• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
lilithu said:
My guess is he already knows that.

I would presume to say that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and people who don't identify with any organized religion but whose "ultimate concern" is also justice share the same religion as myself.
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that the Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and people who don't identify with any organized religion would answer the question "what is your religion?" with "Islam", "Buddhism", "Christianity", and "none", respectively and not "justice"?

lilithu said:
Which is why I see it as breaking down the barriers of "us versus them." I honestly do not see how you justify saying that I'm creating "us versus them." I mean, how can you accuse me of simultaneously defining religion so broadly such that it loses meaning and also creating barriers where none existed before?
Click to expand...
Because the term has meanings and implications that you've disregarded. You've removed them from your definition, but they're still recognizable to everyone else. Your use of the term polarizes the discussion in an unhelpful way.

Love, justice, compassion and all sorts of other worthy things are shared between religions and between the religious and the irreligious; they can be recognized as common ground in their own right. However, when you bring in the idea that all these things are "religion", I think you effectively claim them for religion and thereby alienate the irreligious who recognize that they aren't really "religion".
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jayhawker Soule said:
No - just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that's why there's so much productive communication going on here, huh? :rolleyes:

The fact is that the definitions you two are promoting don't describe religion the way most people see it. That's fine, but it hinders conversation when you try to use non-standard definitions for words as if they were standard.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
mball1297 said:
The fact is that the definitions you two are promoting don't describe religion the way most people see it. That's fine, but it hinders conversation when you try to use non-standard definitions for words as if they were standard.
Click to expand...
Only if we refused to give our definitions. What in fact "hinders discussion" in this case is an adolescent and dogmatic refusal to consider those definitions once offered.
 
Jeremy Mason

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
mball1297 said:
Yeah, I guess that's why there's so much productive communication going on here, huh? :rolleyes:

The fact is that the definitions you two are promoting don't describe religion the way most people see it. That's fine, but it hinders conversation when you try to use non-standard definitions for words as if they were standard.
Click to expand...

The problem is society has water the true meaning of what the term Jew actually meant and through the years of blind conditioning, people have excepted erroneous applications. This happens quite frequently and if you look at a word in the Oxford Dictionary, it will have scores of definitions for one word as it morphs throughout time.

A good read is The Madman and the Professor, by Simon Winchester. It's about the development of the Oxford Dictionary and the bizarre means of how it came about.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jayhawker Soule said:
Only if we refused to give our definitions. What in fact "hinders discussion" in this case is an adolescent and dogmatic refusal to consider those definitions once offered.
Click to expand...

There's nothing adolescent or dogmatic about it. They just don't describe religion that well. They may describe your religion or your experience with religion, but not the overall term.

It reminds me of the people who, when asked "What's the best album of all-time?", respond with something obscure that they grew up with that isn't popular just to be "cool" and "hip". Defining "religion" in a new and "hip" way just doesn't work. There's a reason the dictionary gives us a certain definition.
 
C

challupa

Well-Known Member
I would venture to state that the beliefs of the founders of the various religions are no longer the ones we accept as ours today. As humanity grows, matures, and changes, so does our understanding of everything. This I believe is healthy because anything that cannot change when it needs to becomes stagnant and dead. Life is a process that is ever changing and what was good for us when we were "younger" may not do us any good now.

Why is it so important that people adhere to old outdated beliefs? Why is change and growth so frowned upon? If something doesn't work anymore does it make any sense whatsoever to cling to it stubbornly just because "it's always been that way"? For those who believe in God why do you believe it would be unchanging? Why do we limit an infinitely intelligent entity? Is there not room for growth and re-evaluation and learning? Who knows for sure that the words from our past are 100% accurate? Are we sure enough to feel justified to kill in their name? Just a few questions I ask....
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
lilithu said:
Yes, clearly you're annoyed. :p Even tho I'm clearly using a different meaning. The question is why you're so annoyed about be labeled "religious." Clearly it's impinging on something that you value. A sense of "I'm not one of them"?
Click to expand...

It seems you are quite confident in your armchair psychoanalysis of everyone who is not religious, but you've presented no objective basis for your opinion. All you've offered are the similarly unfounded assumptions of other religious people like yourself. I asked if you had an example of an atheist (not a theologian) arguing that everyone has a "religion", and you failed to provide. I'll ask again - please find me a source that is not affiliated with particular (organized) religion or theology who claims, as you do, that religion is a fundamental, unavoidable human characteristic - like breathing. Like maybe a psychoanalyst or somebody who, unlike yourself, has some genuine, research-based insight into the human psyche.

Of, if you are unable to deliver such a thing, you might as well drop your assertion or prove I'm actually "religious", as you've also been invited to do (and failed).

You've convinced me, Alceste. You don't care about meaning and identity (despite the fact that you display such pride in not caring about meaning and identity), so I'll just talk to those who do.
Click to expand...

Your impression that I'm displaying "pride" is purely subjective. (Surely you can see that at least.)

I agree that sneaking away in defeat is probably your best option at this point. :p
 
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
mball1297 said:
There's nothing adolescent or dogmatic about it. They just don't describe religion that well. They may describe your religion or your experience with religion, but not the overall term.

It reminds me of the people who, when asked "What's the best album of all-time?", respond with something obscure that they grew up with that isn't popular just to be "cool" and "hip". Defining "religion" in a new and "hip" way just doesn't work. There's a reason the dictionary gives us a certain definition.
Click to expand...

I agree. When somebody offers up a completely new definition of a word for discussion, nobody is under any obligation to accept it. I also think there is a reason we have a wide range of words pertaining to the deeper truths - spirituality, mysticism, shamanism, philosophy, etc etc... and also religion. Although they fall into a similar category of human psychology, they all describe subtly different experiences. That's why we have all those different words.I would happily define myself as "mystical" or "philosophical", less so "spiritual", and not at all "religious". (Actually, the proper word for what I am is "apophatic", and the other terms pertaining to the part of my psyche concerned with mystery are all far less appropriate.)

If this had kicked off with the word "spirituality" instead of "religion", the whole conversation would have taken a completely different direction.
 
Last edited:
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Jayhawker Soule said:
Parenthetically, while I have some issues with the Wikipedia entry, it at least moves beyond the superficiality that drives mball's efforts.
Click to expand...

Um...no, I actually agree with the whole first paragraph. The problem started when Lilithu ruled out the dictionary definition as outdated and wrong. That Wiki entry uses the basic dictionary definition while simply fleshing it out a little. It would have been fine if Lilithu had just added to the definition, but she threw it out completely for her own inadequate definition. I find it funny that you try to make fun of me without even understanding my view or what this argument is all about.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
mball1297 said:
That's true, but I would venture to say that when it's ignorance on the part of the vast majority of people, that does constitute a completely new definition.
Click to expand...
Correct, just as when the majority adulterates a term like 'evolution' it constitutes "a completely new definition." Therefore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top