| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Religion-bashing," huh? I suppose that makes me a militant. Someone pass the ammo!
Sorry, its praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
No ammo for you!
|
Those puerile attempts happened AFTER we once again heard the equally puerile and also ignorant idea that the nazis were atheists. Get a grip, Charlie.
To further explain why your view is wrong, I would say that you misquoted me by conveniently ignoring the little word "transcendent" I wrote before "ideology". And as you say, words DO have meaning. Transcendental ideologies are pretty close to what you'd call a religion, in that their message is driven by FAITH. Other ideologies do not have this requirement. As for nazism, they were well documented as christians.
Sissyl when you say that Nazis where well documented as Christians. I believe that the majority of the religions in German at the time had a great deal of problems with the Nazi party and vice versa since the Nazis tried to undermine the Pope's authority as well as their teachings. Now granted this info is from Wikipedia but I believe it contradicts your point on Nazis and them being Christians since they really did not like the Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and their teachings at the time.
Catholic Church and Nazis
This thread would be much more practical if it were about FOUNDING, rather than finding, a new religion.
This thread would be much more practical if it were about FOUNDING, rather than finding, a new religion.
It worked for L ron Hubbard.
Those puerile attempts happened AFTER we once again heard the equally puerile and also ignorant idea that the nazis were atheists. Get a grip, Charlie.
To further explain why your view is wrong, I would say that you misquoted me by conveniently ignoring the little word "transcendent" I wrote before "ideology". And as you say, words DO have meaning. Transcendental ideologies are pretty close to what you'd call a religion, in that their message is driven by FAITH. Other ideologies do not have this requirement. As for nazism, they were well documented as christians.
Sissyl when you say that Nazis where well documented as Christians. I believe that the majority of the religions in German at the time had a great deal of problems with the Nazi party and vice versa since the Nazis tried to undermine the Pope's authority as well as their teachings. Now granted this info is from Wikipedia but I believe it contradicts your point on Nazis and them being Christians since they really did not like the Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and their teachings at the time.
Catholic Church and Nazis
Not liking two of the sects of Christianity does not mean one is still not part of the religion.
The article you link to is mainly devoted to countering the myth that the Catholic Church helped the Nazis.
"Hitler's ideologues Goebbels, Himmler, Rosenberg and Bormann hoped to de-Christianize Germany, or at least to distort its theology to their point of view." is a pretty good summary from that Wikipedia page. Of course the nazis didn't like the Catholic church, which was a rival authority. That is not to say they were atheists, though.
This thread has shown me I'm not nearly careful enough in qualifying every jot and tittle of what I write ;)
In your defense, it's tough on Teh Webz -- the normal ebb and flow of conversation has weird lags and echoes, and no one can just look at your face in order to realize you're trying to be cool about things.
Over on WPZO, I put my Monday Morning Jazz Brunches on sabbatical (hee hee!) and initiated a new show, Sunday Songs of Praise! and not a single one of those posts has been favorited! I can't believe it-- there's some great shiznit in there--Big Star, Mahalia Jackson, Junior Murvin, Hank Williams, etc., etc., etc.
So, I'm going to start reposting them in here because, as an irreconcilable atheist and militant socialist (up against the wall, m@*$$%*%&*+@!) I don't have much to say about religion. At least, not much that is nice.
I'll start with my favorite religious song evah:
"Religion-bashing," huh? I suppose that makes me a militant. Someone pass the ammo!Sorry, its praise the lord and pass the ammunition.
No ammo for you!
BNW alerady started, I see. And he doesn't even like music!
Fellow early 80s punk hardcore afficionados, help me out, who covered this? The FUs?
---
Impatient Youth?!? Who the hell were they?
I've been described as having no religion, not even atheism. My view on whether or not there is theistic force in the universe is that the question is completely irrelevant. Whether or not there is a god or gods or what have you, it does not change the fact that the best way for us to behave remains the same, no matter what forces outside our control may do.
I was baptized Catholic and raised Episcopalian. I'm a minister of the Universal Life Church. If I were to change religions, Theravada Buddhism is probably the closest to my worldview, but even then, there are details which I disagree with. In particular, the nature of karma. I do not believe that the ideal mental state is detachment, and a complete removal of desire. I believe that while desire leads to suffering, it also leads to progress, and so desire must not be extinguished, but channeled.
Also, in the end, my dirty little secret is that I would love to found my own religion.
I've been described as having no religion, not even atheism.Atheism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion. In the same way that darkness is not just another kind of light. It's the absence of it.
The definition of religion I've been told is a series of beliefs regarding superhuman phenomena that informs how to life one's life. Although I agree that atheism in its purest form, says nothing about how we should act, there are plenty of atheists who take this belief and create rules around it. For example, many atheists believe that it is important not to pray to any god, because they don't exist. In this way, a belief in atheism has created a taboo--thus it becomes a religion.
But let me be clear: religion is NOT belief in a personified higher power. "Superhuman phenomena" include such things as gravity and quantum theory, things that do not require human mental constructs to exist.
Now, although I've been said to have no religion, it's not true. We all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another. It also means that religion will always be with us. It is up to us to develop religion that creates the best possible world--with the understanding that we are the ones who define what "best possible" means.
The definition of religion I've been told is a series of beliefs regarding superhuman phenomena that informs how to life one's life.I've been described as having no religion, not even atheism.Atheism is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a religion. In the same way that darkness is not just another kind of light. It's the absence of it.
That sounds like a poor definition. A more typical one is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" or "a particular system of faith and worship," both of which I stole from Google.
For example, many atheists believe that it is important not to pray to any god, because they don't exist. In this way, a belief in atheism has created a taboo.
This is errant nonsense.
But let me be clear: religion is NOT belief in a personified higher power. "Superhuman phenomena" include such things as gravity and quantum theory, things that do not require human mental constructs to exist.
Sorry. I thought the preceding paragraph was errant nonsense. It's been trumped.
Now, although I've been said to have no religion, it's not true. We all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another. It also means that religion will always be with us. It is up to us to develop religion that creates the best possible world--with the understanding that we are the ones who define what "best possible" means.
Just keep going from strength to strength, don't you?
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive? Why do you believe that it is so important to deny the existence of religion in your life?
@ wrong john
You're an atheist. Welcome to the darkside. We have cookies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive? Why do you believe that it is so important to deny the existence of religion in your life?
What if I made the claim that not beating your wife is just another form of domestic abuse?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?
It's not. It's simply incorrect. There's nothing offensive about claiming that Madonna is the President of the United Kingdom, that the capital of France is Amsterdam, or that house cats are vegetarians.
The problem is that by making such claims, you might confuse someone into actually taking them seriously, to the detriment of themselves and others around them.
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive? Why do you believe that it is so important to deny the existence of religion in your life?What if I referred to you not as a gamer, or a person, but as a non-wife beater. And then made the claim that not beating your wife is just another form of domestic abuse.
I'd say, "Show me the abuse I'm causing." Then, when you reply, "It's not abuse, it's just marriage," I'd respond, "Okay, then, I misunderstood the way you used the term. I have trouble fathoming marriage without abuse."
(If, in fact, this is going to be a CRD II, I shall change my hat)
As an irreconcilable atheist, this song makes me bawl my eyes out.
Saw Willie Nelson do in Boston about a decade ago, went home and blew some rails with my nihilist friend. Talk about seeing the light!
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?It's not. It's simply incorrect. There's nothing offensive about claiming that Madonna is the President of the United Kingdom, that the capital of France is Amsterdam, or that house cats are vegetarians.
The problem is that by making such claims, you might confuse someone into actually taking them seriously, to the detriment of themselves and others around them.
But your argument consists of "That's stupid," and leaves it at that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you consider it offensive.
Calling "atheism" a religion is like a Zen koan.
Is bald a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby, in and of itself?
But your argument consists of "That's stupid," and leaves it at that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you consider it offensive.Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?It's not. It's simply incorrect. There's nothing offensive about claiming that Madonna is the President of the United Kingdom, that the capital of France is Amsterdam, or that house cats are vegetarians.
The problem is that by making such claims, you might confuse someone into actually taking them seriously, to the detriment of themselves and others around them.
Shrug. You're mistaken. Doubly mistaken, given that your whole argument hinges on a completely inaccurate definition of religion, as I pointed out.
(ETA: You also misstate my argument. I didn't say it was stupid, I said it was nonsense. Here as well, words have meanings.)
But your argument consists of "That's stupid," and leaves it at that. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you consider it offensive.Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?It's not. It's simply incorrect. There's nothing offensive about claiming that Madonna is the President of the United Kingdom, that the capital of France is Amsterdam, or that house cats are vegetarians.
The problem is that by making such claims, you might confuse someone into actually taking them seriously, to the detriment of themselves and others around them.
Shrug. You're mistaken. Doubly mistaken, given that your whole argument hinges on a completely inaccurate definition of religion, as I pointed out.
(ETA: You also misstate my argument. I didn't say it was stupid, I said it was nonsense. Here as well, words have meanings.)
Yes, you said nonsense, not stupid. Very true.
But we're clearly operating on different beliefs on what constitues religion, stemming from different sources (mine include class materials from Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, by the way). And then, since my source of belief differs from yours, you discredit my premise and refuse to consider its possibilities.
Who else does that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?
Because it basically says 'you have faith just like the christians/muslims/jews etc'. Thats insulting because contempt for that sort of thinking (or not thinking) is exactly how most of us got to be atheists in the first place.
Why do you believe that it is so important to deny the existence of religion in your life?
1) Atheism is a conclusion. Other ideas about religion are so completely unfounded as to be a presupposition. Calling the atheist religious is calling their ideas (and thus them) irrational.
2) Its usually the preface for an equivocation argument. if atheism and christianity are both faith based then christianity is perfectly fine.
I have either too much or not nearly enough pharmacutical assistance for searching for your doctors definition. Could you link it?
Calling "atheism" a religion is like a Zen koan.
Is bald a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby, in and of itself?
Is religion a hair color? I think it's a hair style.
Calling "atheism" a religion is like a Zen koan.
Is bald a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby, in and of itself?
This is a pretty common atheist meme but I think it's pretty needlessly flippant and pedantic. "Bald" is not a hair color, but if somebody asks you your hair color and you reply, "I'm bald," is that not a legitimate answer to their question?
Or if somebody asks "Where's your wife" and you reply "I'm not married." They've made a minor faux pas by assuming you have a wife when that's not the case, but there's no need to ride them about it for making an unwarranted assumption.
But we're clearly operating on different beliefs on what constitues religion, stemming from different sources
That's quite possible. The thing is, just because your beliefs are different from mine doesn't mean they're equally correct.
And then, since my source of belief differs from yours, you discredit my premise and refuse to consider its possibilities.
Nope. Your "belief" arrived pre-discredited, and I merely pointed that out. It's also not a question of the source of your belief (which I didn't know), but the content. I don't especially care who informed you about the capital of France, either.
Specifically, your notion that mere "belief" about the "superhuman" constitutes religion is untenable, especially given your nonsensical notion that the force of gravity is in some meaningful way "superhuman." A better example of "superhuman," if you needed one, would be a forklift, which of course is capable of literally superhuman feats of strength. And I believe (with justification) that this informs how I should lead my life, because there are certain objects I should not lift manually but instead use the forklift for. (I will have fewer painful back injuries that way.) The fact that this belief qualifies under your definition as "religious" is sufficient, by itself, to discredit your definition.
A better definition of religion focuses (as do both of the one I provided) on the notion of "worship"; belief in ghosts or pixies is not religion unless you worship something related to the ghosts/pixies. Further, a belief that Odin does not exist is not religious, unless you make a point of worshiping the nonexistent.
As a matter of fact, you can see the issues quite clearly by considering a typical Christian viewpoint about Odin.
* A Christian believes in the divinity of Christ, worships him, and attempts to follow the rules Christ has laid down for the conduct of his his life.
* A Christian does not believe in the divinity (or even existence) of Odin, does not bother to worship him, and considers Odin's rules for conducting his life to be irrelevant (not to be followed, not to be disobeyed, but simply to be ignored, and not necessarily even to be known).
The second set of beliefs are not religious beliefs.
As you can see, I deeply "considered" your beliefs and rejected them out of hand. It didn't take long to realize that the possibilities implicit in your beliefs were literally nonsense, and therefore the beliefs themselves were wrong beyond the possibility of repair.
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?Because it basically says 'you have faith just like the christians/muslims/jews etc'. Thats insulting because contempt for that sort of thinking (or not thinking) is exactly how most of us got to be atheists in the first place.
Oh! All right. But then, what should someone that ignores theism/atheism but accepts faith be called? I've heard the term "ignosticism"; would that work?
And really, contempt in all its forms is insulting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty common atheist meme but I think it's pretty needlessly flippant and pedantic. "Bald" is not a hair color, but if somebody asks you your hair color and you reply, "I'm bald," is that not a legitimate answer to their question?Calling "atheism" a religion is like a Zen koan.
Is bald a hair color?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby, in and of itself?
It is, but it doesn't legitimate the question. Especially in the context where the person is trying to make the point that everyone has a hair color.
Or if somebody asks "Where's your wife" and you reply "I'm not married." They've made a minor faux pas by assuming you have a wife when that's not the case, but there's no need to ride them about it for making an unwarranted assumption.
There is when the point of the discussion is that not everyone has a wife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh! All right. But then, what should someone that ignores theism/atheism but accepts faith be called? I've heard the term "ignosticism"; would that work?
Probably not.
And really, contempt in all its forms is insulting.
Not all ideas are equal and many are so blatantly false that theydeserve contempt.
Oh! All right. But then, what should someone that ignores theism/atheism but accepts faith be called? I've heard the term "ignosticism"; would that work?Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive?Because it basically says 'you have faith just like the christians/muslims/jews etc'. Thats insulting because contempt for that sort of thinking (or not thinking) is exactly how most of us got to be atheists in the first place.
Possibly. I've also heard "theological noncognitivism," or simple "agnosticism" used as well. The Dutch have the term "ietsism" for this. The usual term that gets used in American popular discourse is "spiritual but not religious."
The differences among these are subtle and oft-disputed, and I don't know which one you would prefer to use to describe your own beliefs.
There is when the point of the discussion is that not everyone has a wife.
Or if somebody asks "Where's your wife" and you reply "I'm not married." They've made a minor faux pas by assuming you have a wife when that's not the case, but there's no need to ride them about it for making an unwarranted assumption.
Ah, but if I ask, "What's your living situation?" and you answer, "I don't have a wife," there's still a disconnect.
And when I say, I'm talking about living situations, everyone has a living situation, and you insist, no, I'm talking about wives, and not everyone has one, it's nonsense to discuss the existence of living situations, then communication becomes difficult.
Not all ideas are equal and many are so blatantly false that they deserve contempt.
And really, contempt in all its forms is insulting.
I believe they deserve demonstration of falsity, and defense against them, yes, but not via vilification of the believer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but if I ask, "What's your living situation?" and you answer, "I don't have a wife," there's still a disconnect.
That's not, however, what you did. You did almost the exact opposite -- you asked "where's your wife?" and then explained that by "wife" you meant "living situation," and therefore everyone has a wife, even if they're unmarried.
And when I say, I'm talking about living situations, everyone has a living situation, and you insist, no, I'm talking about wives, and not everyone has one, it's nonsense to discuss the existence of living situations, then communication becomes difficult.
That's right. And you shouldn't have used the word "wife" if you meant what everyone else in the world means by "living situation."
As previously stated I think most people's stated religious preferences are the equivalent of a fashion statement. And so to many people being critical or contemptuous of their religious choice strikes them as just as jerkish as if you were being really haughty and snobbish about somebody's taste in music or clothes.
I believe they deserve demonstration of falsity, and defense against them, yes, but not via vilification of the believer.
No one's villified you (yet). I took great pains to point this out to you a few posts earlier.
|
Why is calling atheism a religion so offensive? Why do you believe that it is so important to deny the existence of religion in your life?
BigNorseWolf made an amazingly accurate description of exactly why it's... well, I wouldn't say "offensive" to call atheism a religion, just "extremely annoying". And very inaccurate.
Look at the things that no one would debate are religions - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Nobody will doubt that those are religions because they all share a very similar outline. Atheism doesn't share the same outline at all. It's quite simply and literally the opinion that none of the established religions are true. There are no myths, no teachings, no organized community, no narrative for the creation of the world, no supernatural, arbitrary source for morality. No related social structure, no predetermined roles in the family, no faith or worship of anything, and really just all around not much in common.
It's obvious that atheism is different enough than all the established religions that trying to describe it as the same thing as religion is forcing the issue.
Plus, it's the kind of argument often used by religious people who try to prove that atheists are not any more rational than them and that no human is free to not be religious. That's every bit as annoying as it is not true.
(If, in fact, this is going to be a CRD II, I shall change my hat)
As an irreconcilable atheist, this song makes me bawl my eyes out.
Saw Willie Nelson do in Boston about a decade ago, went home and blew some rails with my nihilist friend. Talk about seeing the light!
What an awesome song. The band The The does an great cover on their Hank Williams Tribute album called Hanky Panky.
I grew up in church and listened to a lot of Christian & gospel music. It might be odd for an Apatheist like me to enjoy religious music but you like what you like.
My entire family is devoutly religious and I would never question or denigrate their faith. They, (as Hank William put it) "Saw the light", and I...well I just never saw it.
And that's ok.
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As previously stated I think most people's stated religious preferences are the equivalent of a fashion statement. And so to many people being critical or contemptuous of their religious choice strikes them as just as jerkish as if you were being really haughty and snobbish about somebody's taste in music or clothes.
That would bother me a lot more if it bothered me at all. The major reason for this is because I'm not, generally, going to state my opinion of your religious preference until you start jerkishly imposing them on me.
It's rather like the old joke: "How can you tell if someone's a vegan?" "You don't have to; they'll tell you." This of course is a base canard, there are thousands of millions of vegans out there that simply don't make an issue of it (and just quietly order the salad). But that's in a sense precisely the point -- I don't know that they're vegans because they've not made it an issue. The ones I notice are the "jerkish" ones.
The ones, for example, who tell me that because their religion demands that they refrain from drinking, I can't buy alcohol. Or, in this case, the ones who tell me that they understand my religious beliefs better than I do, because "[we] all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another."
As Lord Snow put it, "it's the kind of argument often used by religious people who try to prove that atheists are not any more rational than them and that no human is free to not be religious. That's every bit as annoying as it is not true."
I believe they deserve demonstration of falsity, and defense against them, yes, but not via vilification of the believer.Not all ideas are equal and many are so blatantly false that they deserve contempt.
And really, contempt in all its forms is insulting.
Its been done and done to death. The only defense against it is "you can't prove a negative" in which case its absurd to ask to demonstrate falsity.
I agree with you Orfamay Quest I was just offering a possible explanation for why people get inordinately offended when somebody points out they're making unwarranted religious assumptions. I think a lot of times the atheist crowd and the theist crowd are talking past each other.
But we're clearly operating on different beliefs on what constitues religion, stemming from different sourcesThat's quite possible. The thing is, just because your beliefs are different from mine doesn't mean they're equally correct.
And then, since my source of belief differs from yours, you discredit my premise and refuse to consider its possibilities.Nope. Your "belief" arrived pre-discredited, and I merely pointed that out. It's also not a question of the source of your belief (which I didn't know), but the content. I don't especially care who informed you about the capital of France, either.
Specifically, your notion that mere "belief" about the "superhuman" constitutes religion is untenable, especially given your nonsensical notion that the force of gravity is in some meaningful way "superhuman." A better example of "superhuman," if you needed one, would be a forklift, which of course is capable of literally superhuman feats of strength. And I believe (with justification) that this informs how I should lead my life, because there are certain objects I should not lift manually but instead use the forklift for. (I will have fewer painful back injuries that way.) The fact that this belief qualifies under your definition as "religious" is sufficient, by itself, to discredit your definition.
A better definition of religion focuses (as do both of the one I provided) on the notion of "worship"; belief in ghosts or pixies is not religion unless you worship something related to the ghosts/pixies. Further, a belief that Odin does not exist is not religious, unless you make a point of worshiping the nonexistent.
As a matter of fact, you can see the issues quite clearly by considering a typical Christian viewpoint about Odin.
* A Christian believes in the divinity of Christ, worships him, and attempts to follow the rules Christ has laid down for the conduct of his his life.
* A Christian does not believe in the...
Okay. We're working on different definitions. Maybe if we clear the air about it, we can get to the heart of the matter.
My definition of religion requires two things: belief in superhuman powers, and that the existence of these powers give us direction in how to act.
My definition of superhuman involves items that do not require human mental constructs and action to exist. So a forklift is not superhuman, because humans build it. Furthermore, humans can disassemble the forklift or modify it to have different capabilities.
Here are a couple of examples of things that are not religions:
Loyalty to sports teams, and the beliefs on how to play a sport. Sports are a human construct. Humans can choose to change the rules of the game, and it is understood that the rules change because we change them. Sports dictate how we act--when the offside rule is in effect and what should be done in response, for example--but it is not superhuman.
Belief in gravity is not a religion (perhaps I didn't make that clear, and I apologize). Gravity is a superhuman phenomena: there is nothing we can do to change the rules of gravity. However, gravity tells us nothing about how we should act; gravity does not care. It is a belief in a superhuman phenomena, but it gives us no direction.
Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion. It includes a belief in a superhuman phenomena--God--and dictates courses of action as a result of this phenomena. An atheist can observe this and say, that's nonsense, the Christians absolutely can change every aspect of the belief, there is no god, but the atheist is not a member of that religion.
Now, I'll accept that atheism in and of itself is not a religion. The belief in no gods is superhuman--there are no gods, and there is nothing anyone can do or think to change that--but atheism does not necessarily result in any conclusions about how to act. However, someone can be atheist and still develop a belief in superhuman phenomena that causes them to act in certain ways. A belief in human rights, for example, will cause us to have a taboo against slavery. If we believe that no one can legitimately remove the right of a person to be free, that attempts to do so go against this notion, and although it may be possible, it is evil and must be stopped. Human rights are superhuman, and they dictate action.
I, for one, believe in human rights. I recognize that this belief is outside scientific evidence. I understand that there is nothing that dispassionately demonstrates that slavery is unnatural. But I still believe that slavery is wrong, and that there is nothing that people can do to "change the rules" to make it right. Thus, human rights are part of my religion.
Now, if you reject my use of the words "religion" or "superhuman" then feel free to give different terms to them. But hopefully my position is more completely explained, and that you can see that it is not nonsense.
No one's villified you (yet). I took great pains to point this out to you a few posts earlier.
I believe they deserve demonstration of falsity, and defense against them, yes, but not via vilification of the believer.
I agree, no one has vilified me. I wasn't talking about me, I was talking about contempt of people who follow other established religions.
|
|
(If, in fact, this is going to be a CRD II, I shall change my hat)
As an irreconcilable atheist, this song makes me bawl my eyes out.
Saw Willie Nelson do in Boston about a decade ago, went home and blew some rails with my nihilist friend. Talk about seeing the light!
If this one amused you, you might really, really want to check out Tim Minchin. Let me give you a good place to start:
Okay. We're working on different definitions. Maybe if we clear the air about it, we can get to the heart of the matter.
My definition of religion requires two things: belief in superhuman powers, and that the existence of these powers give us direction in how to act.
Right. I got that far a dozen posts ago. Your definition is incompatible with the general English meaning of the word and leads to nonsensical conclusions; therefore, it's a poor definition.
By the way, belief in gravity is a religious belief under your definition. It most certainly does give us direction. It tells me, for example, that I should hold the hand rail when I walk on slippery steps, because otherwise I may fall down and hurt myself. If I don't want that to happen (and I don't), then hold the rail. Many of the religious beliefs of the Eastern world are similarly causal instead of normative -- the word "karma," for example, literally just means "effect." Your karma is simply the effect caused by how you have chosen to lead your life so far.
So the fact that your definition includes "hold the handrail" as a religious belief illustrates one of the serious issues with your definition.
But hopefully my position is more completely explained.
But no more sensible. Your position amounts to "people have beliefs and act upon them."
The problem with that is that this definition then permits you to make statements like "[we] all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another." That statement, as I pointed out, is errant nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, believe in human rights. I recognize that this belief is outside scientific evidence. I understand that there is nothing that dispassionately demonstrates that slavery is unnatural. But I still believe that slavery is wrong, and that there is nothing that people can do to "change the rules" to make it right. Thus, human rights are part of my religion.
To an extent, I'm again forced to disagree; all we need is to agree on an endpoint (something like "maximize liberty and quality of life," or some permutation or qualification thereof), and specific strategies can then be compared as being (a) conducive to that end; (b) an impediment to it; or (c) irrelevant to it. For the endpoint I named, slavery is demonstratively an impediment, as any cursory study of history shows.
Granted, Hume demonstrated that the endpoint itself isn't objective outside of our agreement, but, again, various strategies can be objectively evaluated against it.
The problem with that is that this definition then permits you to make statements like "[we] all have religion in some way, shape, or form. We accept and act in particular ways because of one belief or another." That statement, as I pointed out, is errant nonsense.
If the statement is nonsense, then it would mean that it is clear that there are people who accept and act in particular ways without belief.
So what directs your actions? Why do you do what you do?
I was talking about contempt of people who follow other established religions.
Contempt of a demonstrably erroneous position =/= contempt for the person holding it. If my wife mistakenly thinks the capital of Illinois is Peoria, and I correct her, I'm not showing "contempt" for her. If she gets mad and claims that it is, regardless of evidence to contrary, I might wonder why she's so set on that "fact." And if her answer is, "Because my mommy taught me so," then I might take the time to point out other instances in which her mommy's teachings are at variance with observational reality.
Note this very important distinction: holding a religion is not "incorrect." However, specific truth claims that the religion makes can indeed be shown to be incorrect.