Man, all this hassle over a one-syllable word. There’s gotta be a language on Earth somewhere that makes this distinction. Where’s the equivalent of 20 Eskimo words for “snow” ?
I saw this coming, it’s why I dropped the words out of the discussion on my part. I’m far too familiar with the problems of epistomology to think that bring “justified” into things will clear up the matter. Justification is an even fuzzier concept prone to all sorts of category error.
-Eben
Eben, I see what you mean, especially about justification (all sides feeling they have some justification, after all) - but it’s very hard to arrive at a definition for religion that doesn’t touch on the issue.
ME, I’m of the “I know it when I see it” school, but some of the stuff bandied about here I don’t have alot of time for - anything that drags ideologies like Communism into the mix isn’t right, IMO. The word for those already exists, it’s “ideology”
I think any working definition of religion can leave out the word “faith”, but I think the words “dogma” and “lifestance” should get a look-in.
Actually, I’d say there’s a clear distinction between something that’s been demonstrated literally millions of times (like the sun rising each morning) and things that are clearly believed in excess of objectively verifiable or otherwise strong evidence. It’s only fuzzy if one of the debating parties is desperate not to admit that their belief in some diety or another is less rational than their belief in gravity.
(Admittedly, admitting that John 20:29 exists does swing open the door for the faithful to be called delusional, so I can see why mswas, for example, doesn’t want to come anywhere near it. Problem is, reality isn’t the way he likes it.)
Hinduism.
For you, but not for the theist, who will claim they’ve had an actual experience.
No, see, I’ve been avoiding the discussion of whether or not God exists for a few reasons:
- It’s not an interesting discussion
- I recognize I can prove nothing, so why bother?
- You will simply trot out the presupplied arguments and think you’re terribly clever for it.
- I don’t have a common belief system that you would recognize so you’d accuse me of being dishonest for telling you what I honestly believe, as it won’t fit into the presupplied arguments that you will want me to argue with.
I’ve been arguing about the sociological impact of religion, not whether or not God actually exists. I am disinterested in anything resembling, “Well God doesn’t exist anyway.”, which is done several times a week around here, and it’s usually the same people involved in the argument, berating you for it not being settled for you the way it is for them. Ironically though they claim it’s settled they spend a lot of time arguing a settled issue. That’s why I won’t argue about Christian universals, because it’s a settled issue, and I don’t really care to argue it. There is a mainstream Christianity that Christians of different sects can recognize as being at least a similar religion. The Rhetorical game of pointing at radical outliers as evidence of anything is tedious and a waste of time. You want to achieve the rhetorical victory of showing that one can say Christianity means anything we want it to mean, abusing the ‘No True Scotsman’ logical fallacy to impugn the authority of the person you are debating with. I don’t debate with you because I’m pretty certain I know what you’re going to say. So it’s not that I feel intimidated by you, it’s that I have done a cost-benefit analysis about what my time is worth, and while I am evidently willing to waste it by arguing on message boards all day while watching my daughter, I am not that interested in arguing about topics I consider to be dull and trivial.
MrDibble Can someone act like a religious zealot in the pursuit of a secular ideology?
Right, which is when things start to get hairy, especially if you dare to propose that the theist is infallible in their interpretation of experiences (or, Thor forbid, is capable of daydreaming. :eek: )
However, on reflection, this is all a distraction. I don’t think there’s anyhing inherent in the definition of “religion” that requires a religion to be wrong. However it’s still useful do determine how widely observable the phenomena under discussion is when deciding if it’s a religion we’re talking about, to help you decide if something supernatural is part of the belief system. If your establishment is based 100% in matters that are entirely pedestrian (like, say the average transportation departement is), then it seems incorrect to call it a religion, whereas a Holy Spiritual Denomination Of The Intangible Soul Traffic Controllers might be more likely to qualify.
(Note that my preferred defintion of religion at the moment is “An actively held, completely believed, system of beliefs involving supernatural entities or supernatural forces”, so the question of whether a belief is about pedestrain or supernatural things is relevent.)
Because the theists won’t let it be settled, even though it should have been tossed out long ago.
Because you know that it’s NOT a settled issue.
And, let me guess - you get to be the one to declare something a “radical outlier”.
Nope. You obviously want to pretend that Christianity is more of a unified vision than it is, because then you’d have to answer the question of why we should believe you over someone else.
Namely, a question you have no good answer for. That’s what comes of believing in baseless superstitions. That, obviously, is why you’ve hit upon the tactic of refusing to debate various people.
My experiences with the ‘divine’ are all open to interpretation, I don’t hold to them as being anything in particular. I interpret them, and recognize them as being interpretations. I don’t share them often as I see it kind of being pointless as your view of what they are is just as much conjecture as my point of view, and you are two degrees separated from the experience.
I agree with you. As I stated at the beginning of the thread I agreed with Der Trihs definition of a religion. Where he and I differ greatly is in practical terms. IE, what is the value of religion to society? He would argue there is no value it should be abolished. I would argue it is impossible to abolish from society as religious behavior is part of human nature, and even if we don’t call it religion, the reactions of human beings to ideological division will be the same. Kind of like that South Park with the fighting atheist clans.
That is a fair argument. Defining supernatural is problematic, as supernatural is by definition something that is beyond the bounds of the definable world. That’s why arguing about the validity of such beliefs is pointless, because you can’t define something that is beyond the bounds of natural definitions. So it ends up being all about semantics with both sides accusing the other of arguing semantics.
Yay! So you don’t ever witness; that’s a good start. Funny that you vaguely appear to structure so much of your life based on these non-held interpretations, though. Ah, well, that’s your problem.
Let’s all keep in mind that South Park isn’t a documentary. Thanks.
…And I kind of think the debate over whether religion can be extricated by culture (and, by extention, whether those supposedly mostly-atheistic european countries actually exist) belongs in another thread. I believe there’s already one going with that vaguely being its topic, in fact…
Well, if you want to argue semantics, I generally read the ‘super’ in supernatural as meaning “existing in a separate plane from reality” - kind of as if the word was metanatural. By that definition, any god that exists would apply (because, face it, it’s not hiding anywhere in the material plane we’ve had a chance to study). Similarly, heaven, hell, or any other afterlife would also apply. Also, coming at it from a slightly different angle, any entity that was “not bound” by reality would also apply - that is, if it could go around breaking the laws of physics with impunity. Though, that would be subject to change if we came to understand the laws of physics and their special cases better - though in that case, I’d still be willing to grandfather old religions in under the prior knowledge. If it was a religion, then it always will have been a religion - even if modern descentent belief systems of it do not qualify.
That’s my take on it, anyway. 
Why is it you can’t actually be respectful of someone’s beliefs? And you wonder why I don’t want to argue with you? I can have the same discussions with Revenant Threshold, Pochacco, Voyager, or Sentient Meat without them being condescending.
Fiction is good at illustrating particular ideas. If that’s a controversial topic to you, then it’s another reason to let it go.
No, this is the thread for it, considering it’s titled, ‘What is religion?’, and Europe is the worst example you could possibly have provided considering it follows the borders of ‘Christendom’.
Supernatural would contain the natural, IE, the Supernatural sphere is larger and the natural one exists within it. At least that’s my take on it.
And what percentage of theists make such a claim, incidentally?
Seriously, I’m curious.
What are you talking about? I figured that subject was winding down, and I was letting it go.
And, since you asked, it’s like you demanding I be “respectful” of a collection of vintage barbie dolls. Which is silly. I don’t demand people to “respect” my hobbies; just not to actively interfere with them. When you find me in your house of worship messin with your religious iconography, then start complaining; until then, get perspective.
Good Vishnu, man! I was just quietly trying to put to bed any bizarre notion that South Park is a cite. Though, maybe that does explain why you think atheism is an ideology.
Tip: South Park is not an accurate representation of reality. Trust me, it’s not. No, really.
Snark, snark, snark. This is a thread about the definition of religion, not the implications of religion. And, wasn’t the whole underlying secret purpose of that strawman-OP’d thread of yours to discuss that very topic? Must all the discussions we’re in spread to all the threads we’re all in?
Not my my understanding of the prefix, but what the hey. If you want to conflate the definition of supernatural and natural, feel free to pick a different word that doesn’t make every natural thing “supernatural” and which doesn’t turn every automotive handbook into a holy writ.
Do you really expect me to give you a statistic on that? Really?
You’re the one who complains when I don’t want to talk to you. Maybe YOU need to get some perspective. Don’t be a dick, and I’ll talk to you. See how that goes?
It was an example. Jesus. Communists killed more people in the 20th century than any other ideology, religious or not. Is that a better example of Atheists going apeshit over a secular ideology?
I think that the implications help us to understand what it is.
And you wonder why I don’t want to debate with you. When a difference of opinion exists, a genuine one you impugn my motives, rather than simply accepting the difference of opinion. You’re not an honest interlocutor.
So is a Superstructure absolutely separate from the ‘structure’ of a building? Or would it mean that it’s on the ‘outside’ of the structure?
Well, if you’re not claiming all theists have had personal experiences, there would have to be a percentage. You asked me to consider their feelings, I’m just asking how large a group you think this is. Or did you have just one theist in mind?
That doesn’t mean I know what the statistic is. Myself and others who I have spoken to who have had experiences.
Have any of those experiences occured with the regularity of the sunrise?