Does organized religion destroy belief in the supernatural?

[snake river rufus]

That is certainly the way many people use the term - though arguable Buddhism lacks a deity. However I am saying that this definition is misleading and too restrictive.

How so? It is the definition that theists recognize.

 

[snake river rufus]

But then atheists believe in their own version of god, so they consider as "not theism" anything that does not subscribe to it.

We most certainly do not believe in any version of 'god', nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[(Q)]

Wouldn't you say that organized religion is a very rigid set of believes that under certain sets result in supernatural actions?

That would basically put the cart before the horse. The beliefs are centered specifically around the supernatural entity. Without the supernatural entity, there would be no rigid set of beliefs.

 

[(Q)]

Everything in the world is a way of looking at reality. Interpretation is truth.

Hence, fantasy can be a reality. :crazy:

 

[Myles]

Organized religion has not destroted my faith in the supernatural because I had none to begin with. What the hell is religion about if not the supernatural ? The op reminds me of a snake eating its tail.

 

[iceaura]

What the hell is religion about if not the supernatural ?

A lot of your modern Taoists and Buddhists seem to find the spiritual aspect of reality perfectly natural - however transcendent of the material and lower level abstracted aspects.

Probably a few atheists who think they are Buddhists more like.

Uh, yeah, that would be one way of describing them. How do you identify your Buddhists ?

In Buddhism, the concept of god itself is different

No kidding. As in "not a recognizable or nameable deity", often.

 

[S.A.M.]

"not a recognizable or nameable deity"

Exactly. Though of course, all religions have a somewhat similar definition, but Buddhism is a step further in Advaita and does not separate the universe from God. Hence, anyone can attain Nirvana.

Hence, fantasy can be a reality. :crazy:

Truth is whatever you believe it is. Your reality is someone else's fantasy.

 

[Simon Anders]

How so? It is the definition that theists recognize.

1) I guess if that is your criterion for how you use a word and it works for you, then you should be and probably are pleased with how it is working for you. 2) part of philosophy is working on the definitions of terms and seeing if they are misleading; this is what I am doing. I do not think it will mislead most theists - most of whom, by the way probably do not ever use the word theist - if you use religion as including a belief in God. I however am arguing that this creates a distinction between theists and many non-theists that I think is non-existent. That the primary facets of religion continue without the God concept AND these get sublimated into other nouns. Nouns that non-theists will fight and die for without evidence that these nouns actually refer to 'objects' as you put it earlier.

 

[Simon Anders]

Hence, fantasy can be a reality. :crazy:

Fantasies can even start wars and lead to very tangible changes like deaths and craters and so on.

 

[lightgigantic]

We most certainly do not believe in any version of 'god', nothing could be further from the truth.

there are countless discussions on this forum made of atheists trying to drive home their own personal definitions of god (in order to lend credibility to their perspective)

 

[spidergoat]

in what ways is a supernatural thing not a way of looking at reality?

If the Buddha said there was a self to reincarnate, then it might be considered supernatural. However he said there was no self, and when you realize this, reincarnation ends. This means that the self is regenerated by culture, by our misdeeds as a society, as an illusion of the mind. It is something that can disappear in a moment.

 

[lightgigantic]

If the Buddha said there was a self to reincarnate, then it might be considered supernatural. However he said there was no self, and when you realize this, reincarnation ends. This means that the self is regenerated by culture, by our misdeeds as a society, as an illusion of the mind. It is something that can disappear in a moment.

you can't see how the foundation of this argument rests on a supernatural claim?
(at the very least, there exists no "natural" means of determining that the self doesn't exist)

 

[Simon Anders]

If the Buddha said there was a self to reincarnate, then it might be considered supernatural. However he said there was no self, and when you realize this, reincarnation ends. This means that the self is regenerated by culture, by our misdeeds as a society, as an illusion of the mind. It is something that can disappear in a moment.

So the self is a supernatural entity that many theists and non-theists alike believe in.