, so I don't think his bigotry will last forever.  I think that in time he'll develop a don't-give-a-shit attitude toward religion, like most people have done.

I'm pretty shallow myself.  Unspiritual may be a better word.  I voted Roman Catholocism, since I was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and I was communized (if I can coin the term) in youth and confirmed in adolescence.  My mother also taught us to say Grace, although you could probably count the number of times we actually said Grace on the fingers of one hand.  Mostly, she didn't want us to look like bumpkins when certain relatives visited, although among ourselves my nuclear family didn't stand on ceremony much.  Once in a great while we'd go to mass, but that was probably less than once per year.  For me, the religious experience was always more academic rather than spiritual.  In the same way that I liked Algebra and Spanish and Literature in school, I liked learning the stations of the cross and their significance in catechism.  So Catholicism becomes more of an ethno-religious identity rather than a religion, per se.  (some of the Cs are missing, I suspect)  I suppose I haven't been to mass since about 21 years ago, and that was a requiem mass.  It was probably at least ten years before that I attended a mass.  That really wasn't something we did regularly as I recall.  Still, as I am, in such polls it seems natural and pro-forma to check off Catholic.  I assume that's the way it is with many posters. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

formerly zealous atheist, now apathetic atheist. apatheist, if you will.

[Alcon]

It may remind you of religious zealotry, but that doesn't make it a "religion."

I agree with that, and I said exactly as much.

Err...you replied to "atheism is not a religion" with "that's not a defensible statement."

To answer your question, I'd say that considering atheism to be a religion is rather like considering Christianity to be a religion, in a sense.  In a very specific sense.  Christianity, of course, is a broad umbrella term which includes many religions.  More, I'd argue, than even the OP included in his poll.  But, hey, you have to draw the line somewhere.  The term atheism works sort of that way as well.

It's true that atheism and Christianity both include subsets.  Including subsets doesn't make something a religion.

Of course one classification system for religions--but probably not the only one--is to group them by the number of deities supported.  Thus, a religion might be called mono-, poly-, or atheistic.  So in that sense atheism, while not specifically a term referring to a single religion, might be a characteristic of a large number of religions, mostly extinct I'd imagine.

There are religions that are compatible with an absence of belief in God.  That does not make the absence of belief in God a religion.  The fact that a belief is compatible with a religion does not make that belief a religion.

Atheism, of course, can also refer to the non-religious variety, and, increasingly, to the anti-religious variety.  Anyway, Hockeydude's schtick has always been more anti-religious rather than irreligious.  It's fine, of course.  I just think we should call it like it is.

OK, I can't really speak to Hockeydude's attitudes or beliefs.  But using "atheist" as shorthand for "anti-religious" seems like a bad idea.  They're different concepts, and most atheists in polls don't identify as anti-religious.

As for your definition of religion, it's not bad.  It used to be the three Cs  (and Hockeydude's brand of anti-religion certainly has all of those), but now it also includes something about Ultimate Reality, or what you call "metaphysical truth."  This, of course, is lacking in Hockeydude's on-line persona, although whether it exists in his real persona I can only speculate.  This is precisely why I used the subjunctive, and I would not argue with the statement you made that I quoted.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.  Hockeydude is not asserting a metaphysical truth.  He's either asserting a truth about metaphysics, or a truth about beliefs about metaphysics.  Neither of those things are religious belief.  It might be belief about religion, but that's different.  Understand?

[DC Al Fine]

What does "Liberal/moderate/conservative" Christian even mean?

The voters in the poll can decide, but I was thinking that the most liberal Protestants who could be called "Protestant" would still believe in the divinity and other basics of Jesus, yet be liberal or openminded on most other things, and would not view the entire Bible as the literal truth.  The Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ are good examples.  At the other end of the spectrum, members of Independent Baptist Churches or Assemblies of God are likely very conservative Protestants.

I could figure that out But what is "moderate"? Where do Presbyterians fall?

Pretty much every branch of Protestantism has liberal and conservative wings. The closest thing to a "centrist" church is probably the United Methodist Church.

I'm an-arch conservative Presbyterian FTR.

[angus]

I hate it when people do this embedding thing.  I don't normally do it, but for you and Carl Hayden I always make exceptions.

Err...you replied to "atheism is not a religion" with "that's not a defensible statement."

Err, yes I did.

It's true that atheism and Christianity both include subsets.  Including subsets doesn't make something a religion.

I don't think that anyone is saying that it does

The fact that a belief is compatible with a religion does not make that belief a religion.

agreed.

OK, I can't really speak to Hockeydude's attitudes or beliefs.

No, you can't.

But using "atheist" as shorthand for "anti-religious" seems like a bad idea.

Shorthand can be a bad idea.  Apparently when you're in the room it's a very bad idea.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.  

I'm saying that I said what you said already before you said it.  Don't pick a fight where none exists.

Hockeydude is not asserting a metaphysical truth.

Dude, How many ing times must I say that I agree with that? and in fact I have already said it.  Multiple times.

Understand?

I understand that you're being a prick.  What I don't understand is whether you are drunk, stoned, haven't been laid in a long time, or are just bored.

Let Hockeydude fight his own battles.  He's a big boy.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Atheism is not a religion. 

That's not a defensible statement.  In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

I'm not at all passionate about my belief that there is not a god or gods, and that hardly drives my rhetoric on the subject.  I passionately oppose the use of religiously inspired thought in the public/governmental sphere, and find scientific explanations to be infinitely more logical and beautiful.  That's not in any way religious zealotry.  I feel like it's just "cute" for people to claim atheists are just religious in their own way, in the same way it's "cute" to say the Nazis were actually far-left.  You can tangentially relate the two, but it breaks down on a common sense level.     

[Oakvale]

I'm a Catholic but I don't 'practice' or belive in God etc. (normal)

My overriding view on religious matters as regards this forum is that "being spiritual" is a bad thing and must be stopped. Happy clappy Protestantism is a menace - at least the Church of England has the decency to be dour and depressing.

[angus]

I passionately oppose the use of religiously inspired thought in the public/governmental sphere, and find scientific explanations to be infinitely more logical and beautiful.  That's not in any way religious zealotry.   

A good many religious types oppose that as well.  They oppose religious exemptions as well.  

(I'm gonna regard this as my second proper post in this thread.  Any other were in response to Miss Nannystate who feels the need to go around to the tables in restaurants where young couples have infants and tell them exactly how they need to raise their children.  Pay no mind to any parent's reasonable responses to such busybodies.  That's between us and them, son.  Just eat your peas.)

It is indeed cute when folks try to tell how NationalSozialistische are Leftists because they claim to be National Socialists, but don't confuse that with confusing code, creed, and cult for code, creed and cult.  Zealotry is zealotry, whether it waves a black flag or a red one, so to speak.  You spend a good deal of time on this forum berating all those who profess some faith.  You must admit that this is true.  I recognize that, unlike other professed atheists, you were actually raised that way.  Don't forget that I was posting here back when you were a pimply-faced junior high school student, just learning about the wonders of self pleasure, and complaining about how hard it was to be the only atheist in the know universe.  (I paraphrase, of course, but I remember well your sentiment.)  I regarded you as a bit unique in that regard, because most of us, however irreligious we--and our parents--are, our parents at least had the civility to go through the motions of a proper religious upbringing.  In my case, I suspect it is because my parents did not want their siblings to think that they were somehow derelict in their duties.  That idea wears off after generations, of course, and neither I nor my siblings have formally inducted any of our offspring into any formal religious bodies.  You must not forget, however, that your uniqueness in this regard does not insulate you from the charge of egalitarianism imposed upon all civilized beings.  Those who do practice whatever religion must at times be reminded that they are not to impose their beliefs upon others, but you too must be reminded that you are not to impose yours.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I passionately oppose the use of religiously inspired thought in the public/governmental sphere, and find scientific explanations to be infinitely more logical and beautiful.  That's not in any way religious zealotry.   

A good many religious types oppose that as well.  They oppose religious exemptions as well.  

(I'm gonna regard this as my second proper post in this thread.  Any other were in response to Miss Nannystate who feels the need to go around to the tables in restaurants where young couples have infants and tell them exactly how they need to raise their children.  Pay no mind to any parent's reasonable responses to such busybodies.  That's between us and them, son.  Just eat your peas.)

It is indeed cute when folks try to tell how NationalSozialistische are Leftists because they claim to be National Socialists, but don't confuse that with confusing code, creed, and cult for code, creed and cult.  Zealotry is zealotry, whether it waves a black flag or a red one, so to speak.  You spend a good deal of time on this forum berating all those who profess some faith.  You must admit that this is true.  I recognize that, unlike other professed atheists, you were actually raised that way.  Don't forget that I was posting here back when you were a pimply-faced junior high school student, just learning about the wonders of self pleasure, and complaining about how hard it was to be the only atheist in the know universe.  (I paraphrase, of course, but I remember well your sentiment.)  I regarded you as a bit unique in that regard, because most of us, however irreligious we--and our parents--are, our parents at least had the civility to go through the motions of a proper religious upbringing.  In my case, I suspect it is because my parents did not want their siblings to think that they were somehow derelict in their duties.  That idea wears off after generations, of course, and neither I nor my siblings have formally inducted any of our offspring into any formal religious bodies.  You must not forget, however, that your uniqueness in this regard does not insulate you from the charge of egalitarianism imposed upon all civilized beings.  Those who do practice whatever religion must at times be reminded that they are not to impose their beliefs upon others, but you too must be reminded that you are not to impose yours.

1. I berate religious institutions.  It's not my fault if people take it personally. 

2. I wasn't.  I was brought to Episcopalian church for at least holidays and for periods weekly during my childhood.  My atheism is my own construct, however early it was developed. 

3. My desire that church and state remain separate is not me imposing anything.  In a hypothetical HockeyDudeLand, the only difference in social policy concerning religion is a more defined and bolded line between church and state, no private school, and that churches are taxed.  Despite what people have said about me, I've never once proposed any curbing of the freedom of religion. 

[Alcon]

OK, I won't do the embedding thing, angus.  But "don't pick a fight where none exists"?  Read what you wrote again, dude (emphasis mine):

Atheism is not a religion.  

That's not a defensible statement. In fact, before monotheism and polytheism became all the rage thousands of years ago, most religions were animistic or featured ancestor worship.  Even now there are a few really old Asians who practice some atheistic form of religion.

Your brand of atheism, even, which purports to be anti-religious is filled with such fervor that it might even be classified as religious zealotry were it not for your lack of concern for any ultimate reality.

Were you trying to say it's indefensible to claim that atheism is a religion?*  Because, if so, yeah, we agree, but you wrote the opposite of what you meant.  I think you could also understand that most people will read it as written, and then take the digressions in your follow-up as trying to justify the statement.  That's why I kept reiterating things we agreed on (because they seemed to conflict with what you wrote), and expressed confusion about your digressions (because I wrongly assumed they were meant to justify what you wrote).  The use of "err," which you apparently took as hostile, was genuine confusion.

I wasn't being a prick -- I was confused, because of your writing error, dude.  Subsequent personal attacks were completely unjustified.

_{(* - If you were meaning to claim what you wrote, I have no idea what your argument is, or why you think we don't disagree, or why you're angry with my response.)}

[Wolverines34]

NONE.

[politicallefty]

Pretty much Agnostic, but I lean far more towards theism (in some form or another) over atheism.

[C9xV63H5]

Katholisch. But I do not go into the church often.