An ongoing and lively discussion in comparative religious studies today is in fact the precise definition of "religion". It is really not nearly as simple or generic as standard dictionary definitions, and because of its divergent and incredibly varied appearance through time and from place to place, it remains exceedingly difficult to provide an acceptable definition that adequately captures the essence of what religion is and how it functions. This is why I tend to "fudge" a bit when the topic comes up: in actual fact, religion is probably too complicated to properly define.
Absolutely.
Look at a typical, everyday activity as an example. I faithfully subscribe to the ultimate reality that if I don't take care of my teeth, any number of bad things can happen. Therefore, I religiously brush my teeth three to four times per day, and use both mouthwash and floss in accordance to the wishes of my dentist who, in this matter, is very much a "deity" of sorts.
A tad flippant I suppose, but based on textbook definitions, I could argue that just the fact that I brush my teeth in the morning makes me a "religious" person.
Sometimes it seems we waste so much energy on this stuff, when the thing we're arguing isn't even the thing we're arguing.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop
A skeptic merely needs to be proven wrong. Since there's no evidence of any god(s), it's pretty cut and dried as to who is right.
Someone who makes a claim that they are right should be able to back up their statement. The fact that you or anyone else can't prove that a God doesn't exist does not make you right. I don't belong to any faith and am open to the possibility that a God may exist.
A skeptic merely needs to be proven wrong. Since there's no evidence of any god(s), it's pretty cut and dried as to who is right.
I would disagree with this statement. A true skeptic would recognize that there is never certainty and only the highly probable based on known evidence. So i that sense a skeptic would never claim to be right as the claim to being right implies certainty and certainty takes faith.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
So if I say "If I throw a ball in the air, gravity will bring it back to earth", I am being religious? I should not say that with certainty since it requires faith?
Humanity doesn't have a long tradition of access to birth control of any kind, looks like your goalposts are set at "impossible".
Interesting that people went after "long tradition" rather than anything else in my post. Even if I defined long tradition as 5 minutes ago, it still rules out most organized religions today.
Look at a typical, everyday activity as an example. I faithfully subscribe to the ultimate reality that if I don't take care of my teeth, any number of bad things can happen. Therefore, I religiously brush my teeth three to four times per day, and use both mouthwash and floss in accordance to the wishes of my dentist who, in this matter, is very much a "deity" of sorts.
A tad flippant I suppose, but based on textbook definitions, I could argue that just the fact that I brush my teeth in the morning makes me a "religious" person.
Sometimes it seems we waste so much energy on this stuff, when the thing we're arguing isn't even the thing we're arguing.
Someone who makes a claim that they are right should be able to back up their statement. The fact that you or anyone else can't prove that a God doesn't exist does not make you right. I don't belong to any faith and am open to the possibility that a God may exist.
Nobody can prove Santa Clause and the Easter Buuny don't exist, therefore you should believe in them and be open to the possibilty they may exist.
A skeptic merely needs to be proven wrong. Since there's no evidence of any god(s), it's pretty cut and dried as to who is right.
You cannot disprove the existence of a God, you can merely make logical assumptions.
The acceptance of those assumptions requires no intelligence beyond basic comprehension, as does the refusal of such a logical assumption. The only "feeble" bristling is that either side is relying strictly on intelligence.
If believing in a omnipotent sentient being that cannot be seen is stupid, then people far, far smarter than Reggie are stupid.
Simply put: superstition is the practice of inferring causation from correlation. Religion may have emerged from a superstitious worldview, but the key here is that in many of its present forms, it has in fact emerged. Religion is composed of ritual, culture, social memory, and various cues that bind communities together—not all of them in all places and forms are pattern-seeking behaviours.
When you believe in things that you don't understand you suffer?
Quote:
Without question. How does one go about "proving" such a thing?
I don't know. I've heard there's a lot of smart people working on it. What I was getting at is the interesting dichotomy on display between your logic and faith.
Quote:
This insinuates that such evidence is demonstrable. Since I know that it is not, I must assume that the only "weak" and "feeble minded" one between the two of us must be you.
I think you mentioned something above about correlation and causation.
So if I say "If I throw a ball in the air, gravity will bring it back to earth", I am being religious? I should not say that with certainty since it requires faith?
Yes, if you are certain it will come down it is a statement of faith. If you were to state that based on the current understanding of physics and all experimental data gathered to date the ball will come down the you allow for the fact that we dont know everything about physics therefore their may be a situation where the ball doesnt come down.
A good example would be newtonian physics at the time it was believed if you applied a continuous force to an object that in the absence of other forces it would continue to accelerate for ever to an infinate speed. However this fails as the object approaches the speed of light.
So even though Newtonian physics worked in all experimental circumstances at the time it was not correct.
Interesting that people went after "long tradition" rather than anything else in my post. Even if I defined long tradition as 5 minutes ago, it still rules out most organized religions today.
But if you defined long tradition as 10 years ago then only the Netherlands and Sweden would meet your criteria. You can belong to an organization and disagree with some of the values of it.
But if you defined long tradition as 10 years ago then only the Netherlands and Sweden would meet your criteria. You can belong to an organization and disagree with some of the values of it.
But it would be nice if more people spoke out about ######ed values and traditions that their religions hold onto, instead of towing the party line, so to speak.
Like all those dumbasses lining up to support Chick Filet.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Simply put: superstition is the practice of inferring causation from correlation. Religion may have emerged from a superstitious worldview, but the key here is that in many of its present forms, it has in fact emerged. Religion is composed of ritual, culture, social memory, and various cues that bind communities together—not all of them in all places and forms are pattern-seeking behaviours.
IF in fact religion emerged from superstition, and nothing has changed to make it fact then it remains superstition, whether it has "emerged" or not.
The fact that there is superstitious ritual, culture or society does not make it correct or right. It is in fact a culture and society of the superstitious.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
I think what is happening in North Carolina is wrong. However, is it the religion's fault? Or perhaps, it is the people in authority trying to use religion for their benefit? Crooked cops and politicians doesn't make me think that democracy is stupid, or that the rule of law is stupid. Why do people think that just because there are idiots using religion to get what they want makes the religion 'stupid'?
The difference is that the entire basis of religion is praising all-powerful beings, and when those all-powerful beings allows evil (whether in the form of treating gays or women like second-class citizens, or shooting abortion doctors, or blowing up bombs at the finish lines of marathons) to be carried out in their names, the religions continue to praise those "gods". If we believed that someone was capable of controlling the dirty cops and politicians but failed to do so, we'd lose faith in them and call for their heads. That's unfortunately not how the real world works, but we still try to hold the higher-ups accountable when things go wrong under their watch. Religions do nothing of the sort, and that's sad.
Just over 67 per cent of those who participated in the 2011 National Household Survey — Statistics Canada's voluntary replacement for the cancelled mandatory long-form census — reported being "affiliated with a Christian religion," the agency reported Wednesday.
But among new Canadian immigrants, the number of Christians has dropped to 47.5 per cent from 78 per cent in 1971, while nearly one-quarter of the Canadian population reported having no religious affiliation at all, compared with 16 per cent in 2001.
In the U.S., meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans still consider themselves religious — many of them devoutly so.
A recent Gallup survey found that throughout the U.S. in 2012, 40 per cent of Americans considered themselves to be "very religious." Twenty-nine per cent described themselves as moderately religious, while 31 per cent said they were not religious.
