posted 12-10-98 02:54 AM ET        

Well, fine up to a point, but the fact that a religion is a set of beliefs does not automatically mean that any set of beliefs is a religion. So, no atheism is NOT a religion.

(At least, I think that was what you were getting at. If not, my appolos.)

posted 12-10-98 08:56 AM ET            

Heh heh, I sure hit a sore spot there, didn't I?

Now, then, Bro' G, you sure did get my point, and I'll agree that "set of beliefs" doesn't quite cover the word religion, but I wouldn't go so far as to accept Andrew's definition.

The real reason for my post was to (hopefully) make you atheists observe the fact that you are as much a believer as the next religious guy (i.e. stop using arguments relating to science and what is verifiable by experimentation - you can't prove the ABSENCE of God/gods, either).

I think it suffices to modify the definition like this:

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning god(s), mankind's place in the scheme of things, and what happens when we die. A creation theory is usually included, as well as a code of behaviour.

The only thing in my extended definition that isn't really included in atheism, is the moral code...

If we enter the word 'philosophy' into this debate, I naturally get into trouble. However, apart from my wish for you intelligent forum visitors to rethink your positions and admit that you are agnostics, rather than atheists (Yes, Greg, I know you've already stated that, but you're pretty much alone.), I've only posted to shake the tree a bit.

I've noticed a growing tendency for people on this forum to get stuck into roles. In the beginning, none of us knew one another, so we were free to voice any opinions, but now it seems that we're getting more and more stuck in set patterns. We retreat more and more into established personality profiles, and show less inclination to read each others posts with an unbiassed mind. Sure, we're (mostly) civil to one another, but very seldom do we see someone changing a point of view, any more...

I know, this should be a separate thread (Sorry, Greg...), but I just couldn't keep from posting this, since the religion threads are a prime example: The posts tend to become polarized, and that (in this case) in a subject, where most (DJRRebel, are you listening?) intelligent persons would see the stupidity of trying to _argue logically_ about tenets of belief...

Andrew, if we just apply your comments to Christians, I think we'll get interesting results. Let's see:

1: "First stop on the way to heaven is 'supernatural'. If you think (believe ) that there are in world something beyond material (spirit, anime, magic, gods etc.)"

OK, this would fit Christianity.

2: "Second stop - if you think, that by some unmaterial method you can influence the material world - by rain dance, or by magic spell, or by pray..."

Now this is where my catholic upbringing seems to diverge from your ideas of religion. I was raised to believe that prayer (the applicable method of influence mentioned above, I believe...) does not really work to _influence_ anyone/anything, but that it's a sort of way to heal, analyze, and reach into yourself, hopefully achieving a mindset which allows you to do things in such a way as to achieve what you set out to do, and if not, at least to view what happens in a larger context... Now I know, that some of you will not agree with me on this one, but that's the beauty of the Catholic church, there's room for many different opinions on doctrine... (I for one am anticipating the (hopefully imminent) replacement of the present pope with someone less conservative...). Back to Andrew's definition:

3: "Third - if you suppose, that _something_ in that unmaterial world had WILL and REASON - that it exist and can do whatever it like and we can make it do something by pray or magic. It is all about God and gods."

Well, now, generally Buddhism is included, when religions are being discussed, and your points above don't quite allow for that...

Confucianism would get into trouble as well, but I'd tend to put that in with philosophies, so it's no problem, I guess.

4: "Fourth - if you think that you can speak with that superbeing only in groups - and only here you get your real _religion_. Else it is called by cult, heresy, personal belief or some other label.

I don't agree with you on this one, either. Since when do you have to be a group of people to pray to or praise God? I don't even agree that you have to belong to a group at all, when you pray or whatever, in order to be an adherent of a religion. Think about it this way - if you want to include your "group" requirement in the definition of religion, how many have to be in the group? Two? Three? What happens to a religion that used to be practiced by such a "group", but, for some reason has lost all members except one - is it no longer a religion? Sorry, I don't buy that one.

Furthermore, I'd say atheists might be said to form a group, so even if I accepted your argument, it wouldn't be valid in this instance...

OK, I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'll post this and see what happens.

posted 12-10-98 09:55 AM ET            

In many ways science itself is a religion, since its main tenet is that all observed phenonena can be explained through reasoned scientific theories. That itself constitutes a belief system. The only difference between science and (most) other organised religions is the absence of a God/Gods.

posted 12-10-98 12:13 PM ET            

This is the kind of thing I meant when I said "atheists like to frame the definition of religion in such a way that it can't apply to Atheism."

There is no requirement of belief in the supernatural for a religion. Consider this though experiment: a group of people believe that humans were placed on this planet by aliens. These aliens are incredibly technologically advanced. Humans are able to communicate with these aliens by meditating on crystals (the aliens advanced technology has constructed these communication devices). The aliens want humans to live by a certain moral code. At the point of death, if a human has lived by that moral code, then his or her thought patterns are captured and exactly reproduced in a computer simulation that will run for millions of years, so that person has achieved a kind of immortality. Now the very basis of this religion is that the aliens are real (i.e. not supernatural), and have a good idea about how humans should live. I'd still call it a religion. I don't know if there are any people who believe this sort of thing, but it's not too far off the mark from some new-age beliefs, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

I think you need a definition of religion that would fit this group as well. I'm not sure you'll be able to create one that would exclude Atheism.

"here you get your real _religion_. Else it is called by cult, heresy, personal belief or some other label."

Tap's absolutely right on this one. The number of adherents should not be a factor in determining whether something is a religion or not.

Since I was raised Catholic(but am now an Atheist) I'll agree somewhat with Tap's response to Andrew. In my experience, religious activities were meant to help the person, not to help God (and help only in a psychological, not supernatrual, way). By building a "relationship with God", people are better able to understand the world around them and have the strength to lead a "good life".

posted 12-10-98 12:15 PM ET            

Basically, people on the two sides are usually so entrenched in their beliefs that their side is better/right that they refuse to listen to anything the other side says.

Using this as a basis, I'd define a religion as something more simple. Like: "A fervent belief in a position." I guess, basically, I'd see a religion as anything involving a high degree of faith and a lack of willingness to consider alternatives to whatever doctrine it is you have faith in.

Using that definition, atheisists would constitute a religion from the point of view that they have faith in their beliefs (that there is no god) and they are usually not willing to listen to people from theist religions telling them that there is. (Or, if they listen, they are highly unlikely to be converted.)

Agnostistics, on the other hand, could be defined as having a belief in god, but no faith in that belief. Which, by my definition, would agnosticism is not a religion.

posted 12-10-98 03:00 PM ET            

So in that regard, agnosticism is a religion, because religion is more than just a thought-pattern, it's also how you act on that thought-pattern. Pure agnosticism makes a person unable to act or decide on anything.

This is why, even if you say you're agnostic, you you're just trying to hedge your bets, but in reality, you act as if you were *-theistic (* == a-,-,poly-,pan-, etc.).

Tap: It sounds like you and I are on the same page, if not necessarily the same paragraph ) I'm Congretionalist Protestant though. BTW, have you read Kierkegaard at all? He's all about irrational belief in God.

posted 12-10-98 06:42 PM ET            

thank you, that is all.

posted 12-10-98 07:21 PM ET            

They must believe in some ofrm of afterlife. I don't think I have ever come accross a religion which does not believe in _some_ form of afterlife.

They believe in the "soul" or something similar. Something that can travel to the afterlife, and lives on after the body (it's vessel" has died.

The belief that the actions in this life carry forward into the afterlife. Thus, most religions have moral codes which attempt to "govern" (for want of a better word) the way that we live.

And the belief in some kind of higher power. Something sentient to worship.

By all of these traits, Atheism does not apply, nor does science, nor beliefs such as Marxism. This is just my personal belief, but it is based on thousands of years of religion and beliefs.

posted 12-10-98 08:58 PM ET            

Brother Greg:

>They must believe in some ofrm of afterlife. >I don't think I have ever come accross a >religion which does not believe in _some_ >form of afterlife.

But isn't not having an afterlife, the same as specifying a particular type?

Christians: Heaven/Hell
- Catholics -Sometime purgatory
Jews: Heaven
Ancient Greeks/Romans: Many different heavens/hells
Buddhist/Hindu: Perhaps most striking of all, nirvana (blissful nothingness), which, when you think of it, is basically what science says.

>They believe in the "soul" or something >similar. Something that can travel to the
>afterlife, and lives on after the body (it's >vessel" has died.

This is true... But I still think that saying there is no soul isn't contradictory, merely revolutionary.

>The belief that the actions in this life >carry forward into the afterlife. Thus, most
>religions have moral codes which attempt to >"govern" (for want of a better word) the
>way that we live.

Hell, most social behaviors can be deduced from the theories of evolution, according to scientists, so basically, rather than god on high dictating morals to us, it is base, lowly, genetics that instills them in us.

>And the belief in some kind of higher power. >Something sentient to worship.

Umm, not Buddhism

I see atheism as just another belief system no different than religions. The constructs are somewhat (in some cases radically) different, but analogies can be made.

posted 12-10-98 09:45 PM ET            

Tapiolan:

1. First of all - a give you four _steps_, not four signs of religion. Some system of belief goes two steps, but not farther, and some could not make even first step. Yes, atheism is belief - we cannot prove existence or unexistence of God - but it is not _organized_ belief - some atheists can form organization, but you can be atheist without any.
And this is about group belief - you may pray in group or by yorself, but you need some organisation to tell you WHAT you had to beleive and HOW you had to do it - and (I don't know why ) every time some hierarchy had appeared - with one "main" man on its top. Can you be catholic outsied of some branch of your church? I think all catholic churses would say that you are heretic and damn you to eternal oblivion (look at history of L.Tolstoy). And buddhism is some system of belief in supernatural - very logical, but NOT oreaganized - you can choose way to Nirvana either in group (monastery) or by yourself. There are no any Supremebeing - so this system stop on second step, as some shaman cult and Nahualism with it.

Stoofer:
I didn't say, that religion="supernatural belief". I said that religion = "organized belief in supernatural". You need all those three part to make religion. Science does not believe in supernatural in it's laboratories (what it believe at home - does not matter ) - because you could not measure wonder, you could not even make ot appear every time, when you make some ritual. And if you could - wonder is dead, science is born, 'super' is poofed, only natural is left.

Octopus:
i think example above concern your thesis too. You could not prove existence of alien, so they are 'supernatural' or 'unnatural' - until they lands or began to drop bombs on our heads they as good as nonexistant.
And, btw, agnostics in my definition are in the same pit, as atheists. As for myself, I don't see any difference between 'I have no need to believe in God' and 'I don't know YET is there are any God'.

DHE_X2:
even on your definition atheism is not religion, because we all know some atheist, who are NOT organized. Are we know some unorganized catholics?

Bokonon:
>faith isn't necessary; in fact many early Christian thinkers attempted to prove God's existence rationally,and ...

and failed, I would say, or we today would study those proofs in our religious schools. As there are no any...
You can prove logically many impossible things. You only had to use some false assumptions as basis axioms.

posted 12-10-98 10:20 PM ET            

1. [SNIP] Yes, atheism is belief - we cannot prove existence or unexistence of God - but it is not _organized_ belief - some atheists can form organization, but you can be atheist
without any.

***
In my particular denomination of Christianity, you don't need to go to church to be part of Christ, nor do you need to agree with everything that people say (even the ministers!). You just need to believe in a few precepts... Which is _exactly_ what rationalism does. It tells you to accept certain premises, from which you can lead/understand your life. Thus some Christians can form an organization, but do not have to, in order to be a Christian. :P
***

And this is about group belief - you may pray in group or by yorself, but you need some organisation to tell you WHAT you had to beleive and HOW you had to do it - and (I don't know why )

***
And so does science/reason/rationality... It just tells you a radically different thing. No matter how much a free thinker you are in science/rationality, you still are told to follow the scientific method, that certain things are definitely true, etc...
***

every time some hierarchy had appeared - with one "main" man on its top. Can you be catholic outsied of some branch of your church? I think all catholic churses would say that you are heretic and damn you to eternal oblivion (look at history of L.Tolstoy).

***
And what of Protestant denominations that have no head of church?
***

And buddhism is some system of belief in supernatural - very logical, but NOT oreaganized - you can choose way to Nirvana either in group (monastery) or by yourself. There are no any Supremebeing - so this system stop on second step, as some shaman cult and Nahualism with it.

***
ACTUALLY, Buddhism is widely accepted as a religion, so your steps are invalidated, because most believe have a different idea of religion than you. Just because you say these are the rules, doewsn't mean we have to accept them as such.
***

[Replies to Stoofer and Octupus]: Just because they cannot be verified yet [or ever], doesn't mean it's wrong. Many scientific theories have been proven only after the original person's death... So are you saying that the scientist's theory was "supernatural"? Didn't think so.

Bokonon:
>faith isn't necessary; in fact many early >Christian thinkers attempted to prove God's >existence rationally,and ...

and failed, I would say, or we today would study those proofs in our religious schools.

***
I would prefer that they simply didn't succeed, which doesn't mean there aren't other logical proofs out there, nor that the idea that faith is the only true way to believe is wrong.

As there are no any... You can prove logically many impossible things. You only had to use some false assumptions as basis axioms.

***
And who's to say _YOU_ aren't using wrong axioms? For instance, you can't prove that everyone else but you are robots, programmed and built to act and look exactly as we do, but yet you presume, and act in reality, as if we are people like you. Prove to me that we aren't robots!
***

And all in all, this is very strange situation to me - many of you give some 'signs' of religion ('religion is smth, that has such and such attributes (soul, God) ), but this is NOT definition. Real definition - is a set of rules, which you can use to find is smth a religion or not.

***
That's what rationality preaches. why is rationality the only way, and not the other way... Or a combo of both???
***

I had give such rules, and most al world religion fall under that definition (buddhism is not a religion, and confutsianism also).

By not including Buddhism, you followed bad logical form, in that you threw out the evidence, as opposed to trying to make a better theory. If Buddhists weren't so non-violent, they'd have your head by now for the insult

posted 12-10-98 10:25 PM ET            

Not at all. The belief in the afterlife is the belief that we go somewhere after we die, that our soul will travel "somewhere" to participate in the afterlife. Not even vaguelly similar to Atheism, apart from the fact that they both have a belief on the issue.

"I still think that saying there is no soul isn't contradictory, merely revolutionary."

Not at all. Religions believe that the soul goes somewhere for some purpose. Atheists believe that there is no soul, no god, no afterlife. To tell a religious person that they have no soul is not revolutionary, it is contrary to the basis of their belief.

"Hell, most social behaviors can be deduced from the theories of evolution, according to scientists, so basically, rather than god on high dictating morals to us, it is base, lowly, genetics that instills them in us."

Religion involves "indoctrinating" us to believe something, ie an afterlife, a soul, etc. Atheism does not necessarily say that we have genetics instill beliefs or social behaviour in us. In fact, a very strong case can be put forward that we have almost no genetic instructions for social behaviour, and that every aspect of social interaction is nothing more than a learned reaction via experience.

Religion involves accepting their doctrine on faith. Atheism does not particularly force any belief onto you.

"Umm, not Buddhism".

Well, I'm not THAT conversant in Buddhism, but I believed that they still worshipped a higher being, similar to Islamic religions. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I have an open mind.

"I see atheism as just another belief system no different than religions"

Yes, but that does not make it a religion, which is my whole point. I was refuting a point by Tap that if you follow a set of beliefs, you ahve a religion. I disagree for reasons stated above.

As for Tap, I still disagree with you on the basis that you say a religion is a set of beliefs based on God or Gods. See my points above on what I believe a religion is. I also obviously disagree with Andrew's points, though some of them are found in religions, I don't believe they define religions.

posted 12-10-98 11:04 PM ET            

Well, I'm not THAT conversant in Buddhism, but I believed that they still worshipped a
higher being, similar to Islamic religions. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I have an open
mind.

Except for a few splinter groups (lamaism) Buddha was just a guy that was nice enough to figure out a way to nirvana, and then try and tell others about it. Hinduism is the precursor to Buddhism, and gets lots of people confused.

I still say that there is nothing inherently different, structurally, between a "religion" and atheism. It's merely who/what you put your faith in, and the conclusions following from that decision, that differs. Just because something is contrary to another, doesn't mean that systematically it's different. Buddhism != Christianity != Zoroastrianism != atheism... but in each of their intents, they try to explain similar things, ultimately.

posted 12-10-98 11:06 PM ET            

If you think, that you can be christianin and be outside of some christian organisation you better look for history of christianity. EVERY time, as one of 'independant thinker' find a new way to interpretate a Holy Words he was murdered, or excomunnicated, or (if he was lucky) he form some new cult, from which (much later) religion can be born. Look at Jehiva Witnesses. Look at Mun Church. Look at Shakers (and thousand others). They also believe in Christ (or bible). Do they form a religion? Only when their mass is large enough. Yes, you can be christianin without going to church - but only because church already inside you! Try to make a little step to right or left, try to doubt in some little postulate of your belief (for example, ask yourself, HAS Adam really die in day of tasting fruit?) - and ask your local cleric about his opinion. How he would call you?
I give you example of Tolstoy not without reason. He also think, that he knows better, how to believe in Christ. He was anathemed. He save some personal beliefe, but he does not form any religion.
But you can doubt in ANY postulate of science ANY time you wish. You can even prove, that logic itself (extend logic, at least) is faulty (Hedel theorem). And what? Does we have great split of science? Does we have Ortodox Science against Protestant Science? No, the tree is whole, and growing. But every time the tree of religion lose a branch it form ANOTHER tree or dying in unfertily soil.

Why is it so? What the main difference between science and 'supernatural belief'? Science based on little amount of axioms and rules, which can be used to get some results. You can check proof any time you wish, from every beginning to very end. But religion is one great packet of axiom, and you CANNOT doubt in any of Holy Words, even if they are contradicting themselves.

As for Buddhism - I think we had situation, when label 'religion' was forced on system absolutely alien to christian world. Good example - Brother Greg still thinks that in buddhism there is some supreme being . There are only Nirvana, and way to Nirvana and some methods to go over this way (you can use different methods, Buddha will wait you on crossroad )

posted 12-10-98 11:24 PM ET            

As for Buddhism... Buddha WILL NOT be waiting for you anywhere! He is in nirvana, which is blissful nothingness. He doesn't exist anymore.

posted 12-10-98 11:38 PM ET            

This is a very "interesting" definition you're pursuing. A logical consequence of this would be that some person was practicing this religion up until some time at which aliens landed. Since there is now proof as the basis of this religion, it isn't religion anymore by your definition. So, absolutely nothing has changed about the practices, beliefs, etc. of the adherents of this "school of thought", but one day they believe in a religion, the next day they don't. The landing of the aliens didn't increase the faith of the adherents of the religion any more than seeing something fall would "confirm" your faith in gravity. You want to define a religion by whether or not the people who aren't members can prove whether or not it's true? I don't think your rules stand up as a very good test of what is and what is not a religion.

Vega: "What constitutes proof of God? What sort of new evidence would convince you?"

This is a very good question. Obviously, if God did something amazing like rearranging all the stars to spell out "I really do exist, so get your butt to church right now!" I'd find that pretty compelling. The hard part is finding a MINIMUM standard of proof. I'm not exactly sure what that would be.

DHE: "If there were proof, the religous (myself obviously included), would not require fait, would they? God's existence cannot be prooved, or disprooved. You probably know this, Oct, but I was just restating my beliefs."

I assume you believe in an omnipotent creator. It should then be perfectly possible for him to give you ample evidence of his existence. If this did happen, then there would be proof of God's existence. I agree, though, that I am not aware of any evidence that would do this job. The idea that "faith" is an admirable trait is one that has been largely invented to cover up the logical shortcomings of religious philosophy. Whether God likes it or not (assuming for a moment that he exists) has not been demonstrated, either.

Greg: "They must believe in some form of afterlife... They believe in the "soul" or something similar... The belief that the actions in this life carry forward into the afterlife... And the belief in some kind of higher power. Something sentient to worship."

I don't think that most of these are requiremnets of a religion. How about this: The world was populated by invisible demons who's sole enjoyment in life is tormenting people. These are the entities that enforce Murphy's Law. When we die we cease to exist completely, but we no longer suffer at the hands of the demons. Nothing can be done to prevent the demons from acting destructively towards people, but adherents to this particular religion practice mediatation to cope with the stress of being constantly tormented. Is this one a relgion? There is no soul, no afterlife, and no worshipping. You might argue that there is a higher power, but I think that it might be a stretch to do so.

posted 12-10-98 11:38 PM ET            

HOWEVER, that in and of itself is not enough to make Atheism a religion. That is like saying: Cats have claws. Wombats have claws. Therefore a wombat is a cat.

Atheism is the opposite of almost everything that Religion dictates. There is no afterlife. There is no God. There is no soul. There is no consequence of our actions in the afterlife.

Another prerequisite I believe for a Religion is a structured, ordered set of beliefs that govern how we should live our life, determine our actions, etc. Not ALL actions, but some. The only real belief that Atheism has is that God does not exist, and there are no ordered set of beliefs other than that, so therefore another way it does not qualify IMO.

As for Buddhism - allright, maybe they don't believe in an all powerful being, or God. Yet, do they worship Buddha? Do they pray? If they don't worship Buddha, who do they pray to? If they don't prey at all (and I honestly don't know, that's why I am asking), then I will say it is an almost unique religion. The exception that proves the rule if you will.

posted 12-11-98 12:07 AM ET            

All religions have gods (that's as basic a definition as your likely to find). And all gods tend to have human traints, whether they be actual men or women (ancient greece), talking animals (hindu - I think...), or merely a wind with a bad attitude ( ). The uniting factor behind a religion is that SOMEONE, not something, is responsible for that god's respective phenonmena. The second uniting factor is that the god can be influenced by widely varied ways and means to do as you ask. The third factor is that god has given a set of rules, sometime in the past, which must be obeyed. And the fourth thing is that god is never ever seen (certainly not by the masses).

It can also be argued that most modern religion relates back to childhood experience: an all powerful (male) figure, a set of instructions to be obeyed under threat of punishment, and that central figure as the cause of unexplainable events. Sounds a lot like dad when you were three, doesn't it?

posted 12-11-98 12:14 AM ET            

I does not see any flaw in my conception. Let us laak at facts:
Some 'church' believe in alien. They made some assumption about their nature and their intention. Based on those assumptions they decide their (not alien ) behaviour. And then, at one good day, aliens are landed.
there are two possible way to situation to develop.
1st - they were wrong somewhere. Do you know, what 'good' religion would do? Look at jews, who still believe in 'their' god, but not in false messiah Jeshua. Church would say that those aliens are not True Aliens and continue its belief and life.
2nd - they are right. But the church will die immediately! There are no need to believe anymore - you can go and check! Maybe some other organisation will born lately, but religion will die.
How do you think, what will became with Christian Church after Armageddon? There are no need for it on Heaven.

Why I think, that size is matter - every organisation after some limit in their size aquire some strange life. Organisation became organism! And they main goal became - to survive by any cost and get more size. Why it is impossible to diminish bureacracy? Because you can only destroy organisation as whole, or it will change form and grow. THERE is limit which differ religion from cult.

Bokonon:

posted 12-11-98 12:26 AM ET            

The humanising aspect is essential to any form of religion. It's a simple way of explaning things to people in terms of things they already understand intimately.

While you can say that a dog is not a cat, and they both are still mammals, it's correct to say that any animal that isn't warm blooded and doesn't produce milk for its young is not a mammal.

posted 12-11-98 12:56 AM ET            

In buddhism there NO any god. Antropomorphic or not - any. There is only you - and Nirvana.

In core Induism (Upanishad) god creator has no form altogether. Tha antropomorphisation was used lately to force belief in unliterary masses.

posted 12-11-98 01:06 AM ET            

If someone is already human, they can't be anthropomorphized. Would it not be a religion if people worshipped a super-genius type guy, who had discovered the mysteries of the universe and handed the wisdom down to people, since people in general were too stupid to reason it out for themselves? Would that be a religion?

posted 12-11-98 01:25 AM ET            

Cults are not religions, IMO, so anyone worshipping little fuzzy aliens that will come and rescue them whent hey flash past in a comet are cultists, not religious.

As somebody once said: "So many idiots. So few comets."

You see my definition above, and I believe that all religions (apart from Buddhism, which misses only one of the precepts) today and in the past followed it. As far as I know anyway...

The only refutation you have done of my list of definitions is that of Buddhists and worshipping a higher being. And you couldn't tell me if they worshipped Buddha himself (regardless of whether they term him a god or not). So, if you can show me a few religions, commonly recognised as a religions, and fairly well known, that doesn't follow my examples, I might begin to believe you. Buddhism MAY be one. Any more?

Until then, that is my belief, and seeing as Atheism does not meet that definition, I don't see it as a religion.

posted 12-11-98 01:35 AM ET            

Brother Greg, you have pointed out the crux of the matter: This is the defn. to you. But obviously it is not a defn. that we all agree on, which is basically what we're trying to get at here. So you are holding your belief as strong as any religious belief.

-Bok

posted 12-11-98 02:01 AM ET            

But I think that defines a distinct part of any real-life religion that we know about on earth. We can't argue ficticious religions, so don't even worry about them. I could argue that I worship the Daisy, therefore that is a religion. Doesn't make it widely recognised as a religion though.

Okay, so we're talking about mankind's definition of a religion, and what I have given is part of what I see as defining religions.

So, using the debate method, I have put my proof forward. I am quite open to debate about it, If you can show me examples of widely recognised religions that do NOT conform to my definition (incomplete as it may be).

If you can, I'll agree with you, and say my definition is crap. BNut you can't just say "I don't agree with you, your definition is crap, therefore, without any evidence, you're wrong". I don't accept that as a valid argument, and I don't think many people would (except maybe some very gullible cultists).

So, please, provide me with proof. Give me examples. Then I'll believe you. Buddhism is a start, though it only breaks one precept, and even that you're not entirely sure about. I am not saying "this is right, I am not listening to your arguments, nah nah nah nah nah nah (picture with eyes closed, fingers in ears ). I have given an example, now it is up to you to refute it, and so far you haven't...

Sure, it is only my opinion, but you have to do better than say "I don't agree with you" to prove me wrong. Ithink I am right, not because I refuse to listen to you, but because you haven't shown me much at all to show that I might be wrong.

posted 12-11-98 02:01 AM ET            

>Andrew: If someone witnessed a miracle that proved to them the truth of their religion, would it still be a religion to them? What if only half the people that were members of that church witnessed the miracle, but they all continued in their practices as usual. Would half of the church be practising a religion and half doing something else?

History had shown: they would. I think you doesn't pay attention on my post. I cover both points - when ALL subject of their faith is absolutely true and proven by facts, and ELSE... In first case church is dead because of unneccesity, in second - there are good exit for believers - they said that this was not wonder they wait for and continue their practice.

posted 12-11-98 02:15 AM ET            

I don't understand your reaction to my miracle example. Are you saying that even though all of the people are behaving in the exact same way as before (when all were a member of a religion) only half are now members of that religion (after some people witnessed a miracle)? Wouldn't miracles then be counterproductive to a religion? That seems a little funny to me.

posted 12-11-98 02:29 AM ET            

Aha! So I see - it seems, that you speak about some hypotetical situation, and I am telling you how it _usually_ is, and how it WAS (jews does not believe in Jeshua-messiah, as you well know, and still wait for him. They had the same wonders, and what? They was not wonders for them!)

posted 12-11-98 02:58 AM ET            

Can you repeat the Big Bang? That's a completely scientific principle. Can you prove that evolution via natural selection occurred, or reproduce the evolution of a human being? That's another widely held scientific principle. As for miracles, you don't know they're not reproducable. The premise of a miracle is that God is interacting in the world in some way. Most religions have God being omnipotent, so most of them would say that he could perform the same miracle as often as he wanted. He just chooses not to, according to them. Lack of reproducibility doesn't mean something didn't happen. It's just a lot easier to know the truth when phenomena are reproducible.

posted 12-11-98 03:43 AM ET            

Octopus:
I try to make myself clear.
I wish to state borders between natural and supernatural, i.e. metaphysical. I see those borders in amount of thing you had to admit without proof. Science tends to use minimal possible amount of hypothesis and prove everything else. Metaphysics has not such tendence and very often has internal conflicts (some postulate contradict another). Science tends to change old and wrong theories, metaphysical tends to make them Absolute. (btw, I read not so long ago, that really new species of mosquitoes was found in London subway. It had some new attributes and could not be interbreeded with its ancestors. Thats for Darvin).
I not trying to prove to you that God is nonexisting - but I say, that it is impossible to prove NOW, so NOW it is metaphysic. From there - farther by definition to religion.
Maybe some day we'll prove the existance of God. But that day would be the last day of religion. Then science will step forward and began to study him...

posted 12-11-98 04:14 AM ET            

I'll agree with you that a lot of religious people use very sloppy logic, and have very sloppy belief systems. That doesn't mean that religion is fundamentally flawed in any way. I'm sure there a plenty of bad scientists out there, too.

"Maybe some day we'll prove the existance of God. But that day would be the last day of religion."

posted 12-11-98 05:45 AM ET            

This thread of yours sure is a success, but I feel I don't need to recant all those things already said, do I?

Thanks, Bokonon and Octopus, for taking up the glove for me!

Everybody on this thread: What we all should do, is look up the word 'religion' in a lexicon we believe in, and see what the generally accepted definition is.

(On the other hand, a few years ago, I saw a standup comedian read directly out of the Swedish "Svenska Akademins ordlista" ("The Swedish Academy Word List", i.e. the official Swedish collection of words, and how they're spelled - doesn't contain advanced definitions, but...), and it was hilarious. He read the definition for 'gigolo': "professional dancer in restaurants, etc.", and then told us of the immigrant who, when asked about what work he'd done before, told the employee at the employment agency that he was a "shiggolow" (this, in Swedish, weird pronounciation, is also included in the SAOL). Just imagine a stiffish public servant being told that, by a deadpan, previously very civil, serious, and anxious to please, immigrant...)

So, maybe we can't always trust the lexica...

However, this entire thread is really only about the definition of a word! Isn't that marvellous?

By the way, as for the discussion on whether a religion is a religion when there's proof for the precepts (Jesus _before_ rising again, Church of Alien redemption _after_ they've come down and saved us...): I'd say they're philosophies. I think the _word_ 'religion' implies something that requires a suspension of disbelief. (That, incidentally, could be used against my argument about atheism, in a way, but not conclusively!)

How about my paragraph on on tendencies to become set in our roles on this forum? Any thoughts/reactions?

posted 12-11-98 08:29 AM ET            

Buddhism - they don't worship any of the Buddha's, except as examples of people who have achieved Enlightenment...(Buddha means something like "Enlightened")...they follow the teachings of them (usually the first one, Siddartha Gautama), and use these in their mantras which aren't really prayer, more like meditation.

As for another religion that doesn't cover Greg's list...I hate to say this but the afterlife doesn't really play a part in Judaism. There is vague mention of Sheol in the early OT, which was sort of a holding place for the dead, an underworld if you like...but it is not central to the doctrine. As far as at least some Jewish branches are concerned this is it...

posted 12-12-98 03:26 AM ET            

RELIIGON: 1.) Belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s0 of the universe. 2.) Expression of this belief in conduct and ritual. 3.) a.] and specific system of belief worshiip conduct etc. often involving a code of ethincs and a philosopphy: as, the Christian religion, the Buddhis reliigion etc... b.] loosely, and system of belifs, practices, ethical values, etc.. resembling suggestive of, or likened to such a system: as humanism is his religion. 4.) A state of mind or way of live expressiong love fot and trust in God, and one's will and effort to act according to the will of God, especially within a monastic order or community: as he achieved relgion. 5.) Andy objecct of conscientious regard and pursuitL as, clenliness was a relifion to him. 6.) the practice of reltios observances or rites.

I'm sure there were a billion and a half typos there. Terribly sorry if it is impossible to read. I'm wanting to sleep sometime. (-8 Well, that's from Webster Collegiate 1980 or so. I'll hoping for a nice big new dictionry for Christmas, but until then... According to this dictionary, Buddhism is a religion. That makes sense to me because although there is no divine being, it does involve reincarnation (maybe not all sects, not sure about that), it does involve the supernatural, and although it is not technically a code or morals that must be lived by, there is a code of behavior that ensures a quicker trip to nirvana (the 8 paths or whatever (sorry, I'm not incredibally learned on Buddhism. Feel free to educate me.)) I don't think that athiesm is blatantly covered in that definition, but athiests, like Christians like Buddhists like about everyone have minor variations on the general belief, and I know a very very high number of athiests who worship science as their God, or worship themselves as Gods, or worship what they will eventually become ("evolve into") or just worship of the Universe or earth as a whole. So I guess some are, some aren't. That's my two cents.

Question: When the phrase "my two cents" was made up, wouldn't that have been a long time ago, like about 50 years or more, and if so, wouldn't that two cents have to be inflation adjusted to be an accurate phrase today? Hmmm... I wonder...

posted 12-12-98 05:24 PM ET            

If that were true there'd be no debate about whether or not Atheism is a religion.

"but takes you a while to come up with some kind of way to describe it in words"

posted 12-12-98 08:18 PM ET            

A religion is a system of beliefs reliant on faith.

Put another way, a religion is a system of beliefs that, to accept, one must believe in things that cannot be proven, regardless even of whether any evidence exists.

Science is not a religion; to believe in science, you do not have to believe in the big bang, which is admitted by any and all true scientists to be a theory. A person who has faith in the Big Bang, even though it has not been proven to have occured, would be accepting science as a religion, or at least that creation theory. Creation theries are not necessarily aspects of religions; but those who believe in the without proof are religious.

See the distinction? I do not define an atheist as "One who believes that there is no God", but rather as "One who has no faith in anything". As such, atheists are not religious, and atheism is not a religion. However, a person who claims to be an atheist by saying "There is no god, and I know this to be true, regardless of the fact that I have no proof either way" would in fact be religious.

Atheism precludes the ability to be religious. Atheism and religion are opposites.

Well, I guess I've covered that. Feel free to shoot me down... I have faith that you will fail

posted 12-12-98 08:49 PM ET            

Are you saying that belief in the Big Bang or evolution is a religious belief? I find that hard to swallow. Most scienties believe that these things happened. Are you really saying that this is religion?

'I do not define an atheist as "One who believes that there is no God", but rather as "One who has no faith in anything".'

The generally accepted (in the general public, if not on these forums) definition of atheism is belief that there is no god. Being agnostic means, basically, there is not enough evidence to know one way or another.

I truly doubt that there are any people who have no faith in ANYTHING. Do you have faith that I'm a person posting this message, and not just some auto-reply program? Do you have faith that the people you see on the street are actual human beings like you, and not just sophisticated robots? Do you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that gravity will still cause masses to attract each other? Do you have faith that effects can never happen earlier in time than their causes?

posted 12-12-98 09:17 PM ET            

I do not claim to be a perfect atheist, which would be fairly non-functional, since I don't think anything can be proven perfectly and absolutely and permenantly. However, I do not believe conclusively in anything I'm aware of that is not supported by a perponderance of evidence. Which, to some degree, could be considered "proven".

On the other hand, I think you reworded some of my statements, like mixing the words faith and belief. A person who has faith in the Big Bang feels that they know it is true, in other words believes conclusively, or at least beleives in it to an extent beyond that supported by hard data. Most scientists use the Big Bang theory or study it or act as if it was valid, but I doubt that a lot have faith in it unless their careers rest on its existance. So they believe that the idea has merit, but they do not have faith in it... faith, belief to an extent that cannot be supported by evidence.

So, yes, if a scientist had faith in the Big Bang, he would be religious.

Again, I do not claim there are people who have faith in nothing, merely that that is the definition of a hypothetical atheist. I think you will find that atheists have more in common than a disbeleif in God, thus that definition is inadequite(sp). A better one is that they have no faith, even if that means there is no such thing as a perfect atheist. This way, a disbelief in God, which (belief in God) must come from faith, is precluded.

So, a disbelief in god is a symptom (or sign) of atheism, but is not in itself atheism. Atheism disallows faith in the unprovable/unproven and as such atheists do not believe in god... and nor do they believe in other things such as aliens, afterlives, souls, spirits, or what-have-you. Because of these, I do not think a simple "disbelief in god" at all covers atheism.

posted 12-12-98 10:11 PM ET            

Sorry if I sound antagonistic, I just had an exam at my college in the Philosophy of Religion course, so I'm kinda pumped. In fact I wrote a paper (and got an 'A') on the very ideas you are talking about

-Bok

posted 12-12-98 10:41 PM ET            

Furthermore, requiring absolute proof in order to believe something seriously limits what can be believed. You're pretty much limited to "I think therefore I am". How do you know that some diabolical madman hasn't hooked your disembodied brain to a machine that provides your sensory inputs? Maintaining this definition of atheism is going to keep the number of atheists pretty low...

"nor do they believe in other things such as aliens, afterlives, souls, spirits, or what-have-you."

I don't see anything that would keep an atheist from believing in aliens or psychic phenomena. Just because you don't have evidence to support these claims, some people believe that they do. There certainly hasn't been any evidence put forward to demonstrate that these things CAN'T exist. I think we should let atheists make up their own minds about whether or not they believe in these things.

posted 12-18-98 11:31 AM ET            

Back to the subject:
I don't think religion can be defined thoroughly. Always remember that theology was developed after religion and that when they began, religions had no idea about the existence of other religions. Defining religion is as difficult as is creating grammar with absolutely no room for interpretation. It just doesn't work that way.

posted 12-18-98 12:18 PM ET            

Yes.