How representative of your religious group is RF?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sometimes I wonder about the selection bias of places like RF: if we took an overall impression of the members of (insert religious group) here, how closely - or not - would it reflect the characteristics of that group in real life?

I mean, at the very least, a discussion forum like this is probably only going to appeal to people who are interested in discussing religion with people outside their group, and I think there are people of all stripes who aren't interested in doing that.

So... an exercise:

- think about whatever religious group you identify as a member of (and tell us what that is, if you don't mind).

- think about the posts you've seen here on RF from other people who also identify as members of your group, and what impression they would give of your group to an outsider.

- think about your actual experience as a member of your group, and the impression that one would get from interacting with all of the members at your temple/meeting house/church/etc.

- ask yourself how those two impressions would be different

On the whole, are the RF members of your group more moderate than your group "in the wild"? More fundamentalist? Are there views common among the RF members of your group that are pretty fringe within your group overall? Are there common positions in your group overall that you don't see expressed by the RF members of your group very often?

If an outsider formed an opinion of your religious group only by what your group's members on RF, what would surprise them when they visit your temple/meeting house/church/etc.?

 

[Rival]

Not at all.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I think RF perfectly reflects my generalized view of Western society.
Western society is not my religion.

 

[Secret Chief]

Sometimes I wonder about the selection bias of places like RF: if we took an overall impression of the members of (insert religious group) here, how closely - or not - would it reflect the characteristics of that group in real life?

I mean, at the very least, a discussion forum like this is probably only going to appeal to people who are interested in discussing religion with people outside their group, and I think there are people of all stripes who aren't interested in doing that.

So... an exercise:

- think about whatever religious group you identify as a member of (and tell us what that is, if you don't mind).

- think about the posts you've seen here on RF from other people who also identify as members of your group, and what impression they would give of your group to an outsider.

- think about your actual experience as a member of your group, and the impression that one would get from interacting with all of the members at your temple/meeting house/church/etc.

- ask yourself how those two impressions would be different

On the whole, are the RF members of your group more moderate than your group "in the wild"? More fundamentalist? Are there views common among the RF members of your group that are pretty fringe within your group overall? Are there common positions in your group overall that you don't see expressed by the RF members of your group very often?

If an outsider formed an opinion of your religious group only by what your group's members on RF, what would surprise them when they visit your temple/meeting house/church/etc.?

Is it apparent to "others" in the wild if someone identifies as a Buddhist?

 

[Augustus]

Compared to atheists in the wild, atheists on RF are more likely to see their unbelief as some kind of achievement that marks them out as superior to these silly religionist who need their emotional crutches. They are like the ex-smoker who feels contempt towards those who can't give up the habit. They also seem to think they speak for all atheists (se any RF discussion on definition of atheism).

From my experience IRL, most atheists just don't really give their irreligion and related issues a great deal of thought, especially those who were never religious in the first place.

 

[Aštra’el]

As the vanguard of my own religion, I am it’s sole representative, here and elsewhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it apparent to "others" in the wild if someone identifies as a Buddhist?

I just meant not in RF... e.g. at your Sagha (if you participate in one).

 

[Secret Chief]

I just meant not in RF... e.g. at your Sagha (if you participate in one).

OK. I can't see much to go on for myself, of those that I know (or knew) to be Buddhists. The sanghas I have attended in the past had quite a disparate bunch attending.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK. I can't see much to go on for myself, of those that I know (or knew) to be Buddhists. The sanghas I have attended in the past had quite a disparate bunch attending.

Okay - that's kind of what I'm getting at: do you see that kind of diversity reflected in the Buddhists on RF?

 

[Secret Chief]

Okay - that's kind of what I'm getting at: do you see that kind of diversity reflected in the Buddhists on RF?

We're talking a really small sample here
Discussing Buddhism doesn't happen that much - I think the essentials are agreed upon; it's quite simple. And any differences....so what... ... and there's quite big differences across Buddhism as a whole anyway...
Outside of that topic.... have @Twilight Hue and I ever agreed on anything?

 

[Vinayaka]

Sometimes I wonder about the selection bias of places like RF: if we took an overall impression of the members of (insert religious group) here, how closely - or not - would it reflect the characteristics of that group in real life?

I mean, at the very least, a discussion forum like this is probably only going to appeal to people who are interested in discussing religion with people outside their group, and I think there are people of all stripes who aren't interested in doing that.

So... an exercise:

- think about whatever religious group you identify as a member of (and tell us what that is, if you don't mind).

- think about the posts you've seen here on RF from other people who also identify as members of your group, and what impression they would give of your group to an outsider.

- think about your actual experience as a member of your group, and the impression that one would get from interacting with all of the members at your temple/meeting house/church/etc.

- ask yourself how those two impressions would be different

On the whole, are the RF members of your group more moderate than your group "in the wild"? More fundamentalist? Are there views common among the RF members of your group that are pretty fringe within your group overall? Are there common positions in your group overall that you don't see expressed by the RF members of your group very often?

If an outsider formed an opinion of your religious group only by what your group's members on RF, what would surprise them when they visit your temple/meeting house/church/etc.?

Hindu here. I think your observations that forums are skewed to represent those that actually want to discuss is spot on. So unless you're a member of a very small faith that likes to discuss, in general this place wouldn't be at all representative of the real world.

As for Hinduism it's really skewed. The ratio of born Hindu to adoptive/convert in the real world is probably close to 50 000 to 1. Here it's about 1 to 1. Adoptives and converts tend to want to talk about it. I don't think that many born Hindus talk about it much. Yes, some do. Of course another factor here is English. Many born Hindus wouldn't feel comfortable carrying out discussions in English.

Because of the 'want to discuss' factor, we're also skewed to the scholarly, more intellectual branches of Hinduism. So I don't think outsiders would get a very accurate opinion of Hinduism at all. But as another poster indicated ... incredibly small sample size.

 

[Martin]

Okay - that's kind of what I'm getting at: do you see that kind of diversity reflected in the Buddhists on RF?

There is more diversity here than most other forums I know of.

 

[idea]

As the vanguard of my own religion, I am it’s sole representative, here and elsewhere.

I think most people have their own religious beliefs, their own twist and personal interpretation of any group they are in. There are as many different religious beliefs as there are people.

 

[idea]

There is more diversity here than most other forums I know of.

This is what I appreciate. I am SBNA - spiritual but not affiliated, and enjoy learning from all groups. Take the good, leave the bad in all of it. Plagiarism vs. research - a well researched paper uses more than one reference. It seems like systems of belief should be like research papers, no one just copying the beliefs of another, but instead collecting information from as many different sources as possible, then combining them into one's own words and understanding.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm a Gnostic and, specifically, I am a Neo-Sethian alchemist.

Compared to most of the Gnostics that I've met, I'm an extremist and a fundamentalist and they often don't like having me around, lmao

I find that most of the people who call themselves Gnostic usually fall into one of two categories. They're either vaguely New Age and looking for a label, normally inspired by figures like Carl Jung, Helena Blavatsky, and Aleister Crowley, or they're seriously devout Christians who agree with the Gnostics on a variety of doctrinal issues (usually the dualism, sometimes Adoptionism or Docetism)

The latter group usually identify as Valentinians or Cathars, and they tend to resent the former group.

I don't really consider myself Christian, but that's only because Jesus is such a small part of Gnosticism for me and I'm Non-Nicene and Non-Abrahamic. I don't have anything against Christianity. I converted to Gnosticism from Roman Catholicism, but I wasn't fleeing the Catholic Church; I just felt like Gnosticism made more sense to me. As such, I retain the strict ascetic teachings of the Christian converts without such a strict tie to Christianity; I don't even believe in the Christian Bible, preferring Sethian texts.

This emphasis on the Sethian texts themselves at the exclusion of Theosophical, Qabalistic, and Post-Modern ideas on one hand and Biblicalism, Christian culture, and conservative values on the other means that I don't really fit on either side of the debate splintering Gnosticism in half. Sticking to a handful of texts and their exegesis makes me weird to both camps, lol

 

[VoidCat]

I dont know enough luciferians or pagans to know

 

[Aupmanyav]

- think about whatever religious group you identify as a member of (and tell us what that is, if you don't mind).
- think about the posts you've seen here on RF from other people who also identify as members of your group, and what impression they would give of your group to an outsider.
- think about your actual experience as a member of your group, and the impression that one would get from interacting with all of the members at your temple/meeting house/church/etc.
- ask yourself how those two impressions would be different

On the whole, are the RF members of your group more moderate than your group "in the wild"? More fundamentalist? Are there views common among the RF members of your group that are pretty fringe within your group overall? Are there common positions in your group overall that you don't see expressed by the RF members of your group very often?

If an outsider formed an opinion of your religious group only by what your group's members on RF, what would surprise them when they visit your temple/meeting house/church/etc.?

- Hinduism - Advaita (non-duality).
- I do not know what impression will they have. We are mostly polytheists. RF majority is monotheists.
- I think they will like it and be surprised by a few things.
- We are, sort of more colorful, accommodative. Monotheism is drab and aggressive.

Yes, they are moderate. They are not fundamentalists. We have a wide variety of views. The common position in Hinduism is 'dharma' (fulfillment of duties and engaging in righteous action). No one will differ with that.

 

[sun rise]

SBNR follower of Meher Baba because there's no Meher Baba religion (at least not yet). And AFAIK I'm the only one here. I list my religion as "love" because of the emphasis he put on love.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Compared to atheists in the wild, atheists on RF are more likely to see their unbelief as some kind of achievement that marks them out as superior to these silly religionist who need their emotional crutches. They are like the ex-smoker who feels contempt towards those who can't give up the habit. They also seem to think they speak for all atheists (se any RF discussion on definition of atheism).

From my experience IRL, most atheists just don't really give their irreligion and related issues a great deal of thought, especially those who were never religious in the first place.

I think this applies to a subset of RF theists as well. It doesn't surprise me, since a forum of this type is a lot more likely to attract people who think a lot about their beliefs or are passionate about them than others.