FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » How much do you NEED religion? (added PS) (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: How much do you NEED religion? (added PS)
suminonA
Member
Member # 8757

 - posted      Profile for suminonA   Email suminonA         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a personal question. I’m not talking about the effects on the World in general, I’m talking about how much do you personally need religion. With the “side question”: How much do you need to manifest it?

The answers might range from “I can’t live without religion, life is meaningless without it” to “I have no use for it, it is irrelevant to me”. Those that would go for an answer like “Who the h*ll are you to ask me that?” should remember that answering is 100% voluntary, and that everything you say (and especially the way you are saying it in) can (and therefore might) be used “against you” in an open discussion [Wink]

I don’t think that there is an earthly power that might “eradicate” religion. Therefore, in order to create a “thinking outside the box” environment, I propose the next “what if” scenario:

What if you woke up tomorrow only to find out that an unimaginably more advanced alien race conquered the Earth (before anyone could say or do anything about it). You find out that they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased. Yet there is no “Thought Police”, they cannot stop or control your inner thoughts. What would you do? Would you “comply” and keep to yourself any religious manifestation? Or will you “fight back”, going as far as being ready to give your life for the right of publicly expressing your religious faith? How much do you NEED religion?

A.

*Note: not all the books related to religion and/or containing references to it. Meaning that “the history of religions” is not removed, knowledge about religion is not destroyed, just its “public manifestations”.

PS: I also have my answer to this question, but if nobody is interested in this topic, I won’t bother you with it.

[edited: thread title]

[ October 26, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]

Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I would fight back even though I personally have no religious expression.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
Everyone has a religion; even aliens.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
I think atheists might object to that statement, cherios.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
From dictionary.com:

quote:
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The first definition does not include atheistic beliefs, because "supernatural", by its very definition, means that the power is not "natural" in nature.

Definitions 2-4 are right out.

You may be able to squeek out some validation here with webster's defintion, because they use "religious" to define a religion, and in the definition of "religious" they include:

quote:
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
We are still walking a tight-rope here, since you could only justify this by saying that science is an "acknowledged ultimate reality". Pretty weak basis for a claim, in my opinion.

So what definition of "religion" are you working with, exactly?

[ July 18, 2006, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
cheiros, I disagree. Everyone has a philosophy perhaps, but not everyone has developed that into a religion.

As to suminonA's scenario, it would depend entirely on other aspects of the alien race. If in all other ways it seemed benevolent, and I could become convinced that it was philosophically, and socially (as well as technologically) superior to us then I'm not sure I'd put much effort into fighting them. On some level, I suspect that many religions are directly counter productive to safe social evolution and that we are doomed to pointless cycling or stagnation unless we can overcome them or unless they evolve to become something other than what they are now.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
Xavier, can you change your code to a quote so it doesn't screw up the wrapping?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eduardo St. Elmo
Member
Member # 9566

 - posted      Profile for Eduardo St. Elmo   Email Eduardo St. Elmo         Edit/Delete Post 
Personally I do not adhere to any of the major religions as they exist now, so if the alien plot would come to be I wouldn't have any reason to go against their rules.
Since there's nobody I know of that shares my beliefs, I don't think one could call it a religion. It's more of a personal paradigm. In other words it's just the filter I use to make some sense of the world around me.
I'm convinced that the need for such a filter is a common human necessity, otherwise one would be hard put to make sense out of the seemingly chaotic chain of events that make up our lives. Whether they choose to adhere to one of the existing widespread theories (or religions if you insist), or just make up their own doesn't matter. So long as they do not become too dogmatic in their outlook, none of it can cause much harm.
I think eventually people will want to know whether anyone shares their beliefs. If more people believe the same thing, the easier it becomes to believe. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the truth though...

Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
I think atheists might object to that statement, cherios.

Atheism is just an unorganised religion.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Read the definition X posted. Then explain to me which of those 4 all atheists fit into.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciationn.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

None of these are correct.

(1) is not the right definition because it relies the term "supernatural", which essentially means nothing in this context, other than that some nonbelievers consider religious beliefs to be not reflective of the reality of nature. But if God exists then He is as natural as rocks, or trees, or protons, or math, or love, or Hatrack. This definition also suggest that a religion requires some governing being - something that has not been true for all religions.

(2) just isn't what we are talking about. (3) is close, but you don't necessarily need a teacher to have a religion. (4) is also close, but is a more broad use than is being used here. I don't think we are talking about religion in the sense that someone might say "Watching football is a religion for me!"

quote:
So what definition of "religion" are you working with, exactly?
"Religion" is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning. For that reason, atheists do have religion, because they usually do think there is some reality and that something or other is meaningful, although I've noticed they don't like to admit that this is religion. [Wink]

[ July 18, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Angiomorphism
Member
Member # 8184

 - posted      Profile for Angiomorphism           Edit/Delete Post 
What about agnosticism? They don't fit into any of the defenitions, because they don't really pursue agnosticism with any zeal, they just don't care, or don't know.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
El JT de Spang-

Why is it every time I discuss with atheists whether atheism is a religion or not, they start going on about the word "supernatural"?

Always.

I think a better word for what they go on about might be "supernaturalism". Does that word exist yet? Sorry to pull out another "ism", I know where all sick of "ism's", but I think it needs to be said.

Christianity, Hinduism, and so on are all organised, supernaturalist religions. Atheism is merely a religion.

Those that can't accept that at least stop going on about the word supernatural.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Angiomorphism
Member
Member # 8184

 - posted      Profile for Angiomorphism           Edit/Delete Post 
Regardless of what the formal definition of "religion" is, I think that there is a more or less common cultural (and secular) definition for religion, that goes something like this: "faith or belief in a higher power or many higher powers, whose existence cannot be tested or proven by modern scientific standards" (not to say that this detracts from the belief, because it shouldn't).

Since IMO alot of atheists ascribe to this definition of religion, they do not consider themsleves to be part of a religion. Also they aren't really organised at all, have no central tennants (beside the rejection of God(s)), tend not to be as preachy in public (not saying all religious people are, but when was the last time you saw an antheist on the corner telling you the IPU will save all your sinful souls), and don't have any traditions specific to atheism.

Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
The definition used by the University when they denied our magazine funding was closest to this one:

quote:
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
In situations regarding government resources, it's really the only fair definition to use. Otherwise we'd have a situation where someone saying "Jesus is lord" is prohibited and someone saying "There are no supernatural entities" or even "There is no God" is not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
and not to be as preachy in public (not saying all religious people are, but when was the last time you saw an antheist on the corner telling you the IPU will save all your sinful souls)
I here plenty of athiests carry on about how the world would be a much better place without religions, that religions cause all the problems in the world with their conflicting principles, how history would have been a perfect rainbow-blessed fairy-land if there had been no religions (though not in those exact words).

quote:
have no central tennants (beside the rejection of God(s))
Actually, you can add to that rejection of all religions, specifically existing religions, and in quite an arrogant matter.

Not that all athiests are like this.

Edit: Add to those central tennents the scientific method (not a bad thing, except when used to harrass religious people, which it often is). Not all athiests prescibe to the scientific method either, but then, for example, not all catholics refrain from using birth control.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Regardless of what the formal definition of "religion" is, I think that there is a more or less common cultural (and secular) definition for religion, that goes something like this: "faith or belief in a higher power or many higher powers, whose existence cannot be tested or proven by modern scientific standards" (not to say that this detracts from the belief, because it shouldn't).
Yes, but "common cultural definitions" are not always correct. For instance, there is a common cultural definition of "science fiction" that goes something like this: "Books about spaceships and aliens." And while that may be true in some cases of science fiction, it is not an accurate characterization of what "science fiction" truly is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Atheism is merely a religion.

Those that can't accept that at least stop going on about the word supernatural.

I can't accept that because there is no generally accepted definition of "religion" that fits it. See the definitions above. Now Tres essentially discards all the dictionary definitions of "religion" and provides his own. I suspect you are doing the same thing. However, to say "Atheism is a religion because my personal definition of 'religion' includes atheism" is pretty much meaningless.

Tres writes: "'Religion' is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning." I disagree. That is a definition of "philosophy", not of "religion". "Atheism" is a philosophy. For some it might be a "religion", but it is incorrect to say that "everyone has a religion". Many self-described "atheists" do not have any religion. I am one of them.

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Religion" is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning. For that reason, atheists do have religion, because they usually do think there is some reality and that something or other is meaningful, although I've noticed they don't like to admit that this is religion.
That is your definition of religion. It is not one which I've ever seen used before, and certainly not a definition of religion I've ever seen accepted and formalized.

Dag's definition of religion is right from Websters' definition of "religious", and like I said, it is an awful big stretch to apply it to atheism.

Note: So far, at least, you can assume that Karl's posts speak for me as well [Smile] .

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
El JT de Spang-

Why is it every time I discuss with atheists whether atheism is a religion or not, they start going on about the word "supernatural"?

Always.

I think a better word for what they go on about might be "supernaturalism". Does that word exist yet? Sorry to pull out another "ism", I know where all sick of "ism's", but I think it needs to be said.

Christianity, Hinduism, and so on are all organised, supernaturalist religions. Atheism is merely a religion.

Those that can't accept that at least stop going on about the word supernatural.

I haven't mentioned the word 'supernatural' one time. Nor have I mentioned my particular religious beliefs. My point is that there are plenty of people who are indifferent to organized religion, and who are not atheists, per se (who, despite your insistence to the contrary, I still don't think fall under the category 'religious'), and thus shatter your original post in this thread "Everybody has religion" into tiny, tiny pieces.

Which is pretty much always the case when someone comes out with an unsupported absolute.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Angiomorphism
Member
Member # 8184

 - posted      Profile for Angiomorphism           Edit/Delete Post 
You are both right. To cheiros, I say that my experience has been different than yours in relation to atheism. For a while, I considred myself an atheist, then I realized that by doing that I was ascribing to the same principles I was trying to avoid in religion. Now I consider myself an agnostic (though I will admit that when it comes down to pure unjustified irrational belief, I'm more inclined to think there isn't a God or gods than there is one or many), and there have been many occasions where I've clashed with both atheists and theists about their views. One thing I have noticed personally (which may or may not represent the majority of cases) is that when debating the issue with atheists, the debate less often turns into a yelling match, and I can even think of a few times where I have successfully convinced an atheist to consider that their ideology is very similar to the religions they are trying to avoid, at the core. I cannot say the same thing about my discussions with theists.

And to Tres, yes the cultural definition is not always the right one, and I wasn't suggesting it is. I was just saying that it can explain why alot of atheists do not consider themselves to be part of a religion.

Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, now how much do you want to bet that we diverge into debating whether atheism is the lack of belief in God, or if it is the active belief in the non-existence of God.

We need some new freaking words. Ones agreed upon by all, or else these threads are all semantic debates which never go anywhere.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Dag's definition of religion is right from Websters' definition of "religious", and like I said, it is an awful big stretch to apply it to atheism.
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
See my post above yours. In order to debate this point, we would need to debate the definition of "atheism".
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
Which leaves me to wonder why athiests get so annoyed at me calling atheism a religion when at the same time they freely acknowledge that different people hold widely varying definitions of just that word.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Angiomorphism
Member
Member # 8184

 - posted      Profile for Angiomorphism           Edit/Delete Post 
But semantic debates are the best debates!
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

quote:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What do we all think those fellows had in mind when they used the word religion?

I think it's safe to assume we can leave the word supernatual out of our answers.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
Can we agree that Atheism deserves protection under the concept of "freedom of religious expression" and that state espousal of or indoctrination to atheism would violate the separation of church and state?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
Edit: I've decided that I can't debate this in general, but I can debate it in regards to a specific atheist, namely me [Smile] .

quote:
Which leaves me to wonder why athiests get so annoyed at me calling atheism a religion when at the same time they freely acknowledge that different people hold widely varying definitions of just that word.
I do not have a religion.

I do not believe in God, because for me, non-belief is the default position when no evidence exists for existence. I do not believe their is an invisible troll who lives in my closet. I do not believe in him because no evidence exists that he exists.

Please, tell me what my "acknowledged ultimate reality" is?

Do I believe in the Big Bang? Well, I do think that there is sufficient evidence that such a thing occured for me to believe it. I do not, however, think that there is sufficient evidence that it was the beginning of existence for me to believe that conclusively. My opinion is open on such matters, and I would not need any sort of radical shift in mind-set if a competing theory gains ground.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
See my post above yours. In order to debate this point, we would need to debate the definition of "atheism".
It fits with either definition of "atheism." FOr weak atheism, it's simply acknowledging an ultimate reality that is slightly different.

And we need different definitions of religion for different circumstances. If we want to know if someone partakes in formal worship, one definition of religion is useful.

If we want to balance the free speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses justly and in a neutral-toward-religion fashion, we need a different definition.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
I say that I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a "God" whose reality would be acceptable to (or fit the concept of) what the religious people I know of mean when they say "God". On the other hand, I actively disbelieve in many specific concepts of "God". That does not mean that given sufficient evidence in the future I might not change my beliefs (both active and passive). I don't see how that at all fits any meaningful definition of "religion".

Another way to look at it is this: For those of you who accept the label "religious" or who believe that you have and follow a "religion", do you see it really as nothing more than the beliefs of Atheists? Is Catholicism (as a "religion") really nothing more than "Atheism" (as a religion)? Mormonism just a loose philosophy that allows a scattered group of people to share a common label?

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It fits with either definition of "atheism." FOr weak atheism, it's simply acknowledging an ultimate reality that is slightly different.
I ammended my previous post so that it is addressed to your post as well as its original intended recipient. I would be interested in discussing further.

quote:
If we want to balance the free speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses justly and in a neutral-toward-religion fashion, we need a different definition.
I don't necessarily disagree here, except that I don't think it's necessary to call atheism a religion in order to give it protected status. You'd just need to recognize that laws protecting religious practice also were intended to protect the rights of those who choose not to practice any religion.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I say that I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a "God" whose reality would be acceptable to (or fit the concept of) what the religious people I know of mean when they say "God". On the other hand, I actively disbelieve in many specific concepts of "God". That does not mean that given sufficient evidence in the future I might not change my beliefs (both active and passive). I don't see how that at all fits any meaningful definition of "religion".
Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.

quote:
Another way to look at it is this: For those of you who accept the label "religious" or who believe that you have and follow a "religion", do you see it really as nothing more than the beliefs of Atheists? Is Catholicism (as a "religion") really nothing more than "Atheism" (as a religion)? Mormonism just a loose philosophy that allows a scattered group of people to share a common label?
There are lots of ideas. Some of them profoundly change the world, such as e=mc^2. Some of them are utterly frivolous, such as, "let's see what happens when we swallow pop rocks with pepsi." Yet I don't think acknowledging that both Einstein and the pop-rock person both had an idea in any way diminishes Einstein's idea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't necessarily disagree here, except that I don't think it's necessary to call atheism a religion in order to give it protected status. You'd just need to recognize that laws protecting religious practice also were intended to protect the rights of those who choose not to practice any religion.
Actually, that's not where I'm going. I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism. The word the government uses to do this is "religion." Therefore, for one very commonly used definition of religion, both definitions of atheism are included.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Which leaves me to wonder why athiests get so annoyed at me calling atheism a religion when at the same time they freely acknowledge that different people hold widely varying definitions of just that word.
Go right ahead and call "strong-atheism" a religion.

But that's not what you did. You said that EVERYONE has a religion.

I claim that I do not, and so I am challenging you to prove otherwise. By no definitions on this thread do I have a religion except for Tresopax's, and his definition is one which I've never heard used before, and which I honestly have a very low opinion of.

You can say I have a religion, using Tresopax's definition and I will admit that by that definition, I do have one. But then you can define "murderer" as someone who has eaten candy, and I'll then have to admit to being a murderer by your definition. Not that it will be useful for the conversation.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
I claim that I do not, and so I am challenging you to prove otherwise. By no definitions on this thread do I have a religion except for Tresopax's, and his definition is one which I've never heard used before, and which I honestly have a very low opinion of.

You are ignoring Dagonee's definition. Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And we need different definitions of religion for different circumstances. If we want to know if someone partakes in formal worship, one definition of religion is useful.

If we want to balance the free speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses justly and in a neutral-toward-religion fashion, we need a different definition.

OK, I can buy this. In that vein, the original scenario pretty obviously is talking about "religion" that does not include "atheism" in any meaningful way. Responding to that implied definition with "Everyone has a religion" is swapping definitions in the middle of a conversation and is poor form at least.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
OK, I can buy this. In that vein, the original scenario pretty obviously is talking about "religion" that does not include "atheism" in any meaningful way. Responding to that implied definition with "Everyone has a religion" is swapping definitions in the middle of a conversation and is poor form at least.
It's the most applicable - the one where the government is trying to decide what to protect or restrict.

For example, would the aliens prevent you from publicly saying, "The nature of the universe is such that there is no God as described by <X>" or "There is not enough evidence to say that God exists"?

I would contend they probably would.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Happy 20k, Dag.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
It is not quite clear to me why this is important. If atheism is a religion, then it is one without a cosmogony, mythos, ritual, body of beliefs, organisation, or moral laws. In other words, it completely lacks all the aspects that make the word 'religion' meaningfully distinguishable from 'philosophy' or 'belief about facts'. The Democratic Party is a lot more like a religion than atheism is. But in any case, even if you insist on calling it a religion, so what? The question is whether or not it's true.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Religion per se is of no value at all. Just a vain excercise of traditions that have become fondly retained parts of one's culture.

But if religion is true, at least one of them, then that matters more than everything else in the universe, because it is true. It is real explanation of reality. That is the only religion I will accept. I will setttle for nothing less. As a result, I am willing to dispense with any religion, any church, any dogma, and cultural tradition no matter how fondly held, in order to move in the direction of genuine truth.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
I would argue that it's the only worldview that can be sensibly enforced by a government without violating the principles of the First Amendment. To be fair, government must be agnostic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!

Do you think that will make us want to join your religion? Do you feel put upon by the fact we don't believe?

I wish I could believe in god. But it's just too much wishful thinking. I could lie to myself but that's not belief, that's just a lie.

Does that sound like any faith you've ever heard of? How many times have you heard a very religious friend turn to you and say "I wish there was no God. I wish all that we were after we died was nothing."

We don't believe. We don't organize. We have no atheist-specific rituals or traditions.

To call Atheism a religion is to belittle both faith and lack of faith. You cling to something you love when reason and science tells you it's not true. It enriches your life. Be happy with that and stop trying to make us into you.

Pix

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KarlEd
Member
Member # 571

 - posted      Profile for KarlEd   Email KarlEd         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.
What if I believe that murder is wrong and that this is a facet of ultimate reality? Is it then unconstitutional to hold others to my belief? Clearly "religion" in the constitutional context means more than simple belief or disbelief, active or otherwise.

To answer your question on a personal level, I do not think that congress should officially endorse my own personal beliefs and force them on other people. However, your arguement to me still smacks of "well we want to include atheists in this blanket statement so whatever the definition is, it also includes atheists". One of my active disbeliefs is that "God wants everyone to accept Jesus as their personal savior." I'm pretty sure the Constitution sides with me on that disbelief. (At least insofar as that disbelief can even be addressed legislatively.)

Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
I would argue that it's the only worldview that can be sensibly enforced by a government without violating the principles of the First Amendment. To be fair, government must be agnostic.
But enforcing that worldview would certainly violate the first amendment.

quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!

I bet it's far more often motivated by issues relating to the constitution, at least in America Religion is deliberately placed at a particular disadvantage with respect to access to government resources. Atheism should share that disadvantage. The term used to decide what receives that disadvantage is "religion." Therefore, to accomplish the goal of ensuring that atheism shares that disadvantage, it must be included in the term religion.

And the disadvantage is considerable. Taxpayer standing - that is, the ability to sue over a government expenditure simply by virtues of being a taxpayer - is denied in ALL cases except where the expenditure is alleged to violate the establishment clause. This is a HUGE distinction.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
It looks to me that, for some in this thread, religion simply means belief in the supernatural. The same individuals have also described it as a form of worship, as if it can't be one without also being the other.

I believe the definition of the word religion is broader than either of these things, encompassing those with formalised beliefs systems that can be recognised by the rest of society.

Now, according to the athiests in this thread, religion can be each of the first two definitions I've listed here (though not one without the other), but not also as I've described in my second paragraph, which fits perfectly with how the word religion is used in the first amendment as keeping socially established worldviews from being able to proselytise via the public sector, or in any way clash with government policy.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.

I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
For example, would the aliens prevent you from publicly saying, "The nature of the universe is such that there is no God as described by <X>" or "There is not enough evidence to say that God exists"?

I don't think they would. I think that's pretty much what the aliens would be saying.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!

And yet again you allude purely to the supernatural to define religion.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, to say "Atheism is a religion because my personal definition of 'religion' includes atheism" is pretty much meaningless.
That is not what I am saying though. I didn't just give my own personal definition, that I think just applies to what I am talking about when I say "religion". I think my definition is what everyone here is talking about when they say religion, too. It is my attempt to define a particular concept we all share.

That's the tricky part about definitions. You can't just define what you are talking about and nobody else is, because that is pointless. Instead you have to try and define what THEY are talking about; you are in the awkward position of trying to tell them what they mean when they say what they say. But it is important because otherwise it is difficult to agree, even when you are talking about the same thing, because you might differ in how you are thinking about that thing you are talking about - and because it is easy for one person or every person to be mistaken about exactly what it is they are saying. For instance, I may be thinking that by "religion" I meant what I wrote above, but later I will probably realize there are some cases where my definition didn't really describe the concept of religion I am thinking of.

I suspect I once thought to be religious you had to believe in God, but later on I realized that there were other religions that didn't involve God at all. It wasn't that I changed to a different, but equally right personal definition of religion. Rather, it was that I realized I was mistaken before when I thought religion only refered to belief in God.

In a similar way, I also realized that religion doesn't refer to only "supernatural" beliefs, but rather must refer to all beliefs regarding that same topic. The reason is because I think supernatural is an arbitrary term. I have no way to define what is supernatural and what isn't, other than by resorting to what seems ridiculous and unbelievable (supernatural) and what seems real and likely to exist (natural). That strikes me as an unfair criteria to put on religion. And for that matter, it would make my religion into something that is not a religion - because I think God is as natural as anything else.

(Incidently, if you want an example of something where everyone is talking about the same thing, yet all define it differently, go ask people to define "friend". They will all say different things, such as "someone I can trust", "someone I can have fun with", "someone I care about", and yet I strongly suspect all mean precisely the same thing by the term. It is just a very difficult concept to define. And if someone says "A friend is someone I have fun with", you can suggest that definition is not accurate by pointing out "What if they are a Circus clown - someone you might have fun with but who is not your friend." Then they'd have to refine it - "A friend is someone I have fun with and who I know well" - at which point it might need to be refined further and further. But we all know what a friend is. We just may not agree how to describe it. And I suspect appealing to a dictionary won't prove anything to anyone who thinks they know cases where the dictionary definition is wrong.)

quote:
Tres writes: "'Religion' is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning." I disagree. That is a definition of "philosophy", not of "religion". "Atheism" is a philosophy. For some it might be a "religion", but it is incorrect to say that "everyone has a religion". Many self-described "atheists" do not have any religion. I am one of them.
Why do you believe this?

I would argue that a philosophy could cover many more topics than just ultimate truth and its meaning. You could have a philosophy of teaching, or a philosophy of science, or a philosophy of how you arrange your closet. For that reason, I think "a philosophy" is just the overarching larger set of beliefs on a given topic. A religion is also a philosophy, but not all philosophies are religions. A "religion" would then be a certain, specific sort of a philosophy, covering the topic of the ultimate truth and meaning behind the universe.

[ July 18, 2006, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, wouldn't that be fixed by stripping all religions of their tax except status?

You really can't possibly be arguing that being Tax Except is a disadvantage religions have.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2