Ivyy wrote:
Why can't we start there...and discuss not for the sake of argument, but in the interest of a mutual fulfilling dialogue?
Sounds good to me.

I was not raised religiously, and while public schools were still religious when I attended, in Quebec, the one I went to was fairly secularized in many regards. I know that the lack of religious principles in mine and my older brother's upbringing caused a great deal of friction between my maternal grandmother and my own mother (my grandmother is a very devout Catholic, while my mother rebeled against the Catholic Church). As such, I was probably brought up in a way where I felt no affinity with Catholicism whatsoever, and little affinity with Christianity as a whole. So early on, I reckon I was left to define my own spirituality.

I've read a fair deal about different religions. In many ways, I have observed two differerent types of religions - those which are absolutist, and those which often remain fairly strict but allow some level of dissenssion and challenge, though framed fairly tightly. I tend to think of religion as something that is, by design, fairly radical. So I never found religion, organized religion specifically, appealing.

I also find religion is exclusive in one of two ways. Some religions accept others as 'relatively equal' but the conversion process is quite difficult (namely: judaism) while others tend to view others religions as, in some way, inferior (true of Christianity, but even more predominant with the Islam) though conversion to the Islam or Christianity is very simple.

I find the three major abrahamic religions are very similar. I do find Christianity, by design, is actually somewhat more open-ended, believe it or not, because it is not absolutist in many respects, while judaism is absolutist at its core, and the Islam is, in my view, Judaism with minor 'corrections.' This said, some modern judaic denominations exist and they are far from absolutist, such as reform judaism, and I think judaism as a whole has grown more permissive, except for orthodox or hassidic jews. The Amish would be a Christian equivalent of absolitism, on the other hand.

So early on, eastern philosophies interested me more. Buddhism caught my attention, but the one I find appeals to me the most is Taoism, actually. If a law stated you had to name a religion you conider yourself a part of, I'd probably write in 'I am a taoist.' This said, perhaps thanks to my rots, I also find druidism (Celtic) and Shamanisn (Native American) interesting. 

I just tend to reject any definition for 'god' that is in any way strict. Truth be told, we can only stretch the notion of God so much before it becmes something else. God refers to a given entity, a being with great abilities to shape the Universe or alter the sequence of events if it so desired. When people speak of an energy, a universl bond of sorts, a force, to me, this is no longer properly defined with the word 'god.'

The current Budha, in an interview, once made this observation, that in western religions, there was a very fixed meaning for the word 'god' and that it made little sense to him, as a prescribed god would impede on a personal quest to determine what such a being might be like.

For me, it's a question of focus. Is there something up above? Don't know, don't really care.

What I know is that plenty is going on down here - let's focus on that.

I can only consider the existence of a potential God in a deistic sense, but then again, not in the manner Deism is commonly understood to be.