Methods of human relationship
Working definition of religion?
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
I know it does.
I did not say it doesn't.
What I did say, however is...
"There is a big difference between believing God does not exist and not believing he does exist."
The big difference between the two...
Believing God does not exist requires faith.
Not believing God does exist does not.
sam,
its a difference between positive (strong) and negative (weak) atheism. there are an infinite number of things that I do not believe in, that does not mean that I have a viewpoint about each one. god, like a grapefruit floating between galaxies, probably does not exist, and I have no reason to believe it exists. therefore, I do not believe it exists. that does not mean I have evidence that there is no such grapefruit. understand what I mean?
as for the definition of religion:
I would say that religion is the positive belief, of a person or group, that there exists an agent or process that can have an effect on a person, despite a lack of repeatable evidence for the agent or process.
how is that? I think that is a fairly sturdy definition, though I am open to tweaking.
Thanks for stating this thread Raven, it is a foundation that other arguments need, and (as you know) circular argument really get under my skin. its like arguing what came first, the chicken or egg, without defining what a chicken is =]
its a difference between positive (strong) and negative (weak) atheism. there are an infinite number of things that I do not believe in, that does not mean that I have a viewpoint about each one. god, like a grapefruit floating between galaxies, probably does not exist, and I have no reason to believe it exists. therefore, I do not believe it exists. that does not mean I have evidence that there is no such grapefruit. understand what I mean?
as for the definition of religion:
I would say that religion is the positive belief, of a person or group, that there exists an agent or process that can have an effect on a person, despite a lack of repeatable evidence for the agent or process.
how is that? I think that is a fairly sturdy definition, though I am open to tweaking.
Thanks for stating this thread Raven, it is a foundation that other arguments need, and (as you know) circular argument really get under my skin. its like arguing what came first, the chicken or egg, without defining what a chicken is =]
Incorrect.
Atheism is the assertion that belief in a god is incorrect.
Note your usage of the descriptor philosophy, as opposed to religion.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you.
If any atheist makes the claim that God doesn't exist, that claim is as valuable as a theist stating God does exist. Neither can provide evidence to validate their assertion. Those particular atheists you may go ahead and lump in with theists as you did earlier in the thread.
However, an atheist who says "I don't know if God exists" cannot be included that group because they are making no positive or negative claims.
That is totally correct ashura!
Religion, a code, a law, a tradition, a unifying testament of beliefs, to be followed, ritualistic dogma of ancient people. Religion has evolved, it had to, or it would have been wiped out.
No longer do you have the damning priests who torture for disobedience, or kill, or torture those who don't follow their dogma. (at least on this side of the globe) As society evolved so did religion, we don't think witches exist anymore, but just a few centuries ago, many innocent women were been killed because someone claimed they were witches or devil worshipers.
So there you have it, religion is traditional belief system, that changes as our moral codes changes, and it's different all over the world, each clan as it's traditions or beliefs, some still kill those who don't believe, or reject to believe or leave their religion, apostates are threatened daily!
Religion, a code, a law, a tradition, a unifying testament of beliefs, to be followed, ritualistic dogma of ancient people. Religion has evolved, it had to, or it would have been wiped out.
No longer do you have the damning priests who torture for disobedience, or kill, or torture those who don't follow their dogma. (at least on this side of the globe) As society evolved so did religion, we don't think witches exist anymore, but just a few centuries ago, many innocent women were been killed because someone claimed they were witches or devil worshipers.
So there you have it, religion is traditional belief system, that changes as our moral codes changes, and it's different all over the world, each clan as it's traditions or beliefs, some still kill those who don't believe, or reject to believe or leave their religion, apostates are threatened daily!
no - many jungle religions are there
religion deals with the connection between the conditioned state(lower) of existence and the liberated (or higher) state of existence - buddhists argue that the higher state is ultimately comprised of nothingness, which is what differentiates them from many other religions which would define the absolute as personal (or alternatively a substance that is impersonal)
transcendental is probably a better word - something beyond the senses - a person totally satisfied with being born, eating, sleeping, mating, defending and ultimately getting sick old and dying feels no impetus to venture into religion (much like animals don't have an impetus to approach religion)
philosophy plays an important part in religion - other wise it is all fanatical or sentimental
regardless to the degree that it is institutionalized (which is an inevitable result of any field of knowledge you care to mention), it must be personal
BG 9.2: This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed.
a religion becomes dynamic when it has practitioners - when it has no practitioners it becomes an academic exercise for anthropologists (or a religion with practitioners becomes an academic exercise for anthropologists that never encounter the practitioners - which is actually quite common)
agree on? Well there's always a first time for everything I guess
what about animistic religions? many don't have a "higher state" but believe in "supernatural" things.lightgigantic said:
that is the only kind I have encountered =]lightgigantic said:
Cato's definition: Religion is the positive belief, of a person or group, that there exists an agent or process that can have an effect on a person, despite a lack of repeatable evidence for the agent or process.
anyone have thoughts on this one?
Last edited:
"Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing." ~ Ambrose Bierce
"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it." ~ Cicero
"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." ~ Mencken
I don't believe you.
On second thought, you may be correct.
I may have let the Atheists beat these Weak and Strong Atheism ideas (the whole fact that they are categorized and labeled in such a way - similar to belief systems - never quite suite right with me anyway) into me for too long, and have started to let them wear me down by brute force.
I think perhaps a belief that there is no God is Atheism and no belief that there is a God is Agnosticism.
I think many have latched onto the label atheist and are running away from agnostic because of the social connotations of agnostic as someone who is sitting on the fence and they reject the notion of being indecisive.
Agnostic simply means "without knowledge", so an intelligent, skeptical, agnostic would say that they have no reason to believe in God, as they have no evidence that he does exist.
This is not saying that they do not believe in God, nor it is saying that they are indecisive. It is simply saying that they do not take a position on the question, as, in their estimation, there is no evidence regarding the matter.
An Atheist, is one who believes there is no God. A (without, or lack of) theist (God) - so an Atheist is without God, or believes there is a lack of God. i.e. God does not exist.
So, to be not believe there is a God - to be an Agnostic - does not require belief.
To to believe there is no God - to be an Atheist - requires belief.
I still think your definition of religion is insufficient, though.
I thought this was interesting...
E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic.
A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. 1
A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. 2
The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws. 3
The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.
E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic.
A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. 1
A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. 2
The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws. 3
The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.
Is that religion?
Is a religious person with "serious doubts" agnostic? If so, weak atheism is a subset of agnosticism; otherwise I think they're the same . . .
Although I've heard "science is agnostic" more than "science is weakly atheist". Surely science isn't weakly anything? Either something is testable or it isn't. God isn't.
Although I've heard "science is agnostic" more than "science is weakly atheist". Surely science isn't weakly anything? Either something is testable or it isn't. God isn't.
Guess you're lacking all these then:
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with the questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
