Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You just did.
Whence the atheist superficiality about other people's religiousness?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
She did?
So along the same lines, if several people claim to be your father, you automatically have several fathers?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, but if I accepted their claims (somehow) I would have lumped them into one category.
Signal lumped these people into one category by referring to all of them as religious people. Not that he could have done much about it
I think they were categorized as people making the claim :No, but if I accepted their claims (somehow) I would have lumped them into one category.
Signal lumped these people into one category by referring to all of them as religious people. Not that he could have done much about it
Originally Posted by Signal
When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.
So along similar lines ...
When several people claim or imply to be your father, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in whether you were or were not a consequence of their having copulated with your mother, their genetic make-up and whichever other factors may be relevant.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I see. Sorry, my bad.I think they were categorized as people making the claim :
Originally Posted by Signal
When several people claim or imply to be religious, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in their spiritual attainment, competence and whichever other factors may be relevant.
So along similar lines ...
When several people claim or imply to be your father, it wouldn't be fair to lump them all into the same category, as if there would be no differences in whether you were or were not a consequence of their having copulated with your mother, their genetic make-up and whichever other factors may be relevant.
My apologies to Signal.
By the way, I also posted a more on-topic reply (post 20).
If having a particular favorite color or a particular religion is not characterized by any (affirmative) tell tale signs they become meaningless or hopelessly vague categories.
So IOW you are saying having X as a favorite color is automatically plausible as long as one does not have a complete absence of it in one's wardrobe (or whatever else one imagines to be a suspicious circumstance for it being false).
So, to continue in line with such vague reasoning, red is Obama's favorite color
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Like I said, someone claiming some color to be their favorite color is not of personal importance to me. In other words, I don't care enough to be suspicious (unless there are suspicious circumstances that cause me to question the statement).
Suspicious circumstances are, for instance, having evidence to the contrary, the likelihood of the claim being true being statistically very low, or that it is based off a false premise (as in you example below).
So, to continue in line with such vague reasoning, red is Obama's favorite color
Also, there is a difference between a person making a claim about himself ("My favorite color is blue") and someone making a claim about another person ("Obama's favorite color is red"). I am much more inclined to believe the person making a claim about himself, if the claim is of no personal importance to me.
Last edited:
Is there not here also a difference between believing what you are being told as truth, and merely accepting them for the sake of utility.
If someone says their favourite colour is red, I might accept it for the purpose of discussion but not necessarily believe it as true.
If someone says their favourite colour is red, I might accept it for the purpose of discussion but not necessarily believe it as true.
My favourite colour is red. I don't care if no-one believes me because you're all going to burn in the eternal hellfire (which burns red, by the way, because it hurts more) if you try to deny it.
so why do you suggest there are no false premises surrounding the use of the word religion?
Atheists often question the reality behind someone's claim to be religious - as they did repeatedly (and erroneously, IMHO) during Reagan's and W's campaigns for President.
The central problem is that there are no actual criteria for the degree of a person's religiousness, that religious people seem willing to accept. That would not matter much, either, except that
meanwhile, people defending religion or specific religions usually come around to throwing a bunch of bad people out of the defended category, whatever it is, to avoid dealing with the taint.
So areligious people, even the theistic ones, get impatient with the double standard. If you don't want everyone who appears to be religious and claims to be religious and is accepted in society as religious to be included in the category "religious", give us something to go on in excluding them - in advance of scandal, when it's useful.
The central problem is that there are no actual criteria for the degree of a person's religiousness, that religious people seem willing to accept. That would not matter much, either, except that
meanwhile, people defending religion or specific religions usually come around to throwing a bunch of bad people out of the defended category, whatever it is, to avoid dealing with the taint.
So areligious people, even the theistic ones, get impatient with the double standard. If you don't want everyone who appears to be religious and claims to be religious and is accepted in society as religious to be included in the category "religious", give us something to go on in excluding them - in advance of scandal, when it's useful.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
First of all, you're creating multiple threads on the same topic with the same question....
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107297
Secondly, I'm copying and pasting my response...
The very definition of religion (or being religious) is a mixed bag. Whether we are talking about being religious in brushing our teeth every day or in believing and practicing religious dogmas, religion itself has a very broad range.
But more specifically, since we are in the Religion subforum, and assuming that we are referring to religion in regards to the supernatural, the answer is pretty simple.
ULTRA here claimed that nobody decides. I think quite the opposite is true. Anyone can decide whether or not someone is religious, regardless of if it is themself or others. Traditionally, religion - or being religious - was thought of as someone who simply believed a supernatural teaching (such as Christianity, Islam etc). No practice or ritual was necessary to represent their beliefs. However, more recently, a new term has come into light: "Spiritual". In previous history, "spiritual" and "religious" were, in definition, one in the same. Yet, in modern society, we find that though the defining characteristics of being "religious" has slightly more or less stayed the same (meaning to belief), being "spiritual" has somewhat taken on it's own meaning.
It seems that with the changing times, being "spiritual" has come to identify someone who believes, and being "religious" means to take a proactive stance in their beliefs - to practice the rituals associated with that belief system.
Now, understanding that the two are different in contents, the definition of being "spiritual", in my own observation, has also come to mean that the believer is more moderate or passive in their belief and practice. Whereas, the "religious" are more stern and adherent to their religions teachings, regardless of their own personal mentality or judgements against their teachings.
I've said this before somewhere on this site, but cannot recall exactly where. Regardless, I still find that the following phrase, though different in structure, can apply to this discussion:
"Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, regardless of what is right."
It seems very simple that, by abiding by the definitions as I have provided here, one could seemingly replace "Morality" with "Spirituality" (so that I am clear, the two are unrelated and I do not mean to replace one with the other to mean the same thing in it's own definition. Morality does not equal Spirituality. I'm simply changing the words to show that typically the people who are "spiritual" tend to be more lenient and moderate in their belifs. I.E. Being "spiritual" does not, in essence, require the same adherence and practice as being "religious".)
Now, as I digress, anyone can be either religious or spiritual by the their own consideration or that of others. We need no authority to designate who is and who is not one or the other. We are able to discern that on our own, based on our own interpretation.
I hope that what I've said here is understandable. The definition of who is religious (or spiritual) is really a subjective pretense which can be applied to anyone.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There may or may not be, but I most of the time I have no reason to be suspicious about someone claiming to have this or that religion. Most of the time I do not know whether or not it is based off a false premise and, frankly, I do not care enough to go an try to find out.
Ever tried to understand colour from the point of view of a colour-blind person? Sometimes, you just have to take it on faith.
But color-blindness isn't an issue with the national budget and state policies, while religiosity is.
Then I guess any discussions you lead on critiques of "religious" persons is also similarly hindered.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Pardon? I thought we were discussing the topic in a general sense.
Either way, why would that hinder me?
Also, I don't critique religious people. Not because they are religious at least.
iceaura,
I believe the point of the thread asks why they accept that someone is religious because they say so.
There must be, otherwise religion, and, being religious, have no meaning.
Does that mean they are religious?
Why don't you affored the scrutiny in finding out?
For example, on numerous occasions athiests defend the idea that
Einstein was NOT religious.
jan.
I believe the point of the thread asks why they accept that someone is religious because they say so.
There must be, otherwise religion, and, being religious, have no meaning.
Does that mean they are religious?
Why don't you affored the scrutiny in finding out?
For example, on numerous occasions athiests defend the idea that
Einstein was NOT religious.
jan.