He left agnostic out, I included it and agreed under those conditions neither can it be agnostic based in the fact that they all require a thought process which cannot occur in a newborn. So once again I am agreeing with you, not agnostic either. Faulty logiccal connections. As a whole, they enlarged the definition to include without a God including babies, rocks, trees. Including babies and inappropriate application of context as just mentioned and discussed ad nauseum in countless threads Its a mistake to think a belief system requires a formal title to be a believe system. Each person unless brain dead has beliefs, and claiming their personal beliefs are not a system would insinuate a nonfunctional brain or possibly insanity. Also that is a definition fallacy, choosing to use too narrow of a definition when an inclusive definition exists. Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest. Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not. Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action. Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?" Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above. On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation. This they share with ideological beliefs. On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. durkhiem
No he didn't. That's what the "etc" was for. That's my point. By including that "etc" it included "agnostic". Not really since you are not addressing the point I am. There is a difference between a belief and a belief system. Simply believing a deity exists is a belief. That belief does not automatically imply a system of worship or anything else surrounding said deity. A belief system is all of those things that one does based upon that belief. Citation needed BTW since you are obviously quoting something. However that is not true. I can accept that another's religious belief exists without committing to its implementation. Further a belief doesn't require an implementation. You either believe that Bigfoot exists or you believe that he/she/it/they doesn't/don't. There is nothing to implement. The commitment in action is what makes something a belief system.
Yeh, Im sorry but the scope of your posts have gotten too many points too convoluted for me to spend time sorting it all out. sorry. Feel free to dismiss my arguments anyway you like.
Tradition, culture, or however you label religion, discounts the actual existence and intercession of a real and living God. In which case, what it is isn't culture or tradition, but the truth in the gaggle of beliefs, like a new star in the expanse of the sky as was seen over Bethlehem two thousand years ago. And though it has become tradition, it had a beginning according to the testimonies of those who lived then.
Religon reflects how humans facing an unknown lying ahead of everyone without exception. It's for an answer to the question what could possibly happen after death. When you say to yourself "nothing would happen", it's your religion. When you say "<something> could happen". It's your religion.
I don’t think that is enough to call it a religion. Not believing in god is more of a philosophy because it is devoid of the features of religion that are important, social interaction, cultural tradition, ritual etc.
To the extent that it is even a position, it is only the position on one question. It isn't a worldview or a religion. Neither is theism. There are atheist worldviews. There are theistic worldviews. But atheism and theism are not, themselves, worldviews.
Religion is a social network of likeminded followers of a specific belief. Nothing special or bad about being religious.
So then according to that one person can't have a religion, and religion only exists when considered as a mob. That's like saying individual rights don't exist because the Bill of Rights refers to people plural.
Division fallacy, that hardly negates religion. It is certainly a subset of a worldview and if the person's brain goes no farther than that one belief for their worldview then it most certainly is their religion provided they act upon it as durkheim explained very clearly. Religion is based in beliefs and actions based on those beliefs so I suppose if someone's belief in theism cause no different actions than the person who believes in atheism you might have a point but we both know that's not the case.
there's no discounting, tradition and culture etc could go hand in hand either way, with atheism or theism.
Religion is as equally individual as it is social. It starts with an 'individual' then as others join it becomes social from there is becomes a culture. This can be with or without a G/god because religion is grounded in beliefs and actions taken based upon those beliefs. One religion started with JC, a single person, today that is known as Christianity. Anton Lavey an atheist, a single person, started the Satan religion and the guv recognizes it as such.
Quite true, but the question of the thread deals with religion and what it is generally speaking. It includes a social contract between individuals.
Disagree. Why is my religion not a religion simply because others don't follow it? At what point does it become a religion? Two people? Three? 10?
Seeing as how the definition of religion encapsulates your belief I can understand your pov. However, outsiders would not be able to know about your belief if you didn't/don't share it with them. In that perspective it comes full circle in that it is a social construct.
Taking the view that religion is structured and spirituality isn't, is it your claim that in sharing one's beliefs is what makes it religion? If not what is your view on the difference between spirituality and religion? With regards to what you said, I see no reason why spirituality can't be shared as well. A spiritualist simply doesn't have a worship structure or rituals by which they express those beliefs. And a religious person can conduct what rituals and structures they have in isolation, such as many of the hermit monks did.
Spirituality involves the relationship between you and God. Religion involves you with at least one other person with Jesus in the midst. matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Note the verse states that there has to be at least two of us for Jesus to join in. That’s religion.
OK, that is a rather bias view given that there are religions other than Christianity, and other than Judaism and Islam as well. Wicca for example. Under the Wiccan religion there is no need of anything other the relationship between you and Goddess. Last I checked this thread is about religion, not Christianity only.
It’s not bias at all. Consider it a template for religion. It requires more than one person whereas spirituality only requires you plus a supernatural entity which unless you share your belief with others can be hidden from view. You could say religion is the catalyst where others are brought under the umbrella of your beliefs.
I never said it "negates religion." I said you were using words wrong. Which you were. Please learn what a world view is. Hint: it involves a view of the world, not just one question. And just as you were incorrect about a world view is, you also catastrophically mischarachterized what a division fallacy is.
