What will we replace religion with?

[Billy T]

Answer to thread's question is an "L."
I.e. to a large extent we already have replaced God with a new religion. I.e. love of God is now love of Gold. (Ain't language interesting?)

PS to Fraggle: I spent a lot of time during my high school years with best friend, the local Rabbi's son. Was often sleep over guest in their home and conversely. At my house, he ate on aluminum foil cover plates the kosher food we had for him with his own (meat or milk) fork and knife. I was even honored to share their Yom Kippur dinner once. (Why is this night diffenent from all other nights ...) which angered some in his congregation. I bet I could be a better "religious" Jew than you but I have forgotten too much for that now. The noise of Martin Luther spinning in has grave at what had happen to an acolyte of the church keep me awake, so I didn't try to remember it all. -Certainly would make a mess of trying to put "tifillen" on my head and right arm now but once could; However I when I said the associated prayer it was to the god of Luther.

I learned many of those rules for living - Do you know the rule that tells if you have used enough water (where it is in short supply) to wash your hands before eating? For me that and others is what makes Judaism a prescription for living, not a faith. I got taken to a month's fishing vacation with the family on a large but basically private lake in Canada. - They needed a gentile who could lock up and turn off the lights - that is "work" - on Saturday night.

I prayed for storms or at least no fish biting on Fridays as I was the only one who could clean the fish we caught with two boats of people fishing. If the fishing was good, the boats stayed out until just before sun set.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

PS to Fraggle: I spent a lot of time during my high school years with best friend, the local Rabbi's son. Was often sleep over guest in their home and conversely. At my house, he ate on aluminum foil plates the kosher food we had for him with his own (meat or milk) fork and knife. I was even honored to share The Yom Kippur dinner once.

Something wrong there: For the most observant Jews, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting!

Why is this night diffenent from all other nights?

Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, universally regarded by Jews as the holiest day of the year. Even the most secular Jews are likely to observe it, even if not with total religious piety. It's the day when you think back on all the bad things you did during the year, but it's much more than that.

. . . . which angered some in his congregation.

Of all the Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur is the one that is strictly for Jews. It's not a celebration that a non-Jew can join in, like Rosh Hashanah, Chanukkah or Pesach. It's the day when the Jews reflect on how bad they've been, both as individuals and as a tribe. Having an outsider there is just wrong; it's like inviting a sociologist to study your quaint customs.

Or they might have been angry simply because your friends were breaking the holiday's fast!

I bet I could be a better "religious" Jew than you.

That's not hard. I was not raised Jewish and didn't even know that I had Jewish ancestors until I was a teenager. WWII and the Holocaust were still in progress when I was born, and no American with a drop of Jewish blood could avoid thinking about what would happen if Hitler somehow won the war and occupied the USA. Best to not have a child who might blurt out, "Daddy said that his grandparents were Jews!"

There was still antisemitism in America (there were no Muslims here to hate yet), so they didn't see any point in telling me about my Jewish ancestors until I went off to Caltech, where half the students were Jewish and wondered about my surname.

Besides, "Jewishness" is passed down maternally. If I wanted to be accepted into the Jewish community, I would be treated as a Gentile and required to undergo all the rituals of conversion.

I learned many of those rule for living - Do you know the rule that tells if you have used enough water (where it is in short supply) to wash your hands before eating? For me that and other is what makes Judaism a prescription for living, not a faith.

Mrs. Fraggle was raised Jewish by her grandparents, so I learned a lot of that stuff from her.

I got taken to a month's fishing vacation with the family on a large but basically private lake. - They needed a gentile who could lock up and turn off the lights - that is "work" - on Saturday night.

In the old days they hired Gentiles to simply take care of their farms on the Sabbath. Today they've come up with clever ways of working around the laws, such as lighting a burner on Friday afternoon and leaving it burning until Saturday night. It's okay to put a pot full of stew or coffee on a burner that's already going.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Assuming the human race will one day finally shake off the dull stupor that is religion, what would it replace it with? Does science offer a vision compatible with human spiritual needs? Do we even recognize the validity of those needs? Or are they mere projections of our own emotional insecurities in a universe that appears to increasingly have no purpose for us?

''Religion'' IS part of being human insofar as it is a way of life, and everybody has a way of life whether they believe they do or not. What I believe you mean to ask is ''What will we replace theism with''.

''Science'' can no more offer spirituality (by itself) than a van can offer direction.

The fact that you believe there is no purpose for each and every individual is most probably why you aren't theist, and can't even comprehend the reality of theist-ness.

Lastly, what does Einstein's quote have to do with this thread?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

''Religion'' IS part of being human insofar as it is a way of life, and everybody has a way of life whether they believe they do or not. What I believe you mean to ask is ''What will we replace theism with''.

Lol, no. Religion and way of life are not interchangeable terms. Not everyone has a religion, obviously, so mR's question was phrased correctly.

''Science'' can no more offer spirituality (by itself) than a van can offer direction.

The world is not a binary system comprising of just religion and science. Plenty of people consider themselves spiritual who make no claims to special knowledge or hold particular beliefs about the true nature of existence.

The fact that you believe there is no purpose for each and every individual is most probably why you aren't theist, and can't even comprehend the reality of theist-ness.

This old chestnut? Forgetting for a moment that MR used to be a fundamentalist Christian, theism is not a difficult concept to understand.

Lastly, what does Einstein's quote have to do with this thread?

Seriously?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Lol, no.

Lol, yes.

Religion and way of life are not interchangeable terms. Not everyone has a religion, obviously, so mR's question was phrased correctly.

No one has a ''religion''. You don't suddenly wake up one morning and decide ''I'm going to get me a religion today'', and anyone who thinks that's how religion actually works is mistaken. Religion is a condition of humanity, and by religion I mean a way of life.

The world is not a binary system comprising of just religion and science. Plenty of people consider themselves spiritual who make no claims to special knowledge or hold particular beliefs about the true nature of existence.

What does this have to do with anything?

This old chestnut? Forgetting for a moment that MR used to be a fundamentalist Christian, theism is not a difficult concept to understand.

How do you know he used to be a ''fundamentalist christian''?

Even if he was a FC, how do you know he believed in God?

What is the defining evidence for you?

Seriously?

Erm! Yes.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

No one has a ''religion''.

Um...what??

You don't suddenly wake up one morning and decide ''I'm going to get me a religion today'', and anyone who thinks that's how religion actually works is mistaken.

I never said that's how it works. Who are you arguing with?

Religion is a condition of humanity, and by religion I mean a way of life.

And by pasta, I mean trees.

Seriously, that's not what religion means. You require a personal definition to make your argument, which renders it entirely superficial.

What does this have to do with anything?

Christ, here we go with this now. Are you really incapable of keeping track of a three-post conversation? I quoted the part that was in response to; what more do you need?

How do you know he used to be a ''fundamentalist christian''?

Even if he was a FC, how do you know he believed in God?

What is the defining evidence for you?

I only have his word to go by, but his credulity when it comes to the paranormal suggests he still has some lingering need for cosmic purpose.

What are you driving at?

Erm! Yes.

jan.

Did you try reading it? I mean, what isn't clear? Einstein is suggesting an answer to the title question.

 

[spidergoat]

...No one has a ''religion''. You don't suddenly wake up one morning and decide ''I'm going to get me a religion today'', and anyone who thinks that's how religion actually works is mistaken. Religion is a condition of humanity, and by religion I mean a way of life..

Yeah... that's not what religion means.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

I never said that's how it works. Who are you arguing with?

It is certainly what you imply, and if not then please explain how it works.

And by pasta, I mean trees.

:shrug:

Seriously, that's not what religion means. You require a personal definition to make your argument, which renders it entirely superficial.

The definition you adhere to, and how you explain it, is no different to saying ''a leaf is whole the tree''.

The ''Christian'' religion is merely the following of a person (Christ), and that person was so because of his lifestyle. So the ''Christian'' religion is merely a part of the whole, nothing more than an aspect. Of course you'd be hard pushed to find any Christian following in the footsteps of Christ, let alone the institute itself, but it does not diminish his example.

The people who write the dictionary definitions simply parrot how the word ''religion'' is currently used in society, not what it actually means.

Christ, here we go with this now. Are you really incapable of keeping track of a three-post conversation? I quoted the part that was in response to; what more do you need?

I've no idea what you're babbling on about.

I only have his word to go by, but his credulity when it comes to the paranormal suggests he still has some lingering need for cosmic purpose.

So this qualifies him as a theist then?

What are you driving at?

You don't know what theism is. All you know is that you're not one, so you set the bar to that standard probably because that's the kind of guy you are

Did you try reading it? I mean, what isn't clear? Einstein is suggesting an answer to the title question.

The thing is, Einstein understands what religion is, from it's root. You don't, you simply accept secular definitions because it suits you.

jan

 

[Balerion]

It is certainly what you imply, and if not then please explain how it works.

It's not at all what I implied. We weren't discussing how a person comes to religion, so I certainly wasn't commenting on it. My statement had to do with the term "religion" not being interchangeable with "way of life." In other words, religious belief does not have to encompass one's entire life. I mean, look around you; do the religious people in your life behave all that differently than their agnostic and atheistic counterparts? Is their motivation really all that different, if at all?

The definition you adhere to, and how you explain it, is no different to saying ''a leaf is whole the tree''.

Poor grammar aside, I don't know what this means. Even in the context of the rest of this passage (quoted below), I'm baffled.

The ''Christian'' religion is merely the following of a person (Christ), and that person was so because of his lifestyle.

No, Jesus was who he was because God made him that way. His lifestyle had nothing to do with it. He would have been God's son regardless of how he lived his life.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that Jesus had followers because of how he lived, that much is obvious, but it doesn't mean that religion is a substitute word for lifestyle.

So the ''Christian'' religion is merely a part of the whole, nothing more than an aspect. Of course you'd be hard pushed to find any Christian following in the footsteps of Christ, let alone the institute itself, but it does not diminish his example.

Part of what whole? And what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

The people who write the dictionary definitions simply parrot how the word ''religion'' is currently used in society, not what it actually means.

Not true. The word's English definition can be traced back to the 1300s. And it's certainly more elegant and sensible than the incoherent mess you're trying to pass off.

I've no idea what you're babbling on about.

That's not something you should admit in public.

So this qualifies him as a theist then?

I don't know what you're grinning about. So long as he doesn't believe in a higher power, he isn't a theist.

You don't know what theism is. All you know is that you're not one, so you set the bar to that standard probably because that's the kind of guy you are

Theism is a belief in at least one god. What is wrong with that definition?

Also, I've reported your post for baiting. Try to keep it civil. "The kind of guy you are?" Seriously?

The thing is, Einstein understands what religion is, from it's root. You don't, you simply accept secular definitions because it suits you.

The thing is, you don't even understand what his quote has to do with this topic, so I'm certain you haven't the first clue as to what Einstein understands and what he didn't.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The ''Christian'' religion is merely the following of a person (Christ), and that person was so because of his lifestyle.

They say he is a person yet it's obvious that no such person could have existed. More to the point, it's abundantly obvious that no historical person giving rise to the legend is known to have existed.

So the ''Christian'' religion is merely a part of the whole, nothing more than an aspect.

In the mind of the Christian, particularly fundamentalists, believers evidently think they are sitting at the pinnacle of divined revelation. The only religious group I can think of that doesn't express the same attitude are perhaps the Unitarians.

Of course you'd be hard pushed to find any Christian following in the footsteps of Christ, let alone the institute itself, but it does not diminish his example.

You don't think Christians who devote their lives to serving their communities are following the best principles attributed to Christ? And what of all of the Christian institutions that provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, job referral, and security (e.g. orphanages, programs for battered women and refugees)?

The people who write the dictionary definitions simply parrot how the word ''religion'' is currently used in society, not what it actually means.

There are plenty of other words to choose from. The main contender is "fundamentalism" since that's where the most egregious misanthropes tend to congregate.

You don't know what theism is. All you know is that you're not one, so you set the bar to that standard probably because that's the kind of guy you are

I think it's one of the best understood isms in the world.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

It's not at all what I implied.

It most certainly is what you implied... '' Not everyone has a religion, obviously...''
What you most probably mean is that not everyone believes in God. If not, then you imply that ''religion'' is purely a belief in God, or something supernatural, which is wrong. Some people belief themselves to be religious without such beliefs. Here

We weren't discussing how a person comes to religion, so I certainly wasn't commenting on it. My statement had to do with the term "religion" not being interchangeable with "way of life."

If religion isn't a way of life, and it isn't contingent upon belief in God, then what is it?

In other words, religious belief does not have to encompass one's entire life. I mean, look around you; do the religious people in your life behave all that differently than their agnostic and atheistic counterparts? Is their motivation really all that different, if at all?

What does ''religious belief'' have to do with what we're talking about?

Poor grammar aside, I don't know what this means. Even in the context of the rest of this passage (quoted below), I'm baffled.

Christianity, like Islam, are only aspects of ''religion'', not ''religion''.

No, Jesus was who he was because God made him that way. His lifestyle had nothing to do with it. He would have been God's son regardless of how he lived his life.

This is classic.
Thanks.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that Jesus had followers because of how he lived, that much is obvious, but it doesn't mean that religion is a substitute word for lifestyle.

LOL!!! I didn't say it was a ''substitute word for lifestyle''.
Go back, read carefully, and see if you can work out what I actually said.

Part of what whole? And what does this have to do with what we're talking about?

I'm explaning that Christianity, or Islam, is not religion, but merely an aspect of religion. They are instructions on how to live ones life. That's what religion is. Do keep up.

Not true. The word's English definition can be traced back to the 1300s. And it's certainly more elegant and sensible than the incoherent mess you're trying to pass off.

Liar!!!

This is the definition of religion as recent as 1828.
The current dictionary definitions of religion are immature.

RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to

That's not something you should admit in public.

I don't see why not, as you're talking nonsense.

I don't know what you're grinning about. So long as he doesn't believe in a higher power, he isn't a theist.

How do you know he doesn't believe in a higher power?

Theism is a belief in at least one god. What is wrong with that definition?

Wrong! ''Theism'' is derived from the greek word ''theos'' which means ''God''.
The notion that it means different gods, is a secular concept which is why you are satisfied with that. Strongs Concordance

Also, I've reported your post for baiting. Try to keep it civil. "The kind of guy you are?" Seriously?

Good luck in proving your accusation.

You know when you quoted me, why did you miss out ''probably''?

The thing is, you don't even understand what his quote has to do with this topic, so I'm certain you haven't the first clue as to what Einstein understands and what he didn't.

How imaginative of you!

Not!

jan.

 

[Balerion]

It most certainly is what you implied... '' Not everyone has a religion, obviously...''
What you most probably mean is that not everyone believes in God.

That's not what I meant at all. I said what I meant to say. Just for a moment, define the words as they are commonly defined, and you won't be confused anymore.

If not, then you imply that ''religion'' is purely a belief in God, or something supernatural, which is wrong.

That's not at all what I implied. You've got yourself so confused with your personal definitions! Holy crap.

If religion isn't a way of life, and it isn't contingent upon belief in God, then what is it?

A set of beliefs, particularly about the nature of the universe, and humanity's role in it.

What does ''religious belief'' have to do with what we're talking about?

:facepalm:

Christianity, like Islam, are only aspects of ''religion'', not ''religion''.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

his is classic.
Thanks.

You're lost again, aren't you?

LOL!!! I didn't say it was a ''substitute word for lifestyle''.
Go back, read carefully, and see if you can work out what I actually said.

That's exactly what you said.

"And by religion I mean lifestyle."

:shrug:

I'm explaning that Christianity, or Islam, is not religion, but merely an aspect of religion. They are instructions on how to live ones life. That's what religion is. Do keep up.

Now you're demonstrating a profound ignorance of Islam and Christianity. Neither are merely instructions. Have you ever opened a Bible before? A Quaran?

Liar!!!

This is the definition of religion as recent as 1828.
The current dictionary definitions of religion are immature.

As usual, you're misinformed. The definition you list goes all the way back to the 1200s. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

Why are you so hung up on what words used to mean? Or, more correctly, what you think they used to mean?

I don't see why not, as you're talking nonsense.

Again, if you can't parse meaning out of that, it isn't something I'd be so eager to admit.

How do you know he doesn't believe in a higher power?

He says he doesn't. What's your point? What are you getting at?

Wrong! ''Theism'' is derived from the greek word ''theos'' which means ''God''.
The notion that it means different gods, is a secular concept which is why you are satisfied with that. Strongs Concordance

Your own link says, "God, a god," which you overlooked in your zeal to appear correct when in fact you're wrong.

I mean, fucking duh.

Anyway, the Online Etymology Dictionary (again), says:

1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

...meaning that the possible multiple-gods meaning came first.

Again, duh.

Anyway, what do you hope to prove here? Do you even have a point, or are you just desperately trying to be right about something?

Good luck in proving your accusation.

I don't have to prove anything. Your post is still there.

You know when you quoted me, why did you miss out ''probably''?

Doesn't matter. Qualifier or no, it was uncalled for.

How imaginative of you!

Not!

Speaking of imaginative...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

That's not what I meant at all. I said what I meant to say. Just for a moment, define the words as they are commonly defined, and you won't be confused anymore.


That's not at all what I implied. You've got yourself so confused with your personal definitions! Holy crap.

You meant one or the other. Otherwise you would explain what you mean instead weaseling out.

A set of beliefs, particularly about the nature of the universe, and humanity's role in it.

So if you believe the universe came about by purely natural causes, and humanity has no purpose, you are religious?

:facepalm:

Can't you answer the question?

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

That's your problem. ''No idea''.

You're lost again, aren't you?

No I just find you very funny.

That's exactly what you said.

"And by religion I mean lifestyle."

Let me know where the word substitution comes into play.

:shrug:

Now you're demonstrating a profound ignorance of Islam and Christianity. Neither are merely instructions. Have you ever opened a Bible before? A Quaran?

I didn't say they were ''merely instructions'', please don't deliberately misquote me again, or I will put you on ignore. While it is amusing to dialogue with you, I'm not going to waste my time with your usual crap.

As usual, you're misinformed. The definition you list goes all the way back to the 1200s. From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

So what?

Why are you so hung up on what words used to mean? Or, more correctly, what you think they used to mean?

You're wasting my time Balerion.
Come up with a proper rebuttel.

He says he doesn't. What's your point? What are you getting at?

My point is, you don't know, you believe based on what you think you know.
You're just arguing for the sake of it, aren't you?

Your own link says, "God, a god," which you overlooked in your zeal to appear correct when in fact you're wrong.

You forgot to quote the term ''generally'' which followed after ''a god,'' which is no surprise to me as you have demonstrated yourself on more than one occasion to be liar. The term ''general'' simply means without regard to particulars or exceptions, not multiple gods.

Anyway, the Online Etymology Dictionary (again), says:

1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

Does it really?
I didn't see it when I put ''religion'' in the search engine. Can you provide the link?

...meaning that the possible multiple-gods meaning came first.

Show me the link.

Again, duh.

Very mature of you.

Anyway, what do you hope to prove here? Do you even have a point, or are you just desperately trying to be right about something?

I'm educating you on the meaning of religion.

I don't have to prove anything. Your post is still there.

Ah! Making up your own evidence. Typical.

Doesn't matter. Qualifier or no, it was uncalled for.

Could it be that it is too close to the truth for comfort?

Speaking of imaginative...

... yeah! What's your point?

jan.

 

[river]

The TRUTH ABOUT religion

For starters that Horus , born in 3000BC

Born Dec.25th

Born of a virgin

Star of the east

Adored by three kings

Teacher at 12

Baptized/Ministry at 30

12 disciples

Performed miracles ( healing the sick , walking on water )

Known by names as , lamb of god / " the light " , etc

Crucified

Dead for three days

Resurrected


Sound familar


Also

Attis , Greece , 1200BC

Krishna , India , 900BC

Dionysus , Greece , 500BC

Milhra , Persia , 1200BC

And many , many , others

All with the same attributes as jesus , long before jesus

Eye opening isn't it !!!!!

 

[Sylvester]

River, these days (2014 and an internet) anyone who shows even a minor interest knows those do not pan out.

Horus also had a non-human head. I have been thinking and have done some research on Horus. I wonder if Horus was actually always a fictional character. Seems totally plausible to me.

 

[river]

River, these days (2014 and an internet) anyone who shows even a minor interest knows those do not pan out.

Not sure what you mean with this statement ??

Horus also had a non-human head. I have been thinking and have done some research on Horus. I wonder if Horus was actually always a fictional character. Seems totally plausible to me.

Well thats the thing

It could very well be , but at the same time , I think that it could very well be that Horus , the being , could be real

A event that Egyption's put down , in history , by symbolism

The program I'm watching is called Zeitgeist : the movie , on Netflix

Fascinating doc.

river

 

[Sylvester]

Not sure what you mean with this statement ??

That there is zero evidence to support any of those claims AND is easily searchable in this day...as opposed to say 1972.

Other than that, i have no interest in Zeitgeist.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by Sylvester
River, these days (2014 and an internet) anyone who shows even a minor interest knows those do not pan out.

That there is zero evidence to support any of those claims AND is easily searchable in this day...as opposed to say 1972.

Other than that, i have no interest in Zeitgeist.

But you have watched about an hour of it....

 

[Sylvester]

But you have watched about an hour of it....

Dont recall. I am familiar with the main points from varied sources. It's just a movie though.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
But you have watched about an hour of it....

Dont recall. I am familiar with the main points from varied sources. It's just a movie though.

It takes time , it takes time .....

But the facts are the facts

river