Working definition of religion?

[S.A.M.]

No, actually, but I really don't want to get into that in this thread.

Are you implying Atheism is a religion?
If you are, then your definition is severly flawed.
It should then read simply...

"Organised belief"

In which case pretty much everything can be a religion, and it makes the word pretty much meaningless.
No?

Of course, that is the way Hinduism sees it. Whether you have a position, or don't have a position about God (theism, atheism, or agnosticism), they are all beliefs. Both theism and atheism are positions about God. Religion would be organised position. Atheism is not a religion if there is no organised philosophy behind it, like the Samkhyas.

In the west, atheism is ill-defined as a philosophy, I think.

Everyone comes up with their own positions on an individual basis.

 

[one_raven]

That would have been incorrect since squids, giant or otherwise, can be explained IN nature.



Nope, it means not existing in nature.

There was no proof of their existence in nature until fairly recently, so, according to reasonable, skeptical dictate, they did not exist in science - exactly like God(s).

Then it was discovered that they DO exist, and were acknoledged by science and reason.
As of right now, Nessie, Yeti, Chupacabra and unicorns are "supernatural" because they are not deemed to be existent by reason or science.

Supernatural is a temporary state until existence is verified and testable.

 

[(Q)]

Not really. The super part indicates that its more than natural, i.e. something more than what we are naturally accustomed to consider as commonplace.

In the case of 'supernatural,' it is beyond nature, hence doesn't exist in nature.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the case of 'supernatural,' it is beyond nature, hence doesn't exist in nature.

Beyond nature only qualifies until the means to perceive or measure are created.

 

[one_raven]

Of course, that is the way Hinduism sees it. Whether you have a position, or don't have a position about God (theism, atheism, or agnosticism), they are all beliefs. Both theism and atheism are positions about God. Religion would be organised position. Atheism is not a religion if there is no organised philosophy behind it, like the Samkhyas.

In the west, atheism is ill-defined as a philosophy, I think.

Everyone comes up with their own positions on an individual basis.

The Communist party has a defined belief.
Is it a religion?

 

[one_raven]

An ideological belief system centered upon the notion of life beyond physical death.

I think that may be a good place to start...

 

[S.A.M.]

The Communist party has a defined belief.
Is it a religion?

Is there God anywhere in the picture?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think that may be a good place to start...

Do all religions believe in life after death?

I don't think so?

 

[(Q)]

There was no proof of their existence in nature until fairly recently, so, according to reasonable, skeptical dictate, they did not exist in science - exactly like God(s).

I would suspect that existing in science and existing in nature are two different things? If they didn't exist in nature, they simply didn't exist. But, to say they were supernatural would conclude that they do in fact exist, but not in nature.

Supernatural is a temporary state until existence is verified and testable.

I don't think that is the correct use of the word as it suggests that something does in fact exist, just not in nature. You could be right, though. Interesting.

 

[one_raven]

I would suspect that existing in science and existing in nature are two different things? If they didn't exist in nature, they simply didn't exist. But, to say they were supernatural would conclude that they do in fact exist, but not in nature.

Exactly.
To say somethign doesn't exist in nature is to say it doesn't exist at all.
So, although I do appreciate you cheeky dig at theists, the definition is not one that would be satisfactory to theists (at least not somewhat intelligent, clever ones).

 

[glaucon]

Do all religions believe in life after death?

I don't think so?

You realize of course that this objection is question-begging right???


Regardless, you're wrong.

 

[one_raven]

Is there God anywhere in the picture?

Damnit woman!

You said religion is "Organized belief in God".
Then you say that Atheism is a religion, simply because it is a belief.

Please clarify and be more specific.

Do all religions believe in life after death?

I don't think so?

I don't know, do they?
Name one that doesn't, then explain what qualifies it as a religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

You realize of course that this objection is question-begging right???


Regardless, you're wrong.

Well if you say so, it must be true.

 

[glaucon]

Well if you say so, it must be true.

...If you say so...




Fair enough.

 

[S.A.M.]

Damnit woman!

You said religion is "Organized belief in God".
Then you say that Atheism is a religion, simply because it is a belief.

Please clarify and be more specific.

I said atheism is a belief in God too, His nonexistence. Unless they've found evidence and not let on?

I don't know, do they?
Name one that doesn't, then explain what qualifies it as a religion.

Well the atheist philosophies of Hinduism do not believe in life after death:

The atheistic viewpoint as present in the Samkhya and Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy takes the form of rejecting a creator-God. The Samkhya school believed in a dual existence of Prakriti ("nature") and Purusha ("spirit") and had no place for a Ishvara ("God") in its system. The early Mimamsakas believed in a adrishta ("unseen") that was the result of performing karmas ("works") and saw no need for an Ishvara in their system. Mimamsa, as a philosophy, deals exclusively with karma and thus is sometimes called Karma-Mimamsa. The karmas dealt with in Mimamsa concern the performance of Yajnas ("sacrifices to gods") enjoined in the Vedas.

The only true atheists in the Western sense would be the Carvakas:

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
how is it that he come not back again, restless for love of his kindred?
Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here
all these ceremonies for the dead, — there is no other fruit anywhere.
The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.
All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.
and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,
these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,
while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

 

[one_raven]

I had a conversation the other day with the Abbot of a Buddhist monastery.
He is widely considered to be one of the world's foremost English translators of the Pali Canon.
He has spent the last 40 years or so of his life spending almost all his waking moments contemplating, translating, teaching and discussing the Buddha's teachings.
You would say he is not "religious"?
I would disagree.

I said atheism is a belief in God too, His nonexistence.

That's not true.
There is a big difference between believing God does not exist and not believing he does exist.
I know that this has been covered ad nauseum in this forum, so I'll not get into it again.

And actually, the Communist Party did (and may still do) have a specific, official stance on the existence of God.
So that makes them a religion?

Also religion can not be personal?
It has to be "organized" (which you have not quite defined yet).
So if I have a very specific view on God and Philosophy, that doesn;t qualify as a religion?

What about philosophers that have included a very specific stance on the existence of God?
Ayn Rand was an Atheist and that played a role in her philosophy - is Objectivism a religion?

Sorry, but your definition is just not thorough enough, in my book.

 

[(Q)]

Beyond nature only qualifies until the means to perceive or measure are created.

Incorrect.

 

[one_raven]

Incorrect.

Care to elaborate a bit more?

 

[(Q)]

I did in the post just above sams.

 

[S.A.M.]

I had a conversation the other day with the Abbot of a Buddhist monastery.
He is widely considered to be one of the world's foremost English translators of the Pali Canon.
He has spent the last 40 years or so of his life spending almost all his waking moments contemplating, translating, teaching and discussing the Buddha's teachings.
You would say he is not "religious"?
I would disagree.

Does he believe Buddha is God?

I know lots of people who devote their lives exclusively to studying writings and historical figures.

I think Buddhism is an excellent belief system, but the Buddhists and Jains I've known have no concept of religion as I know it. They extol the virtues of Buddha and Mahavira as exemplary enlightened beings. Would you consider that as a religion?

That's not true.
There is a big difference between believing God does not exist and not believing he does exist.
I know that this has been covered ad nauseum in this forum, so I'll not get into it again.

I'm sure it has, however, believing God does not exist also requires faith since they have no evidence, just like theists.

And actually, the Communist Party did (and may still do) have a specific, official stance on the existence of God.
So that makes them a religion?

Not unless religion is the basis of their movement, like the Arya Samaj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arya_Samaj

Also religion can not be personal?
It has to be "organized" (which you have not quite defined yet).
So if I have a very specific view on God and Philosophy, that doesn;t qualify as a religion?

That would be theism but not religion.

What about philosophers that have included a very specific stance on the existence of God?
Ayn Rand was an Atheist and that played a role in her philosophy - is Objectivism a religion?

No its a personal belief, since the core philosophy is not about God.

Sorry, but your definition is just not thorough enough, in my book.

Okay