Which would you consider religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An athiest’s perspective: person A is a believer (in a higher power) but isn’t religious (following a religion).

Person B is a secular religious person, who invests in religious practices for practical purposes (like to build community, use religious infrastructure as an instrument to do good, and to pass on Cultural or identity-related traditions).

As a deeply religious person (B but actually believes, basically), agree with this. Would welcome both A and B in our religious services though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment! (But based on real people). Which of the following people would you consider more religious?

Person A: Says they genuinely believe and that their faith is important to them but never attends services (or even streams them) at their house of worship, donates or volunteers with faith orgs or causes, and generally does not devote any significant portion of their time to their religion in any observable manner.

Person B: Says they believe religion "evolved" to fill vital social, emotional, and ethical functions and if pressed quietly admits to atheism or that they only think religion holds a sort of metaphorical moral truth, not actual truth. Goes to church every Sunday, frequently attends church events, tithes, sends children to a religious school, reads the Bible with children nightly, and objectively devotes an enormous portion of their life in terms of time, energy, and money to their religion that they value but do not actually believe in.

Who is more religious, A or B?

I was person A for many years. I believed, but did not practice. Then I thought about it, looked into it, and stopped believing.

Person B is a sham. Is anyone really like that? I hope not.

I am a scientist.
By the time I was 25 it was obvious that the cousins in my family who were raised with religion were turning out far better than those raised agnostic (all by well-off, science-minded parents.) So I resolved that when the time came I would raise my kids in the religion of our ancestors. My parents were and are mystified by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment! (But based on real people). Which of the following people would you consider more religious?

Person A: Says they genuinely believe and that their faith is important to them but never attends services (or even streams them) at their house of worship, donates or volunteers with faith orgs or causes, and generally does not devote any significant portion of their time to their religion in any observable manner.

Person B: Says they believe religion "evolved" to fill vital social, emotional, and ethical functions and if pressed quietly admits to atheism or that they only think religion holds a sort of metaphorical moral truth, not actual truth. Goes to church every Sunday, frequently attends church events, tithes, sends children to a religious school, reads the Bible with children nightly, and objectively devotes an enormous portion of their life in terms of time, energy, and money to their religion that they value but do not actually believe in.

Who is more religious, A or B?

I am person b, with the exception of reading the Bible with children nightly. We do say a grace before dinner ( Want what you have, Do what you can, Be who you are). I taught RE for 15 years. Our children attended RE classes from preschool through high school. I don’t think of myself as an atheist, as I do believe in the interdependent web of life. We are Unitarian Universalist. I consider myself religious.

UU's are different. You can be an atheist and be UU. But don't kid yourself -- religious people believe in God.

How do you define God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment! (But based on real people). Which of the following people would you consider more religious?

Person A: Says they genuinely believe and that their faith is important to them but never attends services (or even streams them) at their house of worship, donates or volunteers with faith orgs or causes, and generally does not devote any significant portion of their time to their religion in any observable manner.

Person B: Says they believe religion "evolved" to fill vital social, emotional, and ethical functions and if pressed quietly admits to atheism or that they only think religion holds a sort of metaphorical moral truth, not actual truth. Goes to church every Sunday, frequently attends church events, tithes, sends children to a religious school, reads the Bible with children nightly, and objectively devotes an enormous portion of their life in terms of time, energy, and money to their religion that they value but do not actually believe in.

Who is more religious, A or B?

I was person A for many years. I believed, but did not practice. Then I thought about it, looked into it, and stopped believing.

Person B is a sham. Is anyone really like that? I hope not.

I am a scientist.
By the time I was 25 it was obvious that the cousins in my family who were raised with religion were turning out far better than those raised agnostic (all by well-off, science-minded parents.) So I resolved that when the time came I would raise my kids in the religion of our ancestors. My parents were and are mystified by this.

So you raised your kids religiously, because in your experience, they would turn out better. Apparently it never occurred to you that the reason they turned out well was because of something unrelated to religion. Meanwhile, you're purposely feeding your children what you know to be untruths.

I can see why your parents are mystified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thought experiment! (But based on real people). Which of the following people would you consider more religious?

Person A: Says they genuinely believe and that their faith is important to them but never attends services (or even streams them) at their house of worship, donates or volunteers with faith orgs or causes, and generally does not devote any significant portion of their time to their religion in any observable manner.

Person B: Says they believe religion "evolved" to fill vital social, emotional, and ethical functions and if pressed quietly admits to atheism or that they only think religion holds a sort of metaphorical moral truth, not actual truth. Goes to church every Sunday, frequently attends church events, tithes, sends children to a religious school, reads the Bible with children nightly, and objectively devotes an enormous portion of their life in terms of time, energy, and money to their religion that they value but do not actually believe in.

Who is more religious, A or B?

I was person A for many years. I believed, but did not practice. Then I thought about it, looked into it, and stopped believing.

Person B is a sham. Is anyone really like that? I hope not.

I am a scientist.
By the time I was 25 it was obvious that the cousins in my family who were raised with religion were turning out far better than those raised agnostic (all by well-off, science-minded parents.) So I resolved that when the time came I would raise my kids in the religion of our ancestors. My parents were and are mystified by this.

So you raised your kids religiously, because in your experience, they would turn out better. Apparently it never occurred to you that the reason they turned out well was because of something unrelated to religion. Meanwhile, you're purposely feeding your children what you know to be untruths.

I can see why your parents are mystified.

DP. How do you know that it was something unrelated to religion?