Does anyone who has a religion think this?

If you have a religion, do you think that religion ought to be private and that people shouldn't state their religious beliefs in public?

I know that a large number of people without a religion think this. I'd almost expect them to. If you don't have a religion, then you have no religious beliefs to keep private anyway, so it doesn't tax you to hold this point of view. Also, you wouldn't necessarily notice that anyone was avoiding talking about anything, because they'd all just sound like you.

But what about religious people, themselves? I invite people with a religion to share whether or not they think that people should keep their religious beliefs private and not mention them in public.

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 62 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • I don't think discussing religious beliefs should be a social taboo; it's possible to talk about religion without being a self-righteous douche about it. I think that, ideally, the social norm would be for people to openly share their beliefs without the expectation that others should agree with them, and without the concern that others would judge them

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Religion is like a penis.
    It's alright to have one.
    It's alright to be proud of one.
    But for the love of god, don't go waving it around in public & try to shove it down kids throats.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • The most effective religious people I know rarely talk about their religion (other than if someone asks they may say "I'm _______"

    The life they live and how they treat other people tells everyone around them that they are religious and have real values. Few care what religion they are. I've met many from many different religion that are clearly religious and highly effective at getting things done.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • To not share one's religion is entirely against the point of religion. Religion is truth to those who hold it, and wouldn't it make sense to share the truth? If someone believes something false to be true, does it not make sense to tell them the truth? This applies to all religions, even atheism.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • You cling to that constant assertion about atheism for the sole purpose of annoying atheists and detracting from the root idea of atheism.

      While it's technically true that atheism merely means the lack of belief in a god, and a minute fraction of religions do not feature a god, are non-theistic in other words, you're splitting hairs and know damned well that 99% of people who identify as atheists do not subscribe to any of those religions and really mean to say that they are areligious, which is by definition not religious.

      "Atheism" just generally suffices because areligious people such as myself presume others will have the common sense to know we'd simply describe ourselves as the term fitting whatever specific non-theistic religion we subscribe to if that were the case. We count on not encountering people who intentionally disrespect our views and tell us what we believe.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying. Even the people whose beliefs go as far as saying, "There is no god" are religious. They still believe that all the other religions are wrong. They still believe that their version of god is the correct one. They reject all other possibilities, claiming to know the correct answer. What I'm saying is that anyone who says, "There is -insert adjective here- god(s)" is religious.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • "They still believe that all the other religions are wrong."

          This does not make us religious.

          "They still believe that their version of god is the correct one."

          We don't have a version of god. We're perfectly capable of seeing a universe without one. God isn't necessary.

          "They reject all other possibilities, claiming to know the correct answer."

          This also doesn't make us religious, unless the answer we give is a religious one. Also, that's not true. There are many things scientists don't yet have an answer for and don't claim to have an answer for. Unlike religions we don't make stuff up to fill in blanks. All that stands is what we can prove. We know what we know and there are things we don't know still.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Your version of god is a lack of god. You do make things up. You pretend that you know whether or not there is a god.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Imagine saying a lack of god is a god. That's like saying someone who doesn't have a cat still owns a cat, a non-existent cat.

              I don't pretend to know whether or not there is a "god". I just know that what's been proven contradicts all the religious texts and it seems very unreasonable to believe there is one at this point, kind of an "if it looks like a duck" situation.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • At what point does one's religion become one's dogma to those who listen?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I don't quite understand your question. Who are "those who listen?" Are those who listen the same person/people as the "one" you were referring to, or the people being told the one's truth?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • One is referencing an individual who posits their beliefs, those who listen references, not trying to be a smart ass or anything, those... who listen, the necessary component for someone to tell something... to another

          It's just a thought question about what we individually may decide is even worth listening to

          You prefer debates, do you like challenging yourself intellectually or logically or mentally or whatever? I can get behind that

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • There are multiple definitions of dogma. If you are referring to definitions along these lines: "an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
            a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church:"
            then a person's beliefs are not truly dogma unless they enter a status of high religious authority.

            However, if you refer to definitions along these lines:
            "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
            a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds"
            then all religion is dogma.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I do mean the second definition

              But see this guy posited that there's so much like universal order that it has to be by design

              Like the fibonacci sequence and all sorts of sacred geometry, which we get so many things from including literally music

              So many patterns and motifs like mother nature, masculine and feminine qualities

              I'm of the viewpoint that all existence is the result of energy binding itself to reality as its explosion... explodes

              Possibly even with successive explosions, like maybe when all matter gets sucked into black holes and all blacks holes coalesce and that last black hole dies out then energy is dispersed again once everything has been wiped, letting things play out differently each time

              It even goes along with the double slit experiment, observation can influence the result and successive big bangs would allow a constant supply of observation and allowing things to play out, giving that energy purpose

              But he's like "nah that's crazy" and goes into the philosophy of Christianity, but a lot of what he says here I can say with psychology or my own philosophers, but he'll pick one, usually Alan Watts, and discredit them almost superficially

              I don't usually have a good response because he puts the Christianity label on the side to explain reasoning, symbology, logic, or whatever and then finishes up with how you can learn that in the bible which has the most practical logic out of all religions, and like I really practically agree with everything except that one sentence

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Do not force any religion or opinion to people multiple times. Once is enough and if you see, that someone isn't interested, just stop. :)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You guys, I said 'IF YOU HAVE A RELIGION'. I live in a society that is mostly atheistic and I know the standpoints atheists tend to take. If I've heard the 'religion is like a penis' thing once, I've heard it a hundred times.

    I want to hear from people who HAVE got a religion.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Atheists are just believers in nothing; that's all they are. They are still believers; they still have religion. They believe their way is best, just as all other religious people. The only people who do believe in the concept of god, that I'm sure of, who have responded, are myself and ellnell; possibly Wryladradofft, but I don't think so.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Well I'm an atheist but I think, for the harmless religions anyway, that it would be a shame for people to feel they can't share it when it's something that they're passionate about. It could cause them to miss out on having a stimulating conversation with someone who's just as passionate about the same religion (or a similar religion), and cause them to miss out on making close friendships that way.

    I do think most religions are unfortunatly harmful though, and so this wouldn't apply. People talking about their religion is just causing harm to spread tbh.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • So you believe in a negative religion then (disbelieving in God), irreligions are religions, they concern reading the Bible, God and the ultimate reality, I know because I used to be a religious atheist.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I'm not religious, I'm just interested in religions. Not believing in God isn't a religion, you can study something without believing in it. Some people get really deep into the lore of a fantasy world without believing it exists. There's no such thing as an irreligion or a religious atheist, just an atheist who's interested in religions or someone who's still questioning their beliefs.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Rejection of the idea of god is a religion in itself. An atheist's god is simply no god. Atheism is just as all other religions in every way. They renounce all the other religions, claiming their beliefs about made the universe to be the correct ones. Those who don't reject the idea of god, but don't believe in any specific god either, are agnostics: the only people truly without religion.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • A religion is a structured system of beliefs, 'not believing in something' isn't a religion. Otherwise you could apply the same logic to say that "collecting stamps is a hobby, and 'not collecting stamps' is also a hobby". The same goes for claiming that 'no gods' is a god. You can't worship no gods, like a religious person can worship a god. Atheists don't know what made the universe, they just believe that it wasn't a god since there's no evidence for that. Some might wager it was made one way or another, based on what the evidence shows, but they don't know it to be true in the same way that religious people 'know' that it was their god who created it.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Actually not believing in God is a religion if it's atheism, if you want to stop being religious then don't believe in religions, don't believe in irreligions, just be secular.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • No, not believing in god isn't a religion. A religion is a structured system of beliefs, 'not believing in something' isn't a religion. Otherwise you could apply the same logic to say that "collecting stamps is a hobby, and 'not collecting stamps' is also a hobby".

            Also I've looked it up, "Irreligion" just means the rejection or lack of religion, whether you actually believe in a god or not. (Obviously most irreligious people would be either atheist or agnostic, but it is possible to believe in a god but to lack a religion or reject religion). So the definition you're using for it is just completely made up and is nonsense.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • You're wrong, I looked up religion in the dictionary, it said religious faith or observance, given that atheism is observing the Bible which is a book of the ultimate reality, atheism fits that definition. A lack of religion is worldly, secular, temporal and lay, not atheism.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Yeah what you said is normal.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Yeah I consider myself a pagan and I very much keep it private. I wouldnt talk about it unless someone asked but not even my friends know because I never said "hey did you know im pagan!!". Its possible they guess it for various reasons but im not really one to bring up the topic of religion just like that and none of my friends are religious so they wouldnt either. Its a personal way of looking at things and living your life though there are people who use it as a trend especially pagan religions but can you pretty easily tell who they are.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • There's this religious guy I work with, he's more about the philosophy of Christianity than believing in the literal word of the bible

    A lot of the things he says are very similar to what I think, just from a Christian background

    I do find it hard sometimes though to hear him use Christianity to justify the things he says, but he has the same reservations about my sources. Mostly we say the same thing in different words and we acknowledge that

    Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment