I'm a man who has been slowly loosing my faith for the last 16 years of my 16 years alive. What should I do?

Figure out whether this is just teen angst or real disillusionment. If its the latter, accept the fact taht you can no longer accept the dogmas that you were brought up on and either make something up of yourself or adopt a philosophy that makes more sense to you.

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Wait a little longer and you'll be ready.

i'm 17 and i'm getting fed-up with cristionality because i have never had any friends nothing works for me i hate the way heaven sounds but i also don't want to go to hell
try allah he seems to work out for osama doesn't he

------------------

Become an atheisist for a good 10 years, and then choose yourself a religion. Often, at 16, you want to assume your independance by seperating yourself from the ideals and beliefs of your parents. And anyways, you don't really need religion until your much older.

who says you need a religion at all?
if you can't choose very easily, and its not a gut instinct, then don't pick any, otherwise youll just be unhappy.

QUOTE:
"Become an atheisist for a good 10 years, and then choose yourself a religion. Often, at 16, you want to assume your independance by seperating yourself from the ideals and beliefs of your parents. And anyways, you don't really need religion until your much older."

You don't really need to go atheist; you can just consider yourself an Agnostic. An Agnostic is basically someone who believes that there is something out there that is running things [guiding things, watching over all, whatever], but that they are not sure what or who it is. Atheists don't believe that there's anyhting at all past what their senses tell them.

That's just a cop out. It's like saying "there is nothing there, but if there is then let me in god".
It's either yes or no for me.
No in betweens.

Here's some interesting stuff:

Bible Contradictions:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

"why did Jesus, by his own admission, break the Sabbath law (John 5:16-18)?27 this puts the lie to the Christian idea that the perfect Jesus fulfilled the whole Law, and therefore was a suitable unblemished sacrifice for our sins."
--i'm not sure where that's from... I remember everything I read and sometimes I forget where I read it.

Or go here: http://members.tripod.com/ColoradoWeb/index.htm

I hope you become an atheist. I consider atheism a religion; the one true religion.
--
Religion is so foriegn to reality... it's a belittlement of science... "I disprove the bible as the folklore of the times."

"I'm a man...16 years alive."

Unless you've had a bar-mitzvah at the age of 13, you're still a boy.

Atheism is for people without fathers.

But to the one who began this thread, you should lose more faith, but only in yourself. To ask this snivelling den of vipers advice on theology and philosophy is a bad sign.
Why are people assuming hes a Christian and putting gay shit from the Bible? How come atheists devote so much of their time to criticising the Bible, when that does not say much of the nature of a Creator and only speaks for a small minority of religious people on the globe? I believe it is an attention starved personality flaw that demands they oppose the accepted foundation of the society that beat them up and neglected their needs. I dont know any atheists who even bother to argue against Islam or Hinduism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Atheism is for people without fathers.

But to the one who began this thread, you should lose more faith, but only in yourself. To ask this snivelling den of vipers advice on theology and philosophy is a bad sign.
Why are people assuming hes a Christian and putting gay shit from the Bible? How come atheists devote so much of their time to criticising the Bible, when that does not say much of the nature of a Creator and only speaks for a small minority of religious people on the globe? I believe it is an attention starved personality flaw that demands they oppose the accepted foundation of the society that beat them up and neglected their needs. I dont know any atheists who even bother to argue against Islam or Hinduism.

---

Christians oppose atheism and argue against atheists as much as atheists do the same against Christians. No one can argue with themselves. There is always atleast two views for every arguement. Why don't atheists argue against Hinduism and Islam? Because most atheists live here in the west, and Christianity is the dominating religion. Plus, Christianity is full of flaws and contradictions, which makes for an easier argument.

Spirit of '22, everything you've posted thus far has been, well, complete and utter nonsense. You're extremely closed-minded... more so than myself, which, I can assure you, is alot.

I'm just glad my parents loved me enough to let me chose in what I wish to believe in. As long is it is not harming anyone, it is okay.

i think you have not thought about this. most religions spend most of their time recruiting and forcing thier belifes on others, ussually unwilling.

"I believe it is an attention starved personality flaw that demands they oppose the accepted foundation of the society that beat them up and neglected their needs."
speak for yourself, if people needed religion, they know where to find it. it is not about denying yourself some spiritual need, it is about seeing what you see and drawing your own conclusion. not about finding a ready made idea to save thought and effort. some people, when they look at the world, do not see some 'divine plan' or any other BS, they see what they see and live by that.

"I dont know any atheists who even bother to argue against Islam or Hinduism."
why speak against something that has no bearing on our life. if they started forcing their 'morals' on me, i would oppose, just as i oppose the compulsory adhearsion(sp) to christian 'morals'.

Atheists continually hear someone say, "I am religious" and go on to bash the Bible. That is evidence of a creepling need for attention. They assume anyone who believes in God gives a shit about the Bible. That is entirely illogical and false, and to me says they are only rebelling against things for the sake of rebellion; they see Christianity as representative of the forces that make them unhappy losers inside, and so take every opportunity to defy it. They have proven in all my experience with them to be just as gay as the Christians who thank God and tell you about the Bible every time a smile crosses their face.

quote:

---

That is evidence of a creepling need for attention.

---

Would posting 3,000+ (or some high number) on a messageboard be a "creepling" [sic] need for attention, '22?

quote:

---

They have proven in all my experience with them to be just as gay as the Christians who thank God and tell you about the Bible every time a smile crosses their face.

---

I'm assuming that most higly religious Christians aren't homosexuals...

Also, would it hurt to stop making so many fucking generalities?

You're more delusional than I thought, Spirit of '22. Everything you said is so false, it isn't even worth argueing over. You probably met 3 ignorant atheists, and assume every atheist is the same. I guess the same impression can come to one about anyone with a religion. I've met pleanty of stupid Christians, I don't think very highly of them, but I don't bash the bible every time I see them... in fact, this is the first time I've ever had this kind of discussion...

I know a lot of atheists. This site is filled with them, for example, and every one of them fits my description. The people who actually seem intelligent and balanced enough to represent what the atheists claim as superior are deists and Christians on this site.
Where are your opinions on atheists coming from? Do you think because you know one who doesnt fit my description, that is the rule?

I supposedly am an ignorant atheist according to Defiant. I know many people dwell on religion as a source of comfort and that it must be horrifying to start doubting it. It's like a smoker who's trying to quit but just can't because of interior inhibitions. And that is natural. So my most profound sympathy to Droogian, not spiritually, but emotionally.

Now Defiant I have always argued that the existence of God is unrealistic in every circumstance, be it within the Bible or outside of it. The lack of physical evidence, the existing lapses in rational thought and numerous other factors among which does lie the Bible (although it is by no means the most important nor significant of these factors).

Ask LostMind for evidence. He sounds more rational to me.

Give me what youn call "evidence", and I will laugh.

[This message has been edited by Brent (edited 12-31-2001).]

Its not mine to give. Ask LostMind.

Who the hell is LostMind?

i am lostmind,

and i have no proof of god's existance.

you must have delusions of grandeur to think an omniscient, omnipotent being could even give a shit about you.


what is your claim to immortal fame that an everlasting being who exists outside this universe should have to come down and present his "Photo ID" to you?

i don't go around people who don't like me trying to convince them to like me.

why would a god, spend his time with people who don't believe he exists.

i would think he has better things to do, than to run through the 9 billion questions you'd have to confirm his existance.

and the confirmation of his existance would most likely mean some higher authority to acknowledge this claim, in which you wouldn't believe it to be god anyway.

most of the atheists i've met are atheist because of something "god" hasn't done for them,

most of rational people i've met will be agnostic,

and admit that they don't know one way or the other,

it's amazing how many atheists will "blame god" for something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
i am lostmind,

and i have no proof of god's existance.

you must have delusions of grandeur to think an omniscient, omnipotent being could even give a shit about you.


what is your claim to immortal fame that an everlasting being who exists outside this universe should have to come down and present his "Photo ID" to you?

i don't go around people who don't like me trying to convince them to like me.

why would a god, spend his time with people who don't believe he exists.

i would think he has better things to do, than to run through the 9 billion questions you'd have to confirm his existance.

and the confirmation of his existance would most likely mean some higher authority to acknowledge this claim, in which you wouldn't believe it to be god anyway.

most of the atheists i've met are atheist because of something "god" hasn't done for them,

most of rational people i've met will be agnostic,

and admit that they don't know one way or the other,

it's amazing how many atheists will "blame god" for something.

---

How is being agnostic rational? The most rational person I know of is an atheist: Steven Hawking. In fact, many, many, physicists are atheists, and they seem pretty "rational" to me.

Lostmind has admitted to have no evidence for the existence of God. But why then does he believe in Him? Beats me.

He said he couldnt prove it, not he had no evidenc. You cant disprove he exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
Lostmind has admitted to have no evidence for the existence of God. But why then does he believe in Him? Beats me.

---

Maybe because he "lost his mind"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
He said he couldnt prove it, not he had no evidenc. You cant disprove he exists.

---

Face it, the exsistence of God is so unscientific... no, anti-scientific, that trying to give us any evidence is irrational and ludicrous. It's a delusion. You can't prove or disprove such a delusion, nor can you give us any actual evidence. It's impossible, even if He does exsist (which he does not, as any modern rationalist will tell you).

How can you say that God is unscientific when science is incomplete. The idea of a spherical earth and a massive universe used to be unscientific until science evolved and revealed those truths. We still havnt explained the science of the mind the science of dreams and psychadelics. You also like to use the word dilusion. Science hasnt even yet explained what exactly a delusion is. What I'm trying to say is that there is another demension to science or should i say another catagory like biology, chemistry or physics there is the science of the spiritual realm. Or if your to scared to use the word spiritual you can call it the realm of the mind. Cuz not even an atheist will deny the existance of the mind, nor the fact the the mind works by scientific laws. You have to come to the realization that mabye there is more out there than we are currently capable of understanding. Its pretty ignorant to say that anything you dont understand cant exist. If you lived during the renaisanse with your mentality youd be right up there hand in hand with you christin enemies trying to kill Gallileo. You think your such a friend to science when your really its worst enemy.

He is too megalomaniacal, self-centered, and childish to believe there is something that has escaped his observation.
But modern rationalists said so.... LoL

The original Hebrew Bible has been scientifically proven to contain a code that has accurately predicted the future numerous amount of times.

It predicted Yitzik Rabin's assassination, the man that would do it, and that he would say that he was on a mission from God. also predicted the invention of the Atomic Bomb, The reign of Hitler, and numerous other things that have happened, things that happened as predicted after its discovery, and things that have yet to happen.

It doesn't prove that the Bible itself is not a book of lies, just that it is encoded with predictions that come true with alarming accuracy. I would say that that says something about the book itself woudn't you?

Most people strictly adhere to science, they think "If I don't know it then it must not exist." and try to validate their presumtions with their own ignorance which is blatant fallacy. I am not saying wither Religion or Science is right on the subject of life after death, creationism, etc.

But what I will say is that in order for a scientific creation to occur, like life sparking from non-living matter which has never happened anywhere in recorded history, there has to always be matter.

Matter cannot have always existed because everything has a point of singularity, and if everything has a point of singularity then something had to always exist in order to generate the singularity which contradicts the prior.

Not only does a scientific creation contradict itself within its own terms, the chance of us existing at any given moment are so infintessimally small that they might as well not exist at all. Too many things contradicting themselves for me to take the scientific theory of creation.

That and the fact that it goes off of spontaneous generation, something from nothing which is absolutely ludicrous, which leaves me leaning toward the concept of an omnipotent creator.

Affirming that God exists, with present evidence, is like asserting that I am a Martian who has come to earth in a space-shuttle, learned English, and begun to post on totse. You can't disprove that really, nor is there any proof for it.

No its not. I cant say, "If Messer isnt from Mars, how did we get here?" We can say, "If there is no Creator, how did this happen?" and you cant give us an answer. Unless you fall back on your religion, which says there is no Creator based on faith and an inability to prove your idea of how it is that things came to be.

That was still a valid description I think... Invisible fairies causing events in the world is also like a God. You couldn't disprove invisible fairies. If there is a Creator, how did it get here? Theism has an inability to explain how God came to be. An answer to, "If there is no Creator, how did this happen?" question is, infinity.

There is an answer Defiant. The universe always was and always will be.

The Creator transcends time and space. Where did your nothing come from? How did it turn into something?

Really?

I was arguing over the validity of Christianity with one nof my friends and they said that stephen hawkings was christian. I said "Smart does not mean wise" and ended the discussion, but this is still interesting news.

Sorry about that, I forgot there was a second page.

Defiant: Maybe things always were. And a creator doesn't solve this issue, because the creator would either have been created, or have always existed.

A creator solves this problem. If theres a force capable of creating all things, wed not be able to understand its origins. Thinking things just always were is just as religious and based on only a leap of faith again.

Many physicists are Christian, too. And Islamic [though not as many ], and Agnostic.

A person can believe in something without having proof of its existence; that's called faith. Like it or not.

Many who are agnostic [like myself], don't believe in any of the established religions, but have been around long enough to think that there just might be something more than what one can perceive with their 5 senses.

One way of looking at agnostics is to liken them to one who believes [more or less] in our political system, but is an independent.

Thats the thing, I didn't say that it was an omnipotent creator that made us all, I just said that I lean more toward that concept then science contradicting itself milti-fold and life happening to squeeze itself in somehow.

When I say "omnipotent" the first thing everybody tried to do was apply scientific properties to it. It is beyond human comprehension and accurate description, if I told you that something had "always existed" you would go insane trying to critically process that in your mind since we are in a finite world with finite minds and its been hard-wired into our brains that everything has a beginning and an ending.

Well God may have not always existed, it says "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.". Does that mean he created the beginning and end or that it started and ended when he came to existence? The simple reason we will never find out where we came from is because of that very reason right there, we can't comprehend its astronomicality.

Our universe may have sprang from another universe that is in the multiverses and the science there may be totally contradictory to what we know. Things might just randomly occur for no apparent reason and with no explanation in these worlds and we may simply be a byproduct of one of them.

We can't ask where these universes came from, becase that is our science and theirs is beyond any scope of imagination we may contain due to human logic intervention in the thought process. Could be a world with no math or where it does not apply, physics are out the window, things are anti-Newtonian, a straight line is not the shortest distance, everything consists of anti-matter, etc.

Put it this way, all life comes from previous life, if something is not alive then it never will be. All the comets crashing together, mixture of noble gases, and radiation cannot create DNA, cell structure, ability to maintain itself and the ability to reproduce, I don't buy that, never did, and never will until proven otherwise.

Sure I am a Christian but if you can prove me wrong then I will thank you for showing me the truth. I hold the truth above all else, like if we were in the Matrix, I would rather have the painful truth of reality then the ignorant bliss of a lie.

Some people like Cypher in the Matrix are not like that, they are ignorant and blissful and do not use logic, only churn out what they have been taught and think inside the box.

first off brent,

you are a fool if you think hawking is an atheist.

he is a devout catholic.

here is a quote from a brief history of time,

making some of the most atheistic statements ever,

i guess.......

"In this book i have given special prominence to the laws that govern gravity, because it is gravity that shapes the large-scale structure of the universe, even though it is the weakest of the four categories of forces. The laws of gravity were incompatible with the view held until quite recently that the universe is unchanging in time: the fact that gravity is always attractive implies that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. According to the general theory of relativity, there must have been a state of infinite density in the past, the big bang, which would been an effective beginning of time. Similarly, if the whole universe recollapsed, there must be another state of inifinite desity in the future, the big crunch, which would be an end of time. Even if the whole universe did not recollapse, there would be singularities in any localized regions that collapsed to form black holes. These singularities would be an end of time for anyone who fell into the black hole. At the big bang and other singularities, all the laws of would have broken down, so God would still have had complete freedom to choose what happened and how the universe began."

the words of an atheist?

and attributing this to most renowned physicists just goes to show how you believe what you want to believe.

you have apparently never delved into the personal beliefs of any physicists to make that statement.

much less read their books.

how about michiu kaku's view,

in case you didn't know and used hawking, because he is a household name,

michiu kaku is the co-founder of superstring theory,

what did you say you were 14?

you'll learn about it in a couple of years i'm sure,

but here is kaku's position.

"But scientists usuall are reluctant to engage in theological debates about God and Creation. One problem, I have found, is that "God" means many things to many people, and the use of loaded words full of unspoken, hidden symbolism only clouds the issue. To clarify this problem somewhat, I have found it useful to distinguish carefully between two types of meanings for the word God. It is sometimes helpful to differentiate between the God of Miracles and the God of Order.

When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein's early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that mysterious, diving Order existed in the universe. His life's calling he would say, was to ferret out his thoughts, to determine whether he had any choice in creating the universe. Einstein repeatedly referred to this God in his writings, fondly calling him "the Old Man". When stumped with an intractable mathematical problem, he would often say, "God is subtle, but not malicious." MOST SCIENTISTS, IT IS SAFE TO SAY, BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME FORM OF COSMIC ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE. HOWEVER, TO THE NONSCIENTIST, THE WORD GOD ALMOST UNIVERSALLY MEANS REFERS TO THE GOD OF MIRACLES, AND THIS IS THE SOURCE OF MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCIENTISTS AND NONSCIENTISTS. THE GOD OF MIRACLES INTERVENES IN OUR AFFAIRS, PERFORMS MIRACLES, DESTROYS WICKED CITIES, SMITES ENEMY ARMIES, DROWNS THE PHARAOHS TROOPS, AND AVENGES THE PURE AND NOBLE."

i added the italics myself for emphasis,

it's also the result of much miscommunication between what i believe,

and what some of you jackasses ASSUME my beliefs to be.

because you're confined to the belief that god gives enough of a shit about us to defeat our enemies, heal our sick, and take generally take of us for us.

is that why you don't believe?

you don't think you meaningless existance is worthy of a god's attention?

you're probably right.

doesn't make either of you any less "real".

here's something from another of your atheistic physicists.

this one goes by the name of julian barbour, and he takes an alternative to superstring theory.

you might only hear of this though if you go to college.

his idea is that you don't need 10 dimensions only 9 and you can eliminate time.

i know what you're thinking 10 or 9 dimensions what the fuck?

theres a lot more to science than disecting frogs and gathering leaves from 20 different trees.

actually barbour is a pantheist.

a pantheist is the belief that god is the forces and laws of nature.

anyways from barbour,

"What does intrigue me is the power of structures in a timeless scheme. They determine where the wave function collects. If one wanted to see (the greek symbol for psi) as a spirit pondering what shall be brought into existence, it has no power in the matter. Leibniz always said that not even God could escape the dictates of reason. He must always act rationally. Perhaps that is more reassuring than a capricious deity is."

then as if to speaking to messer himself, he goes on to say,

"However, a rational universe is quite alarming too. If you are about to perish in a concentration camp, is it any consolation to know that what must be will be."

just because they took god out of school doesn't mean that scientists don't believe.

it's just more prudent to avoid a lawsuit than it is to bring up children with open minds.

I never knew believing in God was an open mindset.

Youre 15. You have time to learn.

messer,

how is believing in god closed minded?

how is ridiculing someone's belief in god open minded?

spirit(defiant), i suppose one could say you're a pantheist as well, not?

Agnosticism is the only truly open mindset. I'll admit atheism lacks complete openness.

Yeah. Though, in a sense, agnosticism could also be seen as a way of hedging one's bets, couldn't it [not that that is why I'm agnostic, mind you ].

Now, before I just burst, I need to say this:

Q: What do you get when you cross an atheist with a dyslexic?

A: Someone who doesn't believe in dogs.


[OK, OK,I'm going,I'm going, you don't need to push...]

Defiant:
That argument was to prove that a creator does not make things anymore sensible. It is just as likely that the universe alwaysy was.

The idea that something always was and comes from nothing doesnt jive with me. But thats not my point, Messers conception of how it came to be is just as based on faith as a Christian perception. Youve just said so yourself.

Q:What does an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac do all night?
A:Lays awake arguing with hisself about whether dog exists.

Sorry Meta', I heard it told this way just yesterday.

Defiant:
Then how do you propose this god of yours came into existence?

Do you know what the word "omnipotent" means?

Anyone who says they have a remotely good idea about how this came to be is lying. But there is a force or intent behind it. There is infinite evidence of that everywhere.

venefrigus,

why do assign a meaning of time to everything?

time is only a product of our universe.

a product created by man to tell beginning from end, to distiniguish the change in one moment to the next.

Time is irrelevant to what I am saying. I'm saying that a god doesn't explain the existence of the universe.

"Defiant:
Then how do you propose this god of yours came into existence?"

wasn't that your last statement?

why does he have to have a beginning.

that assumes time transcends this universe.

Read the damn previous posts.

Defiant had said he didn't agree with something just always being, so I pointed out his contradiction.

Idiots.

I also encourage you to read the previous posts. I said I do not believe something could both always exist and come from nothing.

Why do you people call atheists ignorant, irrational, etc., when we admit to believing that there is no god but when a theist admits to believing in the existence of god or gods or spirituality you don't comment or question there beliefs when they are clearly just as irrational as ours... to you, that is. If you can't disprove God's existence, then we are equally wrong until we can prove --through science -- that one of the theories is correct (although there is already evidence that support theories that contradict that of any religion. Please note that I don't consider atheism a religion.)

You're calling my irrational, yet you indirectly tell me to face the 'fact' that God does exist.

I think some of my atheistic beliefs have been washed from my brain and have merged with another belief that can even be considered a religion: nebicism. It seems very interesting to me, and yet... scientifically feasible, unlike the many other religions that involve a life after death and/or a higher power which have been proven scientifically impossible on account of the first law of thermodynamics.

Whats that?

Sorry, my mind sometimes filters out stupidity.

I didn't say the Universe came from nothing, I said it could have always been. Maybe the Universe itself transcends time!

OR alternativly, I've developed a hypothesis sure to befuddle: All nothing is something, but not all something is nothing. Sort of like: All newts are salamanders, but not all salamanders are newts.

If you want to find out which religion fits your beliefs, go to http://www.selectsmart.com
and check out their religion selectors.
That site can also help you find out more about yourself too.

that site said i was 100% reform judaism,

deism wasn't even listed.

also said 40% of my views are atheist.

the lowest 28% seventh day adventists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atheist_Jihad:
If you want to find out which religion fits your beliefs, go to http://www.selectsmart.com
and check out their religion selectors.
That site can also help you find out more about yourself too.

---

i got 100% Neo-pagen this time...Agnostic is way down at 25%, odd.

that site was lame. they couldn't know what religion you believe by the retarded questions they asked - maybe tell you what kind of main-stream baptist or athiest you are. even labeling athiest and agnostic as the same is stupid.

My results:

1. Hinduism (100%) DM notes: Interesting
2. Orthodox Judaism (100%)
3. Theravada Buddhism (96%)
4. Islam (94%) DM Notes: No
5. Jainism (90%)
6. Sikhism (89%)
7. Mahayana Buddhism (88%)
8. Unitarian Universalism (88%)
9. Reform Judaism (86%)
10. Liberal Quakers (83%) DM notes: No
11. Bah�'� Faith (78%)
12. New Thought (78%) Click here for info
13. Mainline to Conservative Christian/ Protestant (75%)
14. Scientology (75%)
15. Neo-Pagan (72%) DM notes: No
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (69%)
17. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (68%)
18. Taoism (65%)
19. Orthodox Quaker (64%) DM notes: No
20. Eastern Orthodox (64%)
21. Roman Catholic (64%)
22. Atheists and Agnostics (63%) DM Notes: Closest to agnostic
23. Seventh Day Adventist (57%)
24. Secular Humanism (56%)
25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (55%) DM notes: I add a "hell no" to this cult.
26. New Age (54%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (38%) DM notes: Not.

It;s been said, but you're think of religion as christianity. look around. Taoism, buddhism, Pagan... figure it out, you can't deny spme sort of spirituality existing, so figure it out on your own