[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Have any of those experiences occured with the regularity of the sunrise?
[/QUOTE]
Just the Sunrise. 
I’m not going farther than this though. I am not going to discuss the validity of my experiences with you.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I’m not going farther than this though. I am not going to discuss the validity of my experiences with you.
[/QUOTE]
I believe that you believe your experiences are valid. I just don’t see how they prove the existence of anything which is not already evident.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I believe that you believe your experiences are valid. I just don’t see how they prove the existence of anything which is not already evident.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t proposed any arguments so how would you know what they prove and don’t? Why do you have an opinion on a topic you have no information on? How is this difference from believing in God without prior evidence?
[QUOTE=mswas]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but I wish you’d stop being such a hypersensitive dick about it.
[QUOTE=mswas]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Sure (if it’s true, anyway; I dunno). It’s also an equally excellent example of people who are less than eight feet tall going apeshit over a secular ideology. And equally of people who are not entirely devoid of limbs going apeshit over a secular ideology.
And the point of this is? I thought you didn’t like tangents - or is that only when they’re trying to attack your opinions?
[QUOTE=mswas]
I think that the implications help us to understand what it is.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t. I don’t think that a religion is any less a religion if it doesn’t impact the culture at all. So, just like I don’t think that the fact that some religious people wear hats needs to be part of the definition, I don’t think that comment on how religion commingles with culture needs to be part of the definition.
We’re writing a dictionary entry here, not an encyclopedia article.
[QUOTE=mswas]
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?
[/QUOTE]
You can use any blessed word you like, but I am not going to have a word that by definition makes averything real “supernatural” filling the place I use “supernatural” in my definition. By my definition, the dictionary is not a bible, the post office is not a sect, and a rock is not an extradimensional being.
If you want to play word games, fine. If my refusing to play along with you playing word games makes me a dick, fine. But I refuse to use words in my definition that make every single thing in the universe “supernatural” for the purpose of defining religion.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I haven’t proposed any arguments so how would you know what they prove and don’t?
[/quote]
You haven’t? Don’t many if not most of your recents posts in threads like this presuppose the existence of God? Should I round up some quotes? If you’re not basing this presumption on your experiences, what are you basing it on?
Again, shall I go quote-mining? And if you can get some quotes from God, that might help.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Sure, but I wish you’d stop being such a hypersensitive dick about it.
[/quote]
When you are being ganged up on by half a dozen people espousing the same argument who expect you to respond to every little bit of minutiae they throw at you, you pick and choose. I mean, I could just ignore your argument and not say a word.
Except that the destruction of religion was a central precept to the ideology. The state was supposed to be the all powerful institution. The fact that there were competing threads of communism should tell you something about the inherent aspects of human nature that religion tries to account for.
Some people call communism a political religion.
I don’t. I don’t think that a religion is any less a religion if it doesn’t impact the culture at all. So, just like I don’t think that the fact that some religious people wear hats needs to be part of the definition, I don’t think that comment on how religion commingles with culture needs to be part of the definition.
We’re writing a dictionary entry here, not an encyclopedia article.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, well then the dictionary definition works fine, I guess this debate is over for me.
It doesn’t make everything ‘real’ supernatural.
So if you have a superstructure then everything inside of it is also part of the superstructure? Or is that too much of a word game for you?
It’s funny how you guys get on this, “Don’t play wordgames”, bit in a thread about the definition of something that has a stable definition.
[QUOTE=mswas]
MrDibble Can someone act like a religious zealot in the pursuit of a secular ideology?
[/QUOTE]
They can act like (similar to) a zealot, yes. But people can also act like religious zealots in pursuit of their schizophrenia or their love of Jodie Foster, so I don’t see what the point is.
[QUOTE=mswas]
So if you have a superstructure then everything inside of it is also part of the superstructure?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, everything in a superstructure is part of the superstructure - but that is not the “structure” that the superstructure is “super” to. For instance, on a ship, the superstructure is the part above the decks, not including the decks themselves - The part that sticks out from the hull. In Marxism, the superstructure is that part of society outside the structure or base of society (the producers). Incidentally, in Marx’s view, it was the base that determined the structure, not the other way around.
If you want one-on-one convos, take it to PM. Or don’t make citeless statements that elicit many responses. Otherwise, deal, either by manning up and answering, or ignoring whomever you want to ignore. But if the latter, again, be prepared to be accused of choosing easy respondents and avoiding the tough questions, rightly or wrongly.
Which dictionary definition would that be?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
A religion is an interdependent collection of related beliefs that have at their core a supernatural element.
[/QUOTE]
Alright.
What is the difference between a collection of beliefs that is religion and one that claims to be a religion but is nothing more than a cult?
What’s the difference between religion and cult?
I heard some polygamists speak this morning on Fox and friends and I have to say they speak, dress and act like they’re part of a cult.
If some dupe wanted to be “spiritually married” to me along with 18 other women, I’d kick his ass. 
There’s no way in hell I’d rationalize the relationship into something ‘virtuous and pure’. One of the women interviewed sounded like a dillusional brainwashed dupe.
Mindboggling…
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
What is the difference between a collection of beliefs that is religion and one that claims to be a religion but is nothing more than a cult?
What’s the difference between religion and cult?
[/QUOTE]
This was brought up on the first page. To quote my answer :
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
As for the difference between a cult and a religion, I’d say that the defining feature of a cult is the attitude of it’s followers. If the Pope ordered all Catholics tomorrow to drink poison, no doubt a few would; the vast majority wouldn’t. In a cult, many or most would, and have. A cult is a group of fellow believers characterized by the prevalence of extremism among them.
[/QUOTE]
There is no difference in value between the beliefs of a cult and a religion; the difference is in the relative sanity of the followers of those beliefs.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
This was brought up on the first page. To quote my answer :
There is no difference in value between the beliefs of a cult and a religion; the difference is in the relative sanity of the followers of those beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
There is something more controlling in a cult. the leaders make personal impositions, rationalizations and are intrusive to the point where the followers irrationally and blindly obey… as though the followers lose all free will.
There’s clearly a difference between a cult and religion.
The women I heard speak today are convinced they are happy living on their ranch, that life is good. Who, in their right minds, would tolerate sharing their husband with 18 other women, and actually believe it’s virtuous and pure? What a scam these guys have going on… big time.
Why can’t these submissive women have 18 spiritual husbands? :dubious:
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
There is something more controlling in a cult. the leaders make personal impositions, rationalizations and are intrusive to the point where the followers irrationally and blindly obey… as though the followers lose all free will.
There’s clearly a difference between a cult and religion.
[/quote]
I don’t see any, beyond the nature of the followers. To continue using him as an example, the Pope makes declarations about how people should behave and what they should believe all the time - which most of his followers ignore or modify, to greater and lesser degrees.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Who, in their right minds, would tolerate sharing their husband with 18 other women, and actually believe it’s virtuous and pure?
[/QUOTE]
Most women would, judging from history. Given a choice, most women appear to prefer to have a small part of a prosperous man, over all of an ordinary or poor man. Monogamy is mostly beneficial to men.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Why can’t these submissive women have 18 spiritual husbands? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Lack of interest. Even in societies when polyandry ( multiple husbands ) exists for economic reasons, it’s something people put up with, not something they like. No doubt there are some women who would, but they are the oddballs.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Faith is absolutely a synonym for trust. Faith in and of itself is a word with a neutral meaning. One can have faith in something and be wrong, and one can have faith in something and be right. The same is true of trust, one can have trust in something and be wrong and one can have trust in something else and be right. We can trust a scientist only to find out later that he’s a crackpot and watch a whole slew of theories based on his work fall under the bright light of scrutiny. Everyone acts with faith every day. To claim that one doesn’t operate under the auspices of faith is simply a lie, to put it quite frankly. We all move forward with incomplete information throughout a myriad of decisions every day. We hope that the solution to situations we are presented with will resemble closely enough past situations that we will have the skills to deal with them. That is faith. Faith deals with our relationship to imperfect sensory input. We can hedge our bets by honing our reasoning faculties, but to say that one operates without using faith in their daily life is to say that one makes decisions with perfect knowledge, it’s a lie, plainly. The problem here is the political will to semantically turn faith into a perjorative in order to achieve some sense of rhetorical victory against religion poisons the well and makes honest debate impossible.
[/QUOTE]
I agree,Faith and trust can be a synonym for each other, but it doesn’t mean faith is true.
Monavis
[QUOTE=monavis]
I agree,Faith and trust can be a synonym for each other, but it doesn’t mean faith is true.
Monavis
[/QUOTE]
Trust can be wrong too.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
They can act like (similar to) a zealot, yes. But people can also act like religious zealots in pursuit of their schizophrenia or their love of Jodie Foster, so I don’t see what the point is.
[/QUOTE]
Well the point is defining what properties are properties of religion. One of the ways to go about this is by discussing what properties would still exist if you shed religion. For instance, Der Trihs likes to assert that religion is responsible for all the world’s ills. I am trying to demonstrate that the nasty bits are not unique to religion, just as many are attempting to demonstrate that the good parts are not unique to religion. Part of the problems with this is that people engage in selection bias. They say only the negative aspects are a unique part of the thing they disapprove of. So the point is that mass slaughter wouldn’t disappear just because religion does.
[QUOTE=mswas]
For instance, Der Trihs likes to assert that religion is responsible for all the world’s ills.
[/quote]
No, I don’t and never have.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I am trying to demonstrate that the nasty bits are not unique to religion, just as many are attempting to demonstrate that the good parts are not unique to religion.
[/quote]
First, that doesn’t justify religion; that’s no argument against the position that religion makes people worse, that it encourages and excuses people. And it ignores the fact that there are evils and excuses unique to religion, like the belief in a soul and an afterlife, and what those beliefs lead to.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Part of the problems with this is that people engage in selection bias. They say only the negative aspects are a unique part of the thing they disapprove of. So the point is that mass slaughter wouldn’t disappear just because religion does.
[/QUOTE]
No, but there would generally less of it. And certainly something like global nuclear war is less likely without religion telling people that the end of the world is a good thing.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Trust can be wrong too.
[/QUOTE]
Sure - which is why it’s better to trust something with piles and piles and piles and piles and piles of objectively verified evidence backing it, like the scientific establishment (though even then one should keep a few grains of salt handy for the newest stuff); as opposed to something that’s never been shown to be right, and in many cases been shown to be wrong, like religion. You wouldn’t have enough salt for that even if some malicious imp turned you into a pillar of it.
(Not to say that you can’t trust in both of them - except for those places they may conflict. There are few theists who would deny the laws of fluid dynamics, unless they were waxing really hyperbolic.)
[QUOTE=begbert2]
There are few theists who would deny the laws of fluid dynamics, unless they were waxing really hyperbolic.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno, there are quite a few who misapply (willfully or otherwise) the laws of thermodynamics, and they’re dead serious about it.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
There are few theists who would deny the laws of fluid dynamics, unless they were waxing really hyperbolic.)
[/QUOTE]
Plenty would, if those laws contradicted part of the mythology they are obsessed with. If some aspect of the story about Noah and the Flood contradicted fluid dynamics, for example.