Religious discussion

Abrahamic religions don't really answer the question of "why".

They identify requirements and rules, and they identify rewards and penalties.

But, that doesn't really explain why - why god decided to create an imperfect world of humans that would then be divided into groups who would be rewarded and groups who would be condemned.

 

I'm not sure how this applies to our argument. Secularism doesn't suggest that you should outsource your search for truth or that you aren't responsible for your ideas. I don't want to accuse you of stuff when I don't understand the argument, but maybe you're confusing secularism with communism again.

 

Justice as humans experience it. There have been many ways of trying to formalise it (I'm partial to Rawls' interpretation, but as will become apparent, the "true" interpretation is not the important bit) but again, the point of secularism is not to find the truth of how justice works, but to find a system of society in which people who are concerned with justice (albeit in many different ways) can coexist.

For example, consider irreligious people. If they were just concerned with everyone living after the truth, there'd be no point in churches, and you might get a soviet-style abolition of churches and Christianity. However, if instead they are secularists, as the vast majority of irreligious people today are, they may recognise that some people are Christians and those people can have churches.

 

There is no such thing as irreligious, everyone has a worldview therefore has a religion. There is such a thing as diety-less religion, but everyone has a religion.

 

As with many concepts, religion has several meanings, some closely related. Wikipedia for instance says

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.[1] However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. (source)​

I do not pretend that this is the only definition of religion, or a religion that is used in every instance, nor does Wikipedia. However, it is one with which one can create a useful and well behaved idea of irreligious people, which something like 16% of the world's population fits (disclaimer, I haven't checked that the 16% number uses that exact definition, but it'll be something similar, either way, the point is that it's a perfectly valid way of talking about people).

 

Its good to know that in your opinion that people can exist in this world without a worldview, no socio cultural system, no ethics and no morals. Thats not irreligious thats brain dead.

 

you like wiki?

• Max Lynn Stackhouse, defined religion as "a comprehensive worldview or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted".[10]

Some jurisdictions refuse to classify specific religions as religions, arguing that they are instead heresies, even if they are widely viewed as a religion in the academic world.[11]

Modern western
Religion is a modern Western concept.[12] Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages.[13][14] Scholars have found it difficult to develop a consistent definition, with some giving up on the possibility of a definition.[15][16] Others argue that regardless of its definition, it is not appropriate to apply it to non-Western cultures.[17][12]

The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a

[…] system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[21]

Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that

[…] we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it.[22]

The theologian Antoine Vergote took the term supernatural simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency. He also emphasized the cultural reality of religion, which he defined as

[…] the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings.[23]

Peter Mandaville and Paul James intended to get away from the modernist dualisms or dichotomous understandings of immanence/transcendence, spirituality/materialism, and sacredness/secularity. They define religion as

[…] a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.[24]

According to the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religions, there is an experiential aspect to religion which can be found in almost every culture:

[…] almost every known culture [has] a depth dimension in cultural experiences […] toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience—varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

Atheist faith in disbelieve transcends the natural and lodges itself squarely in the spiritual realm..

Contemporary usage does not determine the essence of any word.

 

Sure, it can get heated when one party refuses or is incapable of accepting reality, especially when they ad obnoxiously post craziness like atheism by definition is not a religion, just like not playing baseball is not a sport that has been thoroughly debunked.

Secular humanism is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.

Yet its a religion. The arguments get heated when dogmatists insist that only deity worship can be classified as religion simply because it has been the classical and contemporary 'usage' rather than realizing that if the contents and constructs is what determines what is the substantial definition of religion, not popular usage.

 

Never discuss religion or politics with strangers. I've heard this forever.

The problem is that if you disagree strongly with someone in either area you are basically calling them an idiot and you are also usually saying they are an evil degenerate in some way as well. You can get away with that if you know someone well and they understand your background and bona fides but with strangers, you don't have that

 

Whats being discussed in te propositional content, does not matter if they are strangers or your mother.

 

That's not what I said, the definition I provided also required a religion to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental or spiritual elements. In addition, both I and wikipedia made the point that the definition is not unique, and we're quite able to wiggle the definition so that we are able to express the ideas that we are trying to express.

 

Confucianism, Taoism and to some extent Buddhism all are recognized "religions" yet none of them really have a Deity or a clearly defined Afterlife. Orthodox Judaism, to my understanding, has a Deity but no Afterlife.

Does Secular Humanism lose tax advantages by claiming they are not a religion? I know they would in Canada, where they've recently had a ruling that you have to worship a Deity to get the tax breaks.

 

the definition I supplied has no such requirement as there is not such requirement. again you/they are conflating common usage with substance.

 

I think it's just because there are so many different ones out there.

 

I've already given you the link.

"Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 250 years, all "King James Version" Bibles published anywhere by any publisher are actually Blaney’s 1769 Revised Oxford Edition of the 1611 King James Bible.
The original “1611” preface is almost always deceivingly included by modern Bible publishing companies, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales among those imagining that they are reading the original 1611 version."
https://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

https://www.quora.com/If-the-letter...600-how-did-Jesus-get-his-name-2013-years-ago


https://howafrica.com/if-the-letter...n-how-is-it-possible-for-there-to-be-a-jesus/

 

Yeah, Wiki is pretty good. The list above gives a good view of how varied definitions of religion can be. It flies in the face of your idea that there is one undisputed meaning of the word, and that statements about atheism can be understood using only your definition.

Not atheists as defined by Flew.

Words have little other essence than what we understand by using them or have them used at us. "Thou" has become an obsolete word solely by falling out of usage (although not completely meaningless, we still derive meaning from hearing it). Awful used to mean awe-inspiring, but is now used to mean very bad, so if you use the old version, you will simply fail to communicate. It seems to me any essence beyond that is little beyond fantasy.

You can replace words entirely. You can replace every single word of the language with French, and cheese jokes aside, if the usage is also in French, then little essence or meaning will have gone missing.

(I say "little" rather than "none" because there can be beauty, simplicity, subtlety and many other things in a language, but they pale in comparison to the meaning through usage)

 

Then what makes you think that definition applies to the argument I was making? What is the nature of this essence which is somehow different than the meaning we use the words to mean? Why is your substance better than the usage which is required to get the intended meaning of the sentence?

 

Like rahl you conveniently omit and deny there is no requirement that religion include a deity, in fact I am still waiting for you to sort out rahls mess in my thread, where have you been?

You cite the neoatheist Flew a discredited philosopher not only by Stanford U, but also by himself, as he abandoned the **** mess he created and became a deist!

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces.[4] He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4][5] the free will defence to the problem of evil,[4][5] and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[6][4] In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[7]

However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an Intelligent Creator of the universe,[8] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[8] In order to further clarify his personal concept of God, Flew openly made an allegiance to Deism,[8][9] more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God,[8][9] and dismissed on many occasions a hypothetical conversion to Christianity, Islam or any other religion.[8][9] He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.[9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Flew now believes in the existence of a God because his neoatheist theories have failed him.

Since Stanford disqualified his work and Flew disqualified his own work, I dont see his debunked theories worth the time of day, except of course possibly to a neoatheist who would try to make a silk purse out of a sows ear?

 

Yes your world view is what shapes your religion. Webster said it best as did you, religion your personal version of your 'ultimate reality', which I consider broad enough to be universal.

 

Holiday travel. Happy new year!

That's because my argument doesn't rely on there being or not being such a requirement. Bringing it up would be a red herring with respect to my actual argument.

Neither the Stanford Author nor Flew himself have rejected the part of the argument I'm using, the validity of the definition. Flew ended up being a deist, but that's not the same as rejecting the understanding of the word atheism, he simply found a reason to become a deist.

 

but you posted a definition that expressly required religion to have some sort of deity or supernatural ......
Doesnt make sense does it.

Yeh I never rejected that the definition is any less valid than the definition of 'aint', and discussing flew using your version of his definition is no more value than arguing over aint. If its rejected philosophically on solid ground it has no 'practical' value, only wastes everyones time.

 

So? What I wrote was

As with many concepts, religion has several meanings, some closely related. Wikipedia for instance says
[wiki quote]
I do not pretend that this is the only definition of religion, or a religion that is used in every instance, nor does Wikipedia. ​

The point of the wiki quote was to show an example that there is a range of definitions, not that the one I quoted is the one I was using.

People are able to use it philosophically just fine, including Flew and the author of the Stanford paper. Ain't is also a perfectly understandable word, albeit informal. If someone said "Bananas ain't tasty", the meaning is clear. You can legitimately complain about the formality of the statement, but refusing to understand that the person is saying that bananas are not tasty would just be an obtuse waste of time.