| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" bozak" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2007 06:42:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Very Impressive |
"Arkansan_Raider" <Arkansan_Raider@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:fOlsi.46761$YL5.14398@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Wow. Talk about improvise, adapt and overcome! These U.S. Marine amputees are running
mini-triathlons!
"Five Marines were saved," he said. "This is why God put me in the Marine Corps."
let me get this straight, god wants americans to die in a war for profit to fatten
up the pockets of bushco???
i mean i know the presidunce told people he talked to god and god told him to go
to war, but i didnt really think people believed that *****...
im often amazed at the gullibility of people who think some sky god actually wants
people to die for morons... makes no sense at all...
.
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
03 Aug 2007 06:26:47 PM |
|
|
On Aug 2, 7:42?pm, " bozak" <___boz...@gmail.com___> wrote:
"Arkansan_Raider" <Arkansan_Rai...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:fOlsi.46761$YL5.14398@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Wow. Talk about improvise, adapt and overcome! These U.S. Marine amputees are running
mini-triathlons!
"Five Marines were saved," he said. "This is why God put me in the Marine Corps."
let me get this straight, god wants americans to die in a war for profit to fatten
up the pockets of bushco???
i mean i know the presidunce told people he talked to god and god told him to go
to war, but i didnt really think people believed that *****...
im often amazed at the gullibility of people who think some sky god actually wants
people to die for morons... makes no sense at all...
On Aug 2, 7:42 pm, " bozak" <___boz...@gmail.com___> wrote:
"Arkansan_Raider" <Arkansan_Rai...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:fOlsi.46761$YL5.14398@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Wow. Talk about improvise, adapt and overcome! These U.S. Marine amputees are running
mini-triathlons!
"Five Marines were saved," he said. "This is why God put me in the Marine Corps."
let me get this straight, god wants americans to die in a war for profit to fatten
up the pockets of bushco???
i mean i know the presidunce told people he talked to god and god told him to go
to war, but i didnt really think people believed that *****...
im often amazed at the gullibility of people who think some sky god actually wants
people to die for morons... makes no sense at all...
Don't know about the rest, but yes impressive and inspiring..
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
02 Aug 2007 11:04:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:42:10 GMT, " bozak"
<___bozak1@gmail.com___> wrote:
im often amazed at the gullibility of people who think some sky god actually wants
people to die for morons... makes no sense at all...
Religion never makes sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
03 Aug 2007 07:10:17 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
We need a collective memory - we need to pass onto our children what
we learned and what our parents grandparents ect learned.
From "Don't eat the small purple berries " get along with your
neighbor" - there are lots of useful lessons.
So the reasons for the existence of religion are obvious.
Religions can of course also be manipulated by evil persons for their
own advantage - the kings or priests can insert things into religion
or change the emphasis on certain things to favor themselves.
Bad, negative and downright wrong beliefs can also become incorporated
into religions.
Stories are constructed which convey some ideal or principle -
sometimes the meaning of the story is lost over time but the story
continues down the centuries - growing and mutating as it does.
Often people find the stories useful to project their own meanings
into - a rich story can have many meanings - often meanings the
originator of the story never intended.
Sometimes we look at a strange story that has come down to us from 3
thousand years ago - and it just seems like utter nonsense.
Sometimes perhaps large portions are just nonsense. More usually there
is a real and meaningful message in that story - or at least
meaningful to the people who told that story thousands of years ago -
but away from its context it looks like nonsense.
Religion makes sense in another important way.
It is the collection of beliefs rituals and pratices that connect a
group of people they give them identity and belonging anf fill very
basic human needs - give guidence and reassurance in times of crisis
for example.
Some of the beliefs and practices embodied in and encouraged by
religions are negative and destructive and wrong.
Misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia being obvious deficits of many
religions.
These beliefs and practices should be oppossed by people of good
conscience who seek a better and more just world.
But that will be difficult if you dont realize the ways in which
religion "makes sense".
You cant change something inteligently if you dont understand what it
is or how it works.
In my opinion it is the idea of a "god" - that concept itself - which
will doom a religion eventually - which is why its the god religions
that tend to be the most vile and destructive.
There will always be a place for *religion* in human affairs - but I
believe we can be free of the negatives if we work on eliminating the
gods.
The True Religion - if the human race survives long enough to evolve
it - will be a godless one.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
03 Aug 2007 09:41:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
That's done by education, the opposite of religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 12:06:57 AM |
|
|
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
That's done by education, the opposite of religion.
There was a time when education was not such an easily separable part
of life - your education includes what your daddy and mommy tell you
about the world - what you learn from living and experiencing.
For many people in the world religion is not easily separable from the
rest of their lives - it was song and dance and story and medicine and
marriage and war and diplomacy ...
This compartmentalization of everything into neat separate areas of
existence is just an artifact of your culture.
(You show your cultural descent from those Ancient Greeks like
Aristotle.)
It doesn't have to be that way - its just an accident of history and
geography that you think this way.
Recognize this and you can start seeing a bigger world.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 01:29:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
How does one separate the two?
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
That's done by education, the opposite of religion.
There was a time when education was not such an easily separable part
of life - your education includes what your daddy and mommy tell you
about the world - what you learn from living and experiencing.
For many people in the world religion is not easily separable from the
rest of their lives - it was song and dance and story and medicine and
marriage and war and diplomacy ...
This compartmentalization of everything into neat separate areas of
existence is just an artifact of your culture.
(You show your cultural descent from those Ancient Greeks like
Aristotle.)
It doesn't have to be that way - its just an accident of history and
geography that you think this way.
Recognize this and you can start seeing a bigger world.
How very humble.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 04:45:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:59:46 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
I was talking about religion - not gods.
How does one separate the two?
One is a system of belief about the other. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 04:45:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
That's done by education, the opposite of religion.
There was a time when education was not such an easily separable part
of life - your education includes what your daddy and mommy tell you
about the world - what you learn from living and experiencing.
Education is also going out on the ice when the sign very clearly says
to keep off. If you survive you've gotten an education.
Today, if things don't work exactly the way you want them to, you sue
someone. Life has to be 100% safe, 100% exciting and 100% satisfying.
It won't work that way, but the parents - who are supposed to be
educating the kids they produce - were raised the same way, so most of
them don't know any better.
We see it on Usenet every day - people who think that reality should
be what they want it to be. We're "winning" the war in Iraq, even
though there's no sane goal toward which we can measure progress. Why?
Because, being the good guys, we HAVE TO be winning. God wouldn't
have it any other way. This is sane?
For many people in the world religion is not easily separable from the
rest of their lives
Because their parents raised them that way. People raised without
having been indoctrinated into religion seldom fall for it when they
grow up.
This compartmentalization of everything into neat separate areas of
existence is just an artifact of your culture.
(You show your cultural descent from those Ancient Greeks like
Aristotle.)
It doesn't have to be that way - its just an accident of history and
geography that you think this way.
Recognize this and you can start seeing a bigger world.
Recognize that religion isn't necessary and you can be free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 06:57:34 PM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 7:45 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
No that isn't the meaning of "religion".
If you are restricting the meaning of religion to the subset "theistic
religions" then I certainly have lots of objections to them - but even
then it doesn't make them 100% false and devoid of wisdom.
Therefore we need to pass on the rules of society to the next
generation.
That's done by education, the opposite of religion.
There was a time when education was not such an easily separable part
of life - your education includes what your daddy and mommy tell you
about the world - what you learn from living and experiencing.
Education is also going out on the ice when the sign very clearly says
to keep off. If you survive you've gotten an education.
Today, if things don't work exactly the way you want them to, you sue
someone. Life has to be 100% safe, 100% exciting and 100% satisfying.
It won't work that way, but the parents - who are supposed to be
educating the kids they produce - were raised the same way, so most of
them don't know any better.
We see it on Usenet every day - people who think that reality should
be what they want it to be. We're "winning" the war in Iraq, even
though there's no sane goal toward which we can measure progress. Why?
Because, being the good guys, we HAVE TO be winning. God wouldn't
have it any other way. This is sane?
Certainly not. Delusion and self delusion are ever present problems.
I bet you $100 I can find a religion that preaches against delusion -
would that suddenly be wrong because its part of a religion?
For many people in the world religion is not easily separable from the
rest of their lives
Because their parents raised them that way. People raised without
having been indoctrinated into religion seldom fall for it when they
grow up.
My father raised me to value honesty and fairness.
He happens to be an atheist - but IF he had been a Christian then I
would grow up believing in honesty and fairness as part of my religion
- and THEN honesty and fairness would be "useless false concepts"
BECAUSE they were part of my religion.
Yes? No?
This compartmentalization of everything into neat separate areas of
existence is just an artifact of your culture.
(You show your cultural descent from those Ancient Greeks like
Aristotle.)
It doesn't have to be that way - its just an accident of history and
geography that you think this way.
Recognize this and you can start seeing a bigger world.
Recognize that religion isn't necessary and you can be free.
And if I can choose "freedom of thought" to be my religion.
Who is going to stop me? The Religion Police?
8-)
Anyway what you mean is that "theistic religion" is unnecessary and I
agree.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
04 Aug 2007 11:12:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:57:34 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:45 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
No that isn't the meaning of "religion".
re·li·gion (ri(-li(j'?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The English-speaking world disagrees with you.
If you are restricting the meaning of religion to the subset "theistic
religions" then I certainly have lots of objections to them - but even
then it doesn't make them 100% false and devoid of wisdom.
Believing in gods means that one is mentally ill. I don't look for
wisdom (or even sense) from those who are mentally incompetent.
Certainly not. Delusion and self delusion are ever present problems.
I bet you $100 I can find a religion that preaches against delusion
Sucker bet - Christianity does. Yet Christianity itself is mostly
delusion.
would that suddenly be wrong because its part of a religion?
If the religion were based on delusion? Of course. As Christianity
says, "By their fruits shall ye know them." Just preaching sanity
doesn't make an insane belief set sane.
My father raised me to value honesty and fairness.
He happens to be an atheist - but IF he had been a Christian then I
would grow up believing in honesty and fairness as part of my religion
And you would probably believe - as many Christians do - that forcing
your religion on others is both honest and fair.
- and THEN honesty and fairness would be "useless false concepts"
BECAUSE they were part of my religion.
If they included forcing your beliefs on others? Of course they would
be.
Recognize that religion isn't necessary and you can be free.
And if I can choose "freedom of thought" to be my religion.
Sounds more like you're choosing redefining words to be your religion.
Anyway what you mean is that "theistic religion" is unnecessary
the·ism (the-'i(z'?m) Pronunciation Key
n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a
personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
re·li·gion (ri(-li(j'?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Sure looks like pretty much the same definition to me.
You can make up whatever definitions you want for words, but if you're
discussing them with others, your best bet is to use the definitions
they use.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
05 Aug 2007 06:06:02 AM |
|
|
On Aug 5, 2:12 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:57:34 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:45 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and o=
ur
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
No that isn't the meaning of "religion".
re=B7li=B7gion (ri(-li(j'?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The English-speaking world disagrees with you.
You really enjoy these grand exaggerations don't you?
8-)
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
05 Aug 2007 07:46:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:06:02 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:12 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:57:34 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:45 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family and our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
No that isn't the meaning of "religion".
re·li·gion (ri(-li(j'?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The English-speaking world disagrees with you.
You really enjoy these grand exaggerations don't you?
The dictionary exaggerates? (The dictionary shows how the
English-speaking world uses a word.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
07 Aug 2007 01:29:59 AM |
|
|
On Aug 6, 10:46 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:06:02 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 2:12 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:57:34 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 5, 7:45 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:06:57 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 4, 12:41 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:10:17 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.=
com>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Religion never makes sense.
"Religion never makes sense"
I think this is just plain wrong.
Lots of things about religion make sense.
Humans are social animals. We need the support of our family an=
d our
group to survive.
Gods are neither part of our family nor part of our group - they=
're
something mental children use to avoid their fear of death.
I was talking about religion - not gods.
Religion is belief in one of those gods - which one is a personal
choice.
No that isn't the meaning of "religion".
re=B7li=B7gion (ri(-li(j'?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The English-speaking world disagrees with you.
You really enjoy these grand exaggerations don't you?
The dictionary exaggerates? (The dictionary shows how the
English-speaking world uses a word.)
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
(Lots of precedence for this - For example Spinoza held that there was
no "supernatural" and essentially identified "God" with nature - to
most people who read Spinoza he seems a deeply religious man - but not
according to the dictionary!)
(Not that the dictionary can actually read Spinoza...)
If sometime in the future the dominant religion (or whatever word you
want to use) or religions (or whatever word you want to use) of the
world were non-supernatural and non theistic - then the dictionary
definition would change to reflect that fact.
The proportion of religions (or whatever word you want to use) that
involve gods/supernatural is probably >90% at present- so it makes
sense that the dictionary goes with that.
(see http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm )
The dictionary just reports on usage - it's not meant to stop all
progress in thought for all time.
I guess I am just a bit ahead of my time.
8-)
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
07 Aug 2007 11:10:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
(Lots of precedence for this - For example Spinoza held that there was
no "supernatural" and essentially identified "God" with nature
Spinoza didn't say that his god was God, he said it was a "god" that
was pretty much all things. IOW, he held the universe in reverence.
It was probably impossible, in the 17th century in Europe, to talk of
the heavens without a reference to a god of some sort. He was pretty
much a scientist, philosopher and ethical humanist, but the one thing
he was NOT was a theist, in the way we understand the word today.
- to most people who read Spinoza he seems a deeply religious man - but not
according to the dictionary!)
He was actually what atheists today would call an atheist. Spiritual,
but an atheist. His god wasn't an entity, unless you call the
universe an entity. Pretty much what Einstein said - not a personal
god (which means a god that is a persona).
If sometime in the future the dominant religion (or whatever word you
want to use) or religions (or whatever word you want to use) of the
world were non-supernatural and non theistic - then the dictionary
definition would change to reflect that fact.
Or they just wouldn't be called religions, they would be called
beliefs or philosophies. To more and more people, "religion" is
becoming a completely irrelevant part of their lives.
<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html>
The proportion of religions (or whatever word you want to use) that
involve gods/supernatural is probably >90% at present- so it makes
sense that the dictionary goes with that.
If you're defining "religion" as something other than what the
dictionary does, you'll have to present the definition, since
"probably more than 90% of the beliefs in the supernatural involve
belief in the supernatural" makes no sense. Buddhism, for instance,
isn't a religion according to the definition of religion, it's a
belief system. Religion is a subset of the class "belief systems" -
there are many belief systems that aren't religions.
The dictionary just reports on usage - it's not meant to stop all
progress in thought for all time.
I guess I am just a bit ahead of my time.
Using a word in a way that no one but you understands is just being
obtuse. I'm still not sure what you mean by "religion" - "belief
system"? "Philosophy"? "Ethical system"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
07 Aug 2007 08:27:47 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 2:10 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe.
No - thats not what Budhism is for example and its a major world
religion at 6% of the worlds population.
If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about.
The majority of people call Buddhism a religion.
That is they use the same word for religions and for "things that look
and function like religions in all ways but lack the supernatural
creator bit".
There is no word in English for the stuff in inverted commas - so most
people who write/talk/think about
"things that look and function like religions in all ways but lack the
supernatural creator bit" just use teh word religion.
At least I haven't encountered anyone inventing a separate word for it
in any of my reading.
Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
The people who study the sociology/anthropology of world religions
recognize about 8 common features of religions - if something has say
5 or more features they are called a religion.
So belief in a creator would be 1 feature.
If a system of belief had 7 features but lacked the belief in a
supernatural creator it would still make sense (to most people) to
call it a religion - because it still had the other 7 features.
This kind of problem occurs in lots of areas - for example.
One of the generally recognized features of mammals is that they give
birth to live young.
2 creatures - the Platypus and the Echidna lay eggs - yet they thermo
regulate, have fur, produce milk for their young etc.
So we call them mammals but recognize that they are unusual mammals.
Now, until they were discovered you could declare that being a mammal
included "giving birth to live young" as a defining feature of all
mammals.
Once they were discovered you have to make a choice - you can redefine
the word "mammal" to include the platypus and echidna or you keep to
your guns and exclude the platypus and echidna.
Whatever word or label you use the nature of platypus or echidna don't
change one little bit of course.
(Lots of precedence for this - For example Spinoza held that there was
no "supernatural" and essentially identified "God" with nature
Spinoza didn't say that his god was God, he said it was a "god" that
was pretty much all things.
No I don't think thats correct - from my reading.
IOW, he held the universe in reverence.
It was probably impossible, in the 17th century in Europe, to talk of
the heavens without a reference to a god of some sort. He was pretty
much a scientist, philosopher and ethical humanist, but the one thing
he was NOT was a theist, in the way we understand the word today.
I would agree he wasn't a theist - but he was a very religious person.
- to most people who read Spinoza he seems a deeply religious man - but not
according to the dictionary!)
He was actually what atheists today would call an atheist. Spiritual,
but an atheist. His god wasn't an entity, unless you call the
universe an entity. Pretty much what Einstein said - not a personal
god (which means a god that is a persona).
People misunderstand Spinoza - he was .... different.
If sometime in the future the dominant religion (or whatever word you
want to use) or religions (or whatever word you want to use) of the
world were non-supernatural and non theistic - then the dictionary
definition would change to reflect that fact.
Or they just wouldn't be called religions, they would be called
beliefs or philosophies. To more and more people, "religion" is
becoming a completely irrelevant part of their lives.
<http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html>
I hope that all theistic religions die out eventually.
The proportion of religions (or whatever word you want to use) that
involve gods/supernatural is probably >90% at present- so it makes
sense that the dictionary goes with that.
If you're defining "religion" as something other than what the
dictionary does, you'll have to present the definition, since
"probably more than 90% of the beliefs in the supernatural involve
belief in the supernatural" makes no sense.
You are correct that it makes no sense.
Buddhism, for instance,
isn't a religion according to the definition of religion, it's a
belief system. Religion is a subset of the class "belief systems" -
there are many belief systems that aren't religions.
That's true.
Religions are special kinds of belief systems - they have features
that set them apart.
They are traditional (handed down through the generations) ,
attributed to honored great teachers, they involve systems of ethics,
they involve ritual practices, they involve beliefs in magical beings,
they involve sacred objects or texts, they involve notions of taboo or
forbidden objects or practices, etc etc.
Not every religion has **all** the features that define religions -
some have all but one or all but two.
So Buddhism is a traditional belief, has a revered great teacher, an
ethical system, rituals, holy scripture - but gods (magical beings)
are optional! So I (and most others) would say it qualifies as a
religion - but lacks somethings commonly found in other religions.
Just like the platypus - its got the whole, warm blooded, furry, milk
producer thing going on so it aint a lizard or a bird - but it lays
eggs!
Whether or not to call some belief system a religion or not is often a
judgment call.
Take Scientology for a difficult example.
Its not "traditional" - L.Ron Hubbard just made it up! - (But so was
Mormonism !)
It has "The fabled wise teacher" - L.Ron is Scientology's Mosses or
Jesus or Buddha.
Its got "holy" books, it has a system of ethics (a pretty
dysfunctional one! ).
Some people would call it a religion - some would say it isn't - it
depends whether or not it has enough of the features that make a
religion a religion.
And which features (if any) are essential and which are optional.
You think having magic beings is essential and I don't.
*shrug*
The dictionary just reports on usage - it's not meant to stop all
progress in thought for all time.
I guess I am just a bit ahead of my time.
Using a word in a way that no one but you understands is just being
obtuse.
Saying that "no one but I" understands this broader definition of
religion is false.
I didn't make it up!
I got this broader definition from reading books about religion,
philosophy and anthropology.
You get the narrow one from the dictionary - the dictionary isn't
"wrong" its just simple and incomplete (and has a Judeo - christian
bias).
Look in an encyclopedia and you will get more.
Look in a academic book on world religions/belief systems and you will
get still more.
It's the same for just about any subject.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "religion" - "belief
system"? "Philosophy"? "Ethical system"?
A religion is all of those things and more.
It is a (usually) traditional system of beliefs, values and practices
that define what a community's basic conceptions of themselves and
their place in the world. It tells people what their purpose is and
how they should relate to the rest of existence - including their
relationship with the gods (usually), spirits, other humans and
animals and with nature in general.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 11:43:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:27:47 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 8, 2:10 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe.
No - thats not what Budhism is for example
Some forms of Buddhism are religious beliefs and some aren't.
If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about.
The majority of people call Buddhism a religion.
If you want to talk about a belief system that doesn't include the
supernatural (which, IIRC, is what you said), use a name that
describes it and doesn't describe belief in the supernatural. Using
an ambiguous word doesn't foster communication.
That is they use the same word for religions and for "things that look
and function like religions in all ways but lack the supernatural
creator bit".
There is no word in English for the stuff in inverted commas
So there's no such belief system.
Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
The people who study the sociology/anthropology of world religions
recognize about 8 common features of religions - if something has say
5 or more features they are called a religion.
Since "religion" includes belief in the supernatural, there's at least
one characteristic that a belief system must have to be a religion -
belief in the supernatural. If it lacks that it's not a religion,
it's - according to you - a belief system that we don't have a name
for.
So belief in a creator would be 1 feature.
If a system of belief had 7 features but lacked the belief in a
supernatural creator it would still make sense (to most people) to
call it a religion - because it still had the other 7 features.
That's the definition from the theistic viewpoint (that whether there
is a god isn't a question but a fact) so, to them, ALL religions,
those that define a specific god and those that don't, include belief
in the supernatural. (To them, "belief in the supernatural" is the
same as "belief that the sun is hotter than ice". It's not a belief.)
Outside the box of religion, belief systems that DON'T include belief
in the supernatural aren't the same as those that do. (For instance,
most Christians will tell you that Buddhism has a god and that Deism
is a form of Christianity.)
This kind of problem occurs in lots of areas - for example.
One of the generally recognized features of mammals is that they give
birth to live young.
But it's not enough to say that if it gives birth to living young,
it's a mammal.
2 creatures - the Platypus and the Echidna lay eggs - yet they thermo
regulate, have fur, produce milk for their young etc.
So we call them mammals but recognize that they are unusual mammals.
They're so unusual that they're in a class (okay, an order) all their
own - Monotremata. There IS a word for it. What's the word for
"religion that doesn't include belief in the supernatural"? (BTW,
Buddhism includes belief in the supernatural, just not all forms of it
include belief in a god.)
Now, until they were discovered you could declare that being a mammal
included "giving birth to live young" as a defining feature of all
mammals.
But "giving birth to live young" didn't define "mammal" even then.
Fish and reptiles also give birth to live young.
Belief in a supernatural creator of the universe defines a belief
system as a religion.
(Lots of precedence for this - For example Spinoza held that there was
no "supernatural" and essentially identified "God" with nature
Spinoza didn't say that his god was God, he said it was a "god" that
was pretty much all things.
No I don't think thats correct - from my reading.
It's directly from Spinoza's writing. Try reading original sources,
not biased interpretations of them.
Since his god was, itself, part of nature, it is the natural world,
not something with personhood.
IOW, he held the universe in reverence.
It was probably impossible, in the 17th century in Europe, to talk of
the heavens without a reference to a god of some sort. He was pretty
much a scientist, philosopher and ethical humanist, but the one thing
he was NOT was a theist, in the way we understand the word today.
I would agree he wasn't a theist - but he was a very religious person.
In what way? He was a philosopher. He was what we would call an
optician. But religious?
- to most people who read Spinoza he seems a deeply religious man - but not
according to the dictionary!)
He was actually what atheists today would call an atheist. Spiritual,
but an atheist. His god wasn't an entity, unless you call the
universe an entity. Pretty much what Einstein said - not a personal
god (which means a god that is a persona).
People misunderstand Spinoza - he was .... different.
Theists misunderstand him because they think that his use of the word
God meant that he was a Christian - who saw Christianity differently.
(Einstein's oft-repeated quote doesn't help either.) Reading his
works without a Christian bias doesn't show a man who believed in the
Christian concept of a god.
Buddhism, for instance,
isn't a religion according to the definition of religion, it's a
belief system. Religion is a subset of the class "belief systems" -
there are many belief systems that aren't religions.
That's true.
Religions are special kinds of belief systems - they have features
that set them apart.
They are traditional (handed down through the generations)
So are most types of belief system.
attributed to honored great teachers
So are many other types of belief system.
they involve systems of ethics
Systems of what is called morality. Ethics is the study of morality,
not a morality itself.
they involve ritual practices
So do many other types of belief system.
they involve beliefs in magical beings
The supernatural, which you said is NOT a defining characteristic of
religion, per se.
they involve sacred objects or texts
Not all religions have sacred texts - some just have important texts.
they involve notions of taboo or
forbidden objects or practices
So does life. (Most societies consider eating insects to be taboo.
Just about ALL societies consider incest to be taboo.)
Not every religion has **all** the features that define religions -
some have all but one or all but two.
So Buddhism is a traditional belief, has a revered great teacher, an
ethical system, rituals, holy scripture - but gods (magical beings)
are optional!
But the supernatural isn't.
So I (and most others) would say it qualifies as a
religion
Anyone can say anything, but outside the box of religion, religion
includes a belief in the supernatural, because inside that box, the
"belief" is considered a fact of life - the supernatural exists as a
matter of certainty.
Just like the platypus - its got the whole, warm blooded, furry, milk
producer thing going on so it aint a lizard or a bird - but it lays
eggs!
Mammals use eggs for reproduction too - they're just hatched
internally. Kangaroos go a step further than the monotremes, but not
as far as we do - the egg hatches very early, and the Joey is pretty
much an embryo when it's "born". It's not either/or - there's a range
from "lay an egg but leak milk from your pores" to "give birth to a
fully functioning offspring" - which we don't do. (Watch a 10 minute
old colt run.)
Whether or not to call some belief system a religion or not is often a
judgment call.
Then "religion" is a pretty useless word, since we already have
"belief system" which covers all religions just as well.
Take Scientology for a difficult example.
Its not "traditional" - L.Ron Hubbard just made it up! - (But so was
Mormonism !)
No, Mormonism was made up as a religion. Scientology was made up as a
joke.
It has "The fabled wise teacher" - L.Ron is Scientology's Mosses or
Jesus or Buddha.
Smith called himself the leader. Hubbard laughed at people who
thought of Scientology as a religion.
The dictionary just reports on usage - it's not meant to stop all
progress in thought for all time.
I guess I am just a bit ahead of my time.
Using a word in a way that no one but you understands is just being
obtuse.
Saying that "no one but I" understands this broader definition of
religion is false.
In alt.atheism, which is where this discussion is taking place, it's
pretty true.
I didn't make it up!
I got this broader definition from reading books about religion,
philosophy and anthropology.
Books written BY theist FOR theist, expressing the THEISTIC viewpoint.
Outside the box of religion, their assumptions aren't accepted as
reality.
Look in an encyclopedia and you will get more.
An encyclopedia is a work edited by encyclopedists. Most of the
entries are NOT written, and printed unedited, by experts in their
field.
Look in a academic book on world religions/belief systems
Written by a non-theist? Who? Campbell?
I'm still not sure what you mean by "religion" - "belief
system"? "Philosophy"? "Ethical system"?
A religion is all of those things and more.
It is a (usually) traditional system of beliefs, values and practices
that define what a community's basic conceptions of themselves and
their place in the world. It tells people what their purpose is and
how they should relate to the rest of existence - including their
relationship with the gods (usually), spirits, other humans and
animals and with nature in general.
That's called a values system. There are many of them that are not,
by any stretch of the imagination, religions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 10:02:33 PM |
|
|
On Aug 9, 2:43 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
Al - you are going off the rails a bit.
I was going to reply to you line for line - but I think I will just
say that I stand by everything in my previous post and I don't just
want to repeat it all.
That will just turn into "Is so!", "Is not!".
Also you imply many times that I am somehow in agreement with the
majority of theists on this. You are 100% wrong there.
The theists are arguing as you do that any religion MUST incorporate a
belief in God.
They are saying that any human fundamental belief system that is
complete and meaningful and gives ethical guidance etc (a religion)
MUST include belief in the supernatural.
They are wrong and you are wrong to support the theist view.
A complete system of beliefs and ethics can be comprehensive and
satisfying to the human animal both intellectually and emotionally and
not include the superstitious mumbo jumbo.
If this is NOT true then we are all truly and totally stuffed.
I am pig-headed enough to not give them (the superstition-ists) a
free pass on this.
Sincerely, your godless, skeptical, unbelieving ALLY.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 04:55:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:02:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
The theists are arguing as you do that any religion MUST incorporate a
belief in God.
If they are, they're *a bit* wrong, backwards, actually - the
definition of religion incorporates the supernatural, not the other
way around.
They are saying that any human fundamental belief system that is
complete and meaningful and gives ethical guidance etc (a religion)
MUST include belief in the supernatural.
That, of course, is utter nonsense, since morality is something one
either is born with or isn't. One can't get morality from a book any
more than a deaf man can get hearing from one. He can fake it by
being a really good lip reader, but he still can't hear.
They are wrong and you are wrong to support the theist view.
I'm not supporting the view that a religion must incorporate belief in
a god (most theists don't believe in God, they have other gods), I'm
making the opposite claim - that we've used the word "religion" to
refer to a belief system that includes the supernatural. The horse
doesn't gallop because the cart pushes it.
A complete system of beliefs and ethics can be comprehensive and
satisfying to the human animal both intellectually and emotionally and
not include the superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Of course, but that's not a religion, it's just a belief system. Not
all belief systems are religions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
10 Aug 2007 06:04:27 PM |
|
|
On Aug 10, 7:55 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:02:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
A complete system of beliefs and ethics can be comprehensive and
satisfying to the human animal both intellectually and emotionally and
not include the superstitious mumbo jumbo.
Of course, but that's not a religion, it's just a belief system.
Well thats up to you.
I could choose it to be my religion and then no one has the right to
stop me - there are no "religious police" in free nations.
I am a firm believer in religious freedom.
Not
all belief systems are religions.
That's right and I never thought differently.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
07 Aug 2007 07:48:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
07 Aug 2007 08:30:33 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 06:59:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:30:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
Cheers, Mark.
But Buddhists, Scientologists and Pantheists believe in a supernatural
creator.
(I'm am not sufficiently familiar with Taoism to comment.)
And I explicitly specified: a single example, so that I may wrap my
tiny head around the concept that you are espousing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 08:50:53 PM |
|
|
On Aug 8, 9:59 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:30:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
Cheers, Mark.
But Buddhists, Scientologists and Pantheists believe in a supernatural
creator.
No you are misinformed - you *may* believe in gods and spirits and
demons - but it is not required to so believe to be a Buddhist.
You can be a Buddhist and have zero belief in the supernatural.
Buddhist don't believe in "a" creation - they believe that creation is
happening continuously and endlessly.
So if there is no single creation there is no single god that is the
cause of it - Buddhism is very logical about this sort of thing.
Same with the other examples - Scientology's believe in psychic powers
and aliens - not creator gods.
( L Ron Hubbard was probably an atheist - he had no love of
Christianity - but scientologists keep quiet about that - its bad
publicity.)
Taoists believe in an eternal existence that is constantly mutable -
and again creation is happening all the time and worlds (universes)
come and go.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 04:08:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:50:53 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 8, 9:59 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:30:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
Cheers, Mark.
But Buddhists, Scientologists and Pantheists believe in a supernatural
creator.
No you are misinformed - you *may* believe in gods and spirits and
demons - but it is not required to so believe to be a Buddhist.
You can be a Buddhist and have zero belief in the supernatural.
Including the *VERY* SUPERNATURAL concept of re-incarnation?
I don't think so!
Buddhist don't believe in "a" creation - they believe that creation is
happening continuously and endlessly.
And supernaturally...
So if there is no single creation there is no single god that is the
cause of it - Buddhism is very logical about this sort of thing.
Same with the other examples - Scientology's believe in psychic powers
and aliens - not creator gods.
Xenu's supposed "powers" are NOT supernatural?
Gimme a break!
( L Ron Hubbard was probably an atheist - he had no love of
Christianity - but scientologists keep quiet about that - its bad
publicity.)
Taoists believe in an eternal existence that is constantly mutable -
and again creation is happening all the time and worlds (universes)
come and go.
With zero compulsory supernatural elements?
Are you sure?
Mark.
What about Pantheists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 07:17:10 AM |
|
|
On Aug 9, 7:08 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:50:53 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Aug 8, 9:59 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:30:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:10:31 -0400, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:29:59 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The dictionary definitions do usually specify something about "God"
and the supernatural (9 out of 10 that i checked did) - so I cant
argue with you on that.
I just wanted to talk about religion in a general sense that went
beyond the usual definition.
Religion in a general sense is the general belief in a supernatural
creator of the universe. If you want to talk about something else,
tell me what it's called by the majority of the population, so that I
know what you're talking about. Religion (belief in supernatural
creators) without supernatural creators isn't something I'm familiar
with.
I, too, am puzzled by exactly what Richo is referring to.
If he gave a single real-world example, that would clear it up for
both of us.
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
Cheers, Mark.
But Buddhists, Scientologists and Pantheists believe in a supernatural
creator.
No you are misinformed - you *may* believe in gods and spirits and
demons - but it is not required to so believe to be a Buddhist.
You can be a Buddhist and have zero belief in the supernatural.
Including the *VERY* SUPERNATURAL concept of re-incarnation?
I don't think so!
The idea that reincarnation involves the "immortal soul" surviving
your death and turning up in a new body?
Yeah that's definitely supernatural.
That idea comes from Hinduism which predates Buddhism.
The Wheel of life.
What does Buddha have to say about this magical indestructible "self"?
The Buddha says that nothing is permanent, that everything is flux and
change and impermanence.
The Buddha says that the self is an illusion.
These two teachings are utterly fundamental to Buddhism.
How do you reconcile these two teachings with the idea of personal
reincarnation?
You either have to reject the two very basic tenants of Buddhism or
reject reincarnation.
I have heard how some Buddhists reconcile this dilemma - they
interpret reincarnation in the following way:
You are constantly reborn - minute by minute hour by hour day by day.
You were a zygote then you were a baby then you were a child then ....
then you are a dead body and memories in other peoples heads.
There is never a "you" that is anything but transitory.
Look very carefully and tell me were this contradicts Buddhism or
invokes the supernatural.
I don't think you will be able to do it.
So instead of the supernatural reincarnation being *essential* to
Buddhism I say that it is utterly incompatible with Buddhism and can
make a very good argument for that.
Buddhist don't believe in "a" creation - they believe that creation is
happening continuously and endlessly.
And supernaturally...
Why do you say that?
Everything that is real is natural.
So if there is no single creation there is no single god that is the
cause of it - Buddhism is very logical about this sort of thing.
Same with the other examples - Scientology's believe in psychic powers
and aliens - not creator gods.
Xenu's supposed "powers" are NOT supernatural?
No more so than Captain Kirk's - he just has some really advanced
Tech.
Gimme a break!
OK - ..... Rested now?
8-)
( L Ron Hubbard was probably an atheist - he had no love of
Christianity - but scientologists keep quiet about that - its bad
publicity.)
Taoists believe in an eternal existence that is constantly mutable -
and again creation is happening all the time and worlds (universes)
come and go.
With zero compulsory supernatural elements?
Are you sure?
Mark.
What about Pantheists?
They come in a variety of forms - the Scientific Pantheist is
essentially an atheist who reveres the whole of nature - a little like
the ideas of Spinoza and the religious feelings of Einstein.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 04:49:49 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:17:10 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
What about Pantheists?
They come in a variety of forms - the Scientific Pantheist is
essentially an atheist who reveres the whole of nature - a little like
the ideas of Spinoza and the religious feelings of Einstein.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
Einstein wasn't a pantheist, he was an atheist. (I'll sooner take his
word - which I heard many times, I never missed an opportunity to hear
him) than yours. He wasn't what he called "a professional atheist",
but he didn't believe in the supernatural or in any god.
Spinoza believed in the universe. That's hardly pantheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 06:36:30 PM |
|
|
On Aug 10, 7:49 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:17:10 -0000, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What about Pantheists?
They come in a variety of forms - the Scientific Pantheist is
essentially an atheist who reveres the whole of nature - a little like
the ideas of Spinoza and the religious feelings of Einstein.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
Einstein wasn't a pantheist, he was an atheist. (I'll sooner take his
word - which I heard many times, I never missed an opportunity to hear
him) than yours.
No need to get bitchy.
I am not sure Einstein ever claimed to be a Pantheist - but Pantheists
certainly have claimed him as one of their own and use his quotes as
examples of how they (pantheists) think.
I was trying to give an explanation of Pantheism and what it is like.
<quote>
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly
religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply
religious man. (Albert Einstein)
<unquote>
He wasn't what he called "a professional atheist",
but he didn't believe in the supernatural or in any god.
Yes I know.
I was giving a feel for what pantheists believe - they feel a
reverence and awe for the natural universe - as expressed rather well
by Einstein.
Spinoza believed in the universe. That's hardly pantheism.
It is a major part of Pantheism.
Like I said Spinoza is rather hard to put in a box.
He has been called atheist , pantheist etc etc.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
09 Aug 2007 10:12:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:36:30 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes I know.
I was giving a feel for what pantheists believe - they feel a
reverence and awe for the natural universe - as expressed rather well
by Einstein.
But Pantheism believes in a personal god (which is the universe),
which Einstein stated quite plainly that he didn't.
Spinoza believed in the universe. That's hardly pantheism.
It is a major part of Pantheism.
No, believing that the universe is a god, is Pantheism (everything is
God, God is everything). Believing that the universe exists is just
not being a solipsist.
Like I said Spinoza is rather hard to put in a box.
He has been called atheist , pantheist etc etc.
By others, not by himself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 11:46:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:29:27 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 01:30:33 -0000, Richo <m.richardson61@gmail.com>
wrote:
Buddhism, Taoism, possibly Scientology some forms of Pantheism.
See my full reply to Al.
But Buddhists, Scientologists and Pantheists believe in a supernatural
creator.
(I'm am not sufficiently familiar with Taoism to comment.)
And I explicitly specified: a single example, so that I may wrap my
tiny head around the concept that you are espousing.
Maybe an example of a belief system that is a religion and that has no
assumption of the supernatural would be best. Since almost every
human being on this planet assumes that the supernatural is real, a
belief system that doesn't is going to be difficult to find.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Very Impressive |
08 Aug 2007 05:25:56 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:46:41 -0400, Al Klein wrote:
The dictionary exaggerates? (The dictionary shows how the
English-speaking world uses a word.)
Yet most of 'em get many things wrong - check the definition of "atheist"
in any of a half-dozen of 'em.
Duelling dictionaries is a no-win game.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
