Atheists: A Question About Newborn Kittens.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religiosity, or theism?

I guess it varies by religion. I was specifically thinking of Confucianism and Shinto, both of which emphasize the importance of ritual.

 

[Heyo]

FWIW, plenty of non-Abrahamic religions also equate religiosity with virtue.

Many non-Abrahamic religions are more like, or at least at the edge of, philosophy.
E.g. Buddhism, some variants are considered philosophy, even by western commenters. Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism (in some of their variants) are about "living the good life" just as much as Platonism or stoicism are.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which makes a lot more sense than defining religion as something that values theism if you ask me (even if you don't).

 

[Augustus]

Many non-Abrahamic religions are more like, or at least at the edge of, philosophy.
E.g. Buddhism, some variants are

In the west, we implicitly tend to define the concept of religion based on how much it resembles Christianity.

How would you differentiate a “ritualised philosophy” from a religion though?

For me there is no meaningful way to differentiate a religion from a “secular” philosophy/ideology/worldview and all attempts to do this basically assume Christianity is the yardstick for a religion.

 

[Heyo]

In the west, we implicitly tend to define the concept of religion based on how much it resembles Christianity.

How would you differentiate a “ritualised philosophy” from a religion though?

For me there is no meaningful way to differentiate a religion from a “secular” philosophy/ideology/worldview and all attempts to do this basically assume Christianity is the yardstick for a religion.

I would like to define religion as a belief system having some sort of divine "higher being" but someone has already thrown a wrench into that by classifying Buddhism as a religion.

 

[crossfire]

I would like to define religion as a belief system having some sort of divine "higher being" but someone has already thrown a wrench into that by classifying Buddhism as a religion.

Religion is the separation of the sacred from the profane. In Buddhism, the mind is the sacred space, and the profane is the outer world. When you withdraw from the profane outer world into the inner sacred world to meditate, you are practicing religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to define religion as a belief system having some sort of divine "higher being" but someone has already thrown a wrench into that by classifying Buddhism as a religion.

I generally think of a religion as "a community of shared belief that gets tax breaks or favours from government (edit: but isn't a political party)."

I haven't found a definition that works better.

 

[crossfire]

I generally think of a religion as "a community of shared belief that gets tax breaks or favours from government (edit: but isn't a political party)."

I haven't found a definition that works better.

What you are describing are 501(c)(3) organizations here in the US, and not all of them are religious.

501(c)(3) organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Solitary practitioners who are not 501(c)(3) status are certainly practicing a religion, but don't fit your criteria.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you are describing are 501(c)(3) organizations here in the US, and not all of them are religious.

501(c)(3) organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not all of them are communities of shared belief, either.

Edit: or communities at all.

Solitary practitioners who are not 501(c)(3) status are certainly practicing a religion, but don't fit your criteria.

They're certainly practicing a religion?

I'm pretty liberal with how I define "community" - IMO, a solitary practitioner who's in occasional correspondence with other practitioners would probably qualify... and there would probably be some world headquarters or the like for the religion getting a tax break somewhere.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would like to define religion as a belief system having some sort of divine "higher being" but someone has already thrown a wrench into that by classifying Buddhism as a religion.

It goes beyond that.

 

[LuisDantas]

They're certainly practicing a religion?

If they are practicioners, the premise is that they are.

There would be no other reason to call them practicioners.

I'm pretty liberal with how I define "community" - IMO, a solitary practitioner who's in occasional correspondence with other practitioners would probably qualify... and there would probably be some world headquarters or the like for the religion getting a tax break somewhere.

That is probably doable, but not very likely to happen. At least not with some degree of undesirable dispute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they are practicioners, the premise is that they are.

There would be no other reason to call them practicioners.

They're practicing something, but without a community, what they're practicing isn't a religion.

A belief system? Certainly. A personal philosophy? Maybe.

That is probably doable, but not very likely to happen. At least not with some degree of undesirable dispute.

What's not likely to happen?

There are plenty of fringe religions with only one practicioner in a given town who tries to maintain a connection with their larger religious community as best they can: adhering to a tradition, communicating online, maybe attending some sort of in-person gathering when they can, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

They're practicing something, but without a community, what they're practicing isn't a religion.

A belief system? Certainly. A personal philosophy? Maybe.

Seems to me that it comes down to an arbitrary decision on which is necessary to define a religion (or justify the use of that word). The practice, or the community?

Myself, I favor the practice. Communities are often helpful, but can also be a hindrance, even a serious one.

What's not likely to happen?

The building of some sort of "alliance" of otherwise solitary practicioners so that they qualify as an organization for fiscal and similar purposes.

Having governmental recognition can be helpful, and the tax exceptions certainly are desirable. But it would be quite the nightmare to agree on anything of meaning.

Further yet, the very act of making the attempt would be a deviation from many a personal path.

There are plenty of fringe religions with only one practicioner in a given town who tries to maintain a connection with their larger religious community as best they can: adhering to a tradition, communicating online, maybe attending some sort of in-person gathering when they can, etc.

True enough, but was that the subject matter at hand?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me that it comes down to an arbitrary decision on which is necessary to define a religion (or justify the use of that word). The practice, or the community?

Myself, I favor the practice. Communities are often helpful, but can also be a hindrance, even a serious one.

But I'm not talking about what's most beneficial; I'm talking about how "religion" is defined... and a religion is a community.

The building of some sort of "alliance" of otherwise solitary practicioners so that they qualify as an organization for fiscal and similar purposes.

Having governmental recognition can be helpful, and the tax exceptions certainly are desirable. But it would be quite the nightmare to agree on anything of meaning.

Further yet, the very act of making the attempt would be a deviation from many a personal path.

I think I may not have explained myself well. I didn't mean to suggest some sort of long-distance not-for-profit organization; I'm saying that it's very common to find that amongst some loose network of lone practitioners will be an organization or two that registered somewhere for favorable tax treatment.

True enough, but was that the subject matter at hand?

I think we've strayed pretty far from the original topic of the thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it? I see them as fairly independent things.

On second thought, I can see how a certain kind of theist would have trouble in being an apatheist as well.

I would say that anyone who doesn't care about the existence of gods is someone who would not bother to do the sort of investigation needed to arrive at belief in a god or gods.

I suppose that in the Venn diagram, the "apatheist" zone isn't perfectly contained within the "atheist" zone, but it's close.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I'm not talking about what's most beneficial; I'm talking about how "religion" is defined... and a religion is a community.

For fiscal or legal purposes, that is indeed probably a requirement.

I just can't see how that would be important where it really matters, though.

I think I may not have explained myself well. I didn't mean to suggest some sort of long-distance not-for-profit organization; I'm saying that it's very common to find that amongst some loose network of lone practitioners will be an organization or two that registered somewhere for favorable tax treatment.

I don't doubt it.

I think we've strayed pretty far from the original topic of the thread.

And now we are discussing what is necessary to caracterize a religious practicioner, aren't we?

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that anyone who doesn't care about the existence of gods is someone who would not bother to do the sort of investigation needed to arrive at belief in a god or gods.

Perhaps. But I am not convinced that it is even possible for anyone to be a theist by that route. I very much doubt that it is the usual way.

For most people it seems to be either wishful thinking in order to keep certain fears and insecurities in check or, preferably, the aesthetical inclination towards that belief.

I suppose that in the Venn diagram, the "apatheist" zone isn't perfectly contained within the "atheist" zone, but it's close.

I hope and expect that you are wrong on this specific matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps. But I am not convinced that it is even possible for anyone to be a theist by that route. I very much doubt that it is the usual way.

Do you mean atheist? I'm having trouble understanding your reply.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you mean atheist? I'm having trouble understanding your reply.

No, I mean theist.

I don't think that theism in the form of the result of an investigation, as you call it, is at all common.

 

[Heyo]

It goes beyond that.

Seems to me that it comes down to an arbitrary decision on which is necessary to define a religion (or justify the use of that word). The practice, or the community?

It is arbitrary anyway you turn it. The belief in and worship of a supreme being (or multiple) would in my opinion be a good criterion to distinguish religion from philosophy but with accepting Buddhism as a religion that's no longer possible.
Judges who have to decide if an organisation has the rights that come with the label are struggling and come to different decision. Pastafarianism is a religion in New Zealand but not in Germany. In the US, religions that have the use of hallucinogenic substances as a ritual are treated arbitrarily. Native American use of peyote is OK, Rastafarianism is OK but trying to form a religion around LSD didn't the approval of the authorities.
There simply is no consistent definition of religion.