• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

What religion were you raised on?

What religion were you raised on?

  • Catholic

    Votes: 38 28.6%
  • Lutheran

    Votes: 10 7.5%
  • Pentecostal/Baptist/Evangelical

    Votes: 19 14.3%
  • Mormon

    Votes: 8 6.0%
  • Anglican/Episcopalian

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Buddhist

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • Hindu

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Muslim

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Atheist/ Agnostic

    Votes: 23 17.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 23.3%

  • Total voters
    133

Иван

New Member

blackfuredfox

is a Gunnery Sergeant now.
I was raised Catholic, but Im not really sure what I am any more. I guess to put a name on it, Switzerlandism, I stand neutral on all things.
 

Russ

*Le Rawr*
Mom Christian. Dad Muslim. Neither of them cared too much. Spent my first years in a Christian majority country. My school years was in a Muslim majority country but strictly secular environment. Mom encouraged experimentation.

So...other I suppose.
 

Vriska

Spider 8itch
Baptist.
But my parents are the cool christans not shouting "MAKE JESUS SAVIOR OR U GON DIE RIGHT NAO!"
 

Irreverent

Member
also you shouldn't get your information or definitions of sociological topics from a dictionary

Really? Since I'm fresh out of Cracker-Jack boxes and Fortune cookies, where should one get said definitions from? And how would the source be trusted? Clearly doing it for longer than you've been alive isn't trusted validation. ;)
 

Kranksty

Burnt to a crispy texture
I am a Non-Denominational Christian which means I go to a church that accepts people for who they are and were they are in the life.
 

Torrijos-sama

The Artist Formerly Known as Jesusfish
ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ can only express the confusion and disappointment we all share to the unspeakable name having been uttered upon this forum.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Really? Since I'm fresh out of Cracker-Jack boxes and Fortune cookies, where should one get said definitions from? And how would the source be trusted? Clearly doing it for longer than you've been alive isn't trusted validation. ;)

Debates on semantics in comparative religion texts would tell you something more useful
than a dictionary.
Dictionaries are political because they require a prescriptive stance to certain terms, and they're reluctant to change what used to be descriptive.

which is why some dictionaries up until recently rarely included gender as a role-based cultural concept
or anarchy was defined as "a state of total chaos"

Also, this is ridiculous since in context of the thread its clear that atheist/agnostic was referring to mechanism/uncertainty/impossibility, not religion with amorphous deities
and as i said
thats why the concepts are divorced now

Sure, you could call a certain religions "atheist" if you define atheist to mean a lack of simple, clear-cut Western plastic mold deities (which a great deal of the world's deities do not easily fit - bodhihood, Aum, Kramic Saiva), but that has two problems:

1. The bulk of Western (Abr./Gr./Ro./No./etc.) theory and discussion based on atheism is built around secular reality, and the refutation of the existence of supernatural impact.

2. You lump Eastern and non-"Western" (though, I'm not really aware of any Native American religions that don't really have "deific" representations of natural/supernatural reality) religions which have clearly defined names, easier categories, and wildly different notions of the supernatural "deity" and "reality" with a complete non-existence or absence of supernatural realities, deities, events, etc.

I have never read a theorist, philosopher, theosopher, or ethnographer refer to religions in this manner.
And I very rarely see it referred to in popular dialog in this way.
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
I'm in this kind of late but you do have "Atheistic religions" but Atheism is not a religion of and by itself.

EDIT: Don't ask me how it works. I know it does. I'm too tired right now to explain.
 
Last edited:

Vaelarsa

resident spaceship
My parents tried an on-again-off-again Christian thing a few times, but I never really got into it, and they didn't make me go / listen / follow the beliefs / whatever.

My dad raised me to think with rationality and sense, and my mom really didn't care and just let me do my own thing all the time.
 

Captain Spyro

Heart of the DragonStar
Southern Baptist.

I don't know what I believe anymore...
 

Irreverent

Member
Debates on semantics in comparative religion texts would tell you something more useful
than a dictionary.
Dictionaries are political because they require a prescriptive stance to certain terms, and they're reluctant to change what used to be descriptive.

which is why some dictionaries up until recently rarely included gender as a role-based cultural concept
or anarchy was defined as "a state of total chaos"

You seem to indicate that dictionary terms (agnostic/atheist et al) should not be trusted because they are descriptive (generally) and thus recommend turning to theorists, philosophers, theosophists, or ethnographers for better definitions. The irony being, that class of theological explorer all use language codified from dictionaries. The irony of your circular reference is not lost. And while you may be correct in your arcane usage, its likely that the average fur responding to yet-another-religion-thread-on-faf (tm) would be best served by the common English vernacular of the terms.

tl;dr Although they can't spell colour and humour properly, even Webster's Dictionary gets it right most of the time.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Descriptive to a certain period and a certain audience (which then becomes prescriptive).
I stated that, that's why they're slow to change. Especially with sociologically references.
Dictionaries have paradigms they have to uphold because of seniority and prescriptive audiences.

They use the terms according to the further development of the usefulness of the words in studies. If you knew very much about ethnographers its that they typically create and redefine words for better usage, and then their juniors and fellows continue to use words in the manner most useful to the research they're involved in.
There's a paradigm there, too, but people are less concerned about preserving a definition for the sake of commonality, and more for use (and will regularly state their new definition). It is used in the research as meaning an absence of supernatural belief. Which is something that stretches back from Durkheim and the early theorists to modern theorists and ethnographers.

And further, the way in which Atheist/Agnostic was paired was clear in what it was referring to. It was referring to an absence of belief/impossible to know/uncertain of the nature of divinity. Referencing a lack of clarity and knowledge of the divine to outright absence of belief in the divine. That's a 'dichotomy' in popular discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top