speak louder than words? My lack of emotional response is sometimes mistaken. Some believe in deities, or not, I really do not care. It has no impact or relevance related to my views of my existence in society.

Like so many others, I am doing the best I can with the tools available.

I'm a Buddhist, which is a non-theistic practice. Non-theism avoids such question as, "Well, who made god?" "What is god like?" "Where is god, when bad things happen?" It's just so much simpler and logical to focus on human ethical behavior.

or understanding of existence outside the physical Universe?

No dieties, but is there a spirit or soul or consciousness (what ever you wish to call it) outside the body?

I am just curious.

It does deal with the non-physical, but mostly without a concept of deities. However, it does recognize a non-physical reality and does talk about that. I like the philosophy and ethics of Buddhism and its approach to real life. I'm not a Buddhist, though, because I don't recognize anything beyond physical, observable reality.

Buddhism is usually classed into Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism). Only in Vajrayana (which is my interest) are there "deities" or yidams. Probably the Tibetans see the Yidams as real god-like beings. I however, understand them as imaginery beings that we humans anthropomorphize for certain qualities that we value. For example, Chenrezig represents compassion, Manjushri represents wisdom, Mahalaka represents protection. But in reality, these beings don't really exist. They are imagineray, like Santa Clause is imaginery.

There is a whole branch of Buddhist philosophy that debates the nature of reality and the nature of mind. and from there, we get into the Buddhist teachings about shunyata, or "emptiness." "Emptiness" is a very poor translation of shunyata. It took me years to understand this teaching. But it basically means that things don't exist with the subjective thoughts and feelings that we project onto them.

Suffice it to say, that Buddhism has a component for ethical behavior and a practice of using mental analysis for discovering the true nature of one's own mind, and how the mind works. Vajrayana vaguely gets into a discussion of eternal, unborn (without beginning) omnescient mind, which theists would probably call "divine Consciousness." That experience is called enlightenment. And at the same time, some Buddhists would say that your ordinary mental awareness is the same as Buddha-mind. We are supposed to sit down, observe, and contemplate our own mind to discover for ourselves what that experience is all about. It's not a belief. It's an experience that each of us can observe for ourselves. Generally, I don't believe that any god is coming to save me. Each of us is responsible for saving our own self from the bondage of mental suffering, caused by delusional ideas and negative emotions.

Personally, I'm not certain if the mind continues after the death of the body, but I am open to the possibility. If it is true, then I want to make as certain as possible in this life right now that the mind that I take with me is predisposed and well-practised in loving kindness and open-ness to dealing with whatever comes my way. That's my 2 cents.

There's much to admire in it, and I've adopted some of its concepts in my life. For me, mindfulness is the most important concept. It can expand to hold most of the rest, really.

I'm not much for formal systems of thinking, really. They have never seemed necessary to me. I have no use for concepts of mind that continue beyond physical death, either. I don't see the utility of that.

I guess I'm someone who tries to live in the present, with mindfulness, and to contemplate the past as a lesson, and to wonder what lies ahead, but not to plan overmuch. So far, that has all worked to keep me sane and steady on my path. That path changes constantly, and has done so all my life, so I try not to have fixed ideas of what the future will be. The Now is sufficiently interesting.

that Buddha taught so many different ways to traverse a path to enlightenment, depending on the skill, intelligence, culture, etc of each individual. It is a vast and profound path. We are so lucky to have been exposed to it and to have taken the initiative to understand and practice its teachings, according to our own individual understanding.

But then, even though I attend church regularly and am very active in the parish, I'm agnostic.

I have no problem with atheism or atheists. I don't appreciate the sort of atheists who can't seem to abide the notion that someone else might believe in a deity.

I'm well aware that many Christians want to force their religion on others. I hate that, and as a religious person, I'll fight it. But I wish people here would recognize that DUers don't fall in that category of Christianism. We are not the enemy.

for dismissal of Christian Democrats in other areas.

The purpose here is to discuss religion in any way we want. (staying within the SOP).

It is a good place for a free spirited debate.

It is behavior that interests me. The Religion Group on DU is a place where we can talk about such things. That's good. There aren't actually that many active religionists in the Group. But, it's a place to hash things out and discuss anything having to do with Religion.

In my ordinary life, religious issues and arguments might as well not exist. That's almost never a topic of conversation. This is a different place, where religion IS the topic of conversation.

What's important is how one acts toward others, and I don't think religiosity has anything to do with that.

The ones "who can't seem to abide the notion that someone else might believe in a deity" or who don't "recognize that DUers don't fall in that category of Christianism"?

I've seen plenty of anti-deism posts that are quite insulting and seem to be motivated by anger as much as reason.

Anger is the driving force behind most social changes.