We're All Religious!

[Haruko]

The first thing I'm quoting is an excerpt from a post that was not directed at me but that I responded to:

Religion is a set of beliefs and values that define who and what you are as a person. It’s not about believing in God. You are a religious person yourself. Why? Because you believe that religions were created to make people afraid. That is your religion….the religion of believing in no religion.

Here was my response:

"Defining religion that way, it becomes a redundant term, and hence useless, if you mean to categorize people."

His response:

I'm not categorizing people, just making a point.

Mine:

"And a point you have made, though I do not understand the importance of having made it."

His:

The importance of it is to make others realize that they have a religious belief, even if they don't think they do. And to make people realize that they catergoize people when they say they don't believe in religion.

And my response:

"Why does it matter if someone's religious the much more inclusive way you defined it? Such persons are referring to not being religious the way it's more often implied, which is the positive assertion that there is no deity or deities, or a lack of belief in a deity or deities."

Yes, silly discussion, but I don't understand what this guy's trying to get at.

Oh, and check out this gem that someone posted in the middle of the exchange:

The point is, in the context of heaven and hell, its not about the religion it's about the relationship with god. The bible doesnt say you go to heaven for being good and hell for being basd, it says you go to heaven for accepting that jesus is your savior and the only way to get to god, and you go to hell for not doing that.

Why is everyone so reluctant to say "Ok, all I have to do is know in my heart that God loves me so much he sent Jesus to be killed, and to conquer death, so that I wouldnt have to spend my life in hell for not sacraficing an animal one day. And while I'm here on earth God will take care of me and I don't have to worry about the things that are coming up because I know in the end it'll all turn out right. So now I'll give up my life to God and see how things change for the better!"
So many people are depressed or saying they feel like something is missing in their heart or their life is going down hill fast and they feel hopeless or lost. But when someone mentions Jesus they are so reluctant to even think about the millions of people all around the world accepting this free gift, reluctant to think of all the miracles and turned around lives, gave them hope, a new outlook, PEACE! People always say the word peace when they describe what it was like to know god was with them now, and always was, just waiting for them to say "come on in". There was no crying and screaming and pain and agony, there wasn't a sudden lightning bolt coming from nowhere the second you say "I think I might actually see this out, it could be worth it." There has never, ever been a case of drugs solving problems, of alcohol making people feel better and having a wonderful life, or having all the money you could ever want, all the power you could ever want in the long run. History and literature are full of stories of rich powerful people being corrupted, not being satisfied, always wanting more.

So my question here is, "WHY?" Why won't you even THINK about it. Why won't you turn it around in your mind a while, look some stuff up, find out what christians you know think about life?! And I dont mean people who just say "I'm a christian because my parents make me go to church" I mean real people with real changed lives. there are more than you think. There may be doubt, everyone is allowed to doubt, it a part of our nature, but not one of them has regretted it.

That's just to give you an idea of the awesome intelligence rampant at the forum the discussion is taking place in.

If, for some reason, you feel like jumping in, here's the link: http://www.communityflow.com/index.php

Has anyone ever run into such a person making stupid points like this (referring to the one whose posts I responded to)?

[General Zod]

Apparently they're using a different dictionary than I am.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun

[Mr Bean]

Has anyone ever run into such a person making stupid points like this (referring to the one whose posts I responded to)?

Yes, I normaly respond with the following.

There are many religions out that were founded by people wandering around deserts. Many of them have unproven miracles, saints, sinners. Creation and Destruction stories.
And they all sound pretty much the same, what makes you think you got it right?

[RedImperator]

So a religious person is defining religion so broadly that it can apply to anyone, in order to prove that you too are religious. Strikes me as a pyrrhic victory (if everyone's religous, than what's so special about being a religious person?).

[defanatic]

Religion is a set of beliefs and values that define who and what you are as a person. It’s not about believing in God

This is a stupid definition. Everyone is Religious then. I believe that what I see in front of my eyes is real, what I hear is real, and so-on. I believe that there are no pink fairies dancing on top of what I believe is my computer monitor.
And everyone has 'values'.

[Anomie]

Religion is a set of beliefs and values that define who and what you are as a person.

Tell the person to take a Philosophy course. What he just defined is Ethics, not religion.

[mr friendly guy]

Reminds me of the idiot on SB.com who said atheism was a religion because it has theism in its spelling.

[NoXion]

Oh good grief, I had someone on another forum trying to tell me that scientific humanism was a religion, the argument went back and forth for a bit, and he got pissed when I called him a cockmunch and labelled me homophobic, and I haven't heard from him since.

[Lord Zentei]

Religion is a set of beliefs and values that define who and what you are as a person. It’s not about believing in God. You are a religious person yourself. Why? Because you believe that religions were created to make people afraid. That is your religion….the religion of believing in no religion.

Moronic and dishonest. Specifically: tu quoque fallacy and goalpost-moving.

Apparently this self-righteous retard wishes to redefine "religion" so that everyone is "religious". This would make it impossible to criticize his/her/its adherance to religion according to the more traditional definition, as opposed to the new and so-broad-as-to-be-meaningless definition, since everyone is "religious" according to the new definition as opposed to the traditional definition... see the problem?

Thus, this fool's argument is bullshit. Anyway, "the religion of believing in no religion" is meaningless: you either have a religion or you don't. If you have a religion you are a theist. If you don't have a religion you are an atheist. If you "do not know" you are an agnostic (since "gnosis" means "knowledge"). Selectively redefining the terms so that they will fit your argument is the epitome of dishonest debating.

[NoXion]

But what about the claim by neo-buddhists not to worship any gods? I say religion requires faith, but this person claimed that their neo-buddhist religion didn't require it. He claimed that in order to call Buddhism a religion, one would have to call scientific humanism a religion too.

Maybe this link will explain in better detail:

++http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index. ... opic=40279

Yeah, I know I was being an ass, but he was pissing me off.

[Zero]

In some respects, buddhism isn't a religion. Much of what the religion has to say doesn't focus on any supernatural aspect at all, but rather your own personal happiness. The existance of a soul isn't required for most of buddha's philosophy to work out.

[General Zod]

In some respects, buddhism isn't a religion. Much of what the religion has to say doesn't focus on any supernatural aspect at all, but rather your own personal happiness. The existance of a soul isn't required for most of buddha's philosophy to work out.

It isn't required to be followed, no, but the fact that the core tenets revolve around working towards escaping the cycle of death/rebirth, and thereby suffering requires some amount of faith, since without belief in a soul the primary reasons Buddhism exists is meaningless.

[Zero]

It isn't required to be followed, no, but the fact that the core tenets revolve around working towards escaping the cycle of death/rebirth, and thereby suffering requires some amount of faith, since without belief in a soul the primary reasons Buddhism exists is meaningless.

No, his methods of escaping pain apply whether we're in a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth or not. Actually, according to the chapter entitled "The Historic Buddha", in the book "A Buddhist Bible" (compiled by a fellow named Dwight Goddard, and a quite interesting read so far), Siddhartha Guatama initially rejected the notion of a soul, and his primary intent was to eliminate suffering. You don't need to believe in a soul to believe that his teachings are valid, which is why buddhism is closer to a philosophy then a religion.

Besides, the notion of reincarnation and a human soul doesn't have to be taken on faith to be believed, if you've experienced it. Don't consider this a piece of my argument, though, because personal anecdotes (even though they're all we can possibly currently expect) have no bearing on a rational argument. I simply believed it was worth stating.

[General Zod]

>snip<

You may not need to believe in one for it to be valid, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in the core tenets of the belief structure, which still makes it a religion.

What individuals that follow a religion choose to believe about it does nothing to change the religion's basic structure.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Atheism is a religious belief, or at least opinion, but that doesn't actually make us religious. One can have opinions about the republican party without being a member.

[NoXion]

Atheism is a belief in what exactly?

[Zero]

You may not need to believe in one for it to be valid, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in the core tenets of the belief structure, which still makes it a religion.

What individuals that follow a religion choose to believe about it does nothing to change the religion's basic structure.

My entire point is that the entire system unfolds itself based on logical deduction more then anything. The notion that to attain happiness one must give up desire is the root of the philosophy, and it has nothing to do with any notion of the supernatural. Much of it is based on logical deduction, and not on any matter of faith. Buddhism can actually be held as a belief system while claiming also to be a christian.

Of the definitions of religion on dictionary.com, the only one that seems to work out with Buddhism is the same one that the fellow at the top of the page tried to work with.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

This can be applied to anything and anyone.

The other definitions...

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Don't quite work as well, except perhaps the third, but that doesn't seem quite right to me either, as Buddha never claimed to be anything but a man at all, with no divine inspiration of any kind, and spiritual means

Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.

Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.

Of, from, or relating to God; deific.

Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.

Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Since Siddhartha Guatama's concerns dealt with pain and suffering in the real world, I don't consider these things to apply to him, however I'm quite certain you'll disagree.

[Lord Zentei]

Atheism is a religious belief, or at least opinion, but that doesn't actually make us religious. One can have opinions about the republican party without being a member.

No. Atheism is not a religious beleif. It is the absence of beleif.

[Alyeska]

Haruko, I had this very same debate with someone on SB.com. Its basicaly someone moving the goal posts and trying to use that as justification for claims they are making. When a religious person claims that Atheism is a religion, they are intending the traditional definition, but when forced to defend the claim they will move the goalposts by claiming a broader definition. The easiest way to show the stupidity of the argument is to point out under such broad definitions nearly anything is a religion and hence claiming anything is a religion is irrelevent. Also point out that it makes the traditional religious sense irrelevent and therefor is an insult to true religions.

[Rye]

What's the big deal? It's someone redefining words unjustifiably. It's a standard dishonest, douchebag equivocation. The dictionary shows him to not even be using a listed definition, so he's also a liar. If that fails, just say he is HITLER, be sure to capitalise HITLER and then say it's got nothing to do with being german, or a supporter of the nazis in any shape or form, it only refers to someone who is alive and writes.

Alternatively, you could point to the illness of health, since you know, illness only refers to a set of body chemistry, of which health is just a part of. Or the habit of not smoking.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Does the presence of faith have anything to do with the definition of a religion?

And where is the difference between religion and philosophy? It's really hard to say.

I'm not trying to define atheism in this post, so don't flame me.

[Spyder]

Atheism is a religious belief, or at least opinion, but that doesn't actually make us religious. One can have opinions about the republican party without being a member.

Yeah, but having beliefs about the Republican party doesn't mean you "have republican beliefs."

Atheism isn't a religious belief anymore then "empty" is a type of fuel you have in your gas tank.

[Lord Edam]

This topic sounds suspiciously like the cover story in this week's "New Scientist", about the end of the Enlightenment and rise of fundamentalism.

One of the articles does seem to start off saying Science is a form of religion, but it turns out they're just getting at the fact that you can be as much a science fundamentalist (science explains all) as a religious fundamentalist (supreme power of choice is all), and both are as dangerous as each other.

[General Zod]

Does the presence of faith have anything to do with the definition of a religion?

And where is the difference between religion and philosophy? It's really hard to say.

I'm not trying to define atheism in this post, so don't flame me.

Religion typically involves faith in something that may or may not exist. On the other hand philosophy usually concerns itself with real world problems. Though that doesn't prevent some philosophies from being utterly retarded and stupid.

[Battlehymn Republic]

But doesn't atheism include an element of faith as well:

The faith that the world as observed through empiricism and rationalism is all that exists?