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

[Magic Man]

Correct, just as when the majority adulterates a term like 'evolution' it constitutes "a completely new definition." Therefore?

Therefore your definition of "religion" is completely new, despite your protests.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Therefore your definition of "religion" is completely new, despite your protests.

I think you missed the point.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jay's debate tactics either.

Think of it as a speech impediment - Jay is only capable of expressing an opinion if it's liberally seasoned with pejoratives.

 

[Willamena]

What is this "completely new definition" of "religion"? I scrolled back but was unable to locate it.

 

[Alceste]

I actually agree with the whole first paragraph. 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.

Yes, I agree with that part too. I think this sidetrack down the road of what "religion" means has demonstrated why, according to the wiki entry, "most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities."

A balance, I might add, that Lilithu and Jay have failed to find.

 

[Magic Man]

I think you missed the point.

OK, then maybe you can enlighten me. What was this point I missed?

 

[Alceste]

What is this "completely new definition" of "religion"? I scrolled back but was unable to locate it.

Try here.

It's a minor variation on the tired and oft-debunked "Atheism is a religion too" theme - an attempt to define "religion" so vaguely it applies to everyone, including the non-religious, and therefore has no meaning at all.

 

[Willamena]

Try here.

It's a minor variation on the tired and oft-debunked "Atheism is a religion too" theme - an attempt to define "religion" so vaguely it applies to everyone, including the non-religious, and therefore has no meaning at all.

Ah, thanks.

A variation on religion as a person's relationship to the world around them. I'd favour that, too, over religion as institution.


I'd hazard that it's not very "new" if Tillich suggested it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I agree with that part too. I think this sidetrack down the road of what "religion" means has demonstrated why, according to the wiki entry, "most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities."

A balance, I might add, that Lilithu and Jay have failed to find.

Maybe it would help if they considered how they would react if a similarily loaded word were applied in the opposite direction, say... "hobby", which I'll define as "a pursuit that fills a substantial part of a person's non-working time".

Everybody has a hobby! For some it's model building; for others it's bridge; for some it's religious practice and worship.

See? Isn't that inclusive? Don't you just feel the togetherness?

 

[Willamena]

Maybe it would help if they considered how they would react if a similarily loaded word were applied in the opposite direction, say... "hobby", which I'll define as "a pursuit that fills a substantial part of a person's non-working time".

Everybody has a hobby! For some it's model building; for others it's bridge; for some it's religious practice and worship.

See? Isn't that inclusive? Don't you just feel the togetherness?

I hope you're not being sarcastic (I can never tell on the Internet).

That is essentially what a hobby is.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

OK, then maybe you can enlighten me. What was this point I missed?

He was saying that the term "evolution" has been a victim sociological manipulation. Therefor, to preserve the original intent of the word, people should refrain from antiquating evolution with perhaps pseudo creationism.

 

[Magic Man]

He was saying that the term "evolution" has been a victim sociological manipulation. Therefor, to preserve the original intent of the word, people should refrain from antiquating evolution with perhaps pseudo creationism.

Yes, I got that point from it, too. I also agree with that point. However, he then asked "Therefore?" in response to my assertion before that, and so I responded to that question. It was basically him saying "Yeah, I agree with that, what's your point", and me saying "My point was...".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hope you're not being sarcastic (I can never tell on the Internet).

That is essentially what a hobby is.

Somewhat.

I think that like the word "religion", "hobby" has certain connotations. Yes, religious worship is something that people do engage in outside of work, so we might be able to stretch the term to include religion, but the term "hobby" normally implies something optional, trivial or something that can be easily set aside, which I think are attributes that most religious people would not say apply to their religion.

That's why I referred to it as a loaded word: while you may be able to shoehorn certain concepts into it, using the term frames the discussion in a certain way that may not be appropriate to what's being examined.

 

[lilithu]

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"?

If you asked me in a different context "What religion are you?" I would say, Unitarian Universalist." But if you then explained that you were defining religion as one's highest values and that you believed that everyone who shares justice as their highest value shares a common religion, I would have no objection to that. So before you go assuming that it's a "fact" that Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians would disagree, why dont' we identify some people in those groups who also say that they hold justice as their highest value, and ask them? Please realize that they do not have the same hangup as you seem to about being labeled "religious."

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.

Most paradigm shifts are preceded by resistance. I hardly think the fact that some people are going to object is reason to avoid the discussion.

What I am advocating here is that we discard the distinction between "us and them" with regards to religion, and the only "polarization" that I am seeing is from people who want to preserve that distinction. So accusing me of being polarizing is a bit disingenuous.

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

lol, all I meant was that I was not going to waste my time arguing anymore with someone who has made it clear that she has no concerns beyond eating crisps.

 

[lilithu]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Jay's debate tactics either.

Once again, I think you've misunderstood Willa's post. Is this intentional?

I hope you're not being sarcastic (I can never tell on the Internet).

That is essentially what a hobby is.

That's what I was thinking too. Why would I (or anyone) be offended at being told I have a hobby?

I'd hazard that it's not very "new" if Tillich suggested it.

Everything old is new again, dontcha know?

Is that your way of saying that lilithu's definition of "religion" is generally accepted, despite it not being generally accepted?

It's not my definition. I should be so astute. It was Tillich's definition, and even there he was not alone in it.

Yes, I have, BTW.

Did you understand any of it?

 

[Alceste]

Ah, thanks.

A variation on religion as a person's relationship to the world around them. I'd favour that, too, over religion as institution.


I'd hazard that it's not very "new" if Tillich suggested it.

Fair enough - "new" was the wrong word for me to choose there. I didn't mean literally "new". I meant something halfway between "esoteric" and "obscure". Quite a faux pas, since I'm the one being anal about the correct use of words.

There might be something to Tillich's argument that religion could be defined as a person's "ultimate concern" and Lilithu's assertion that everyone has one if that were demonstrably true.

But since it isn't at all true that everyone has an "ultimate concern", or that non-theists who have one relate to in the same way people of faith relate to their religious principles, it's a poor definition in my view, and mball's.

I would argue that as we are the non-theists, we get to have the final say in what we are and what we believe - not a small, virtually unknown clique of theologians.

 

[Willamena]

Somewhat.

I think that like the word "religion", "hobby" has certain connotations. Yes, religious worship is something that people do engage in outside of work, so we might be able to stretch the term to include religion, but the term "hobby" normally implies something optional, trivial or something that can be easily set aside, which I think are attributes that most religious people would not say apply to their religion.

That's why I referred to it as a loaded word: while you may be able to shoehorn certain concepts into it, using the term frames the discussion in a certain way that may not be appropriate to what's being examined.

Sadly, perhaps, it's a "hobby" for far too many people, but that's beside your point.

 

[Alceste]

lol, all I meant was that I was not going to waste my time arguing anymore with someone who has made it clear that she has no concerns beyond eating crisps.

I often get that kind of reaction when I've just trounced somebody in a debate. Don't be ashamed - it's a perfectly normal reaction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I meant something halfway between "esoteric" and "obscure". ... There might be something to Tillich's argument that religion could be defined as a person's "ultimate concern" ...

Perhaps it is less "obscure" in other domains.

 

[lilithu]

I often get that kind of reaction when I've just trounced somebody in a debate. Don't be ashamed - it's a perfectly normal reaction.

Do these childish quips really make you feel better, Alceste?