Too Much Religion?

[LuisDantas]

"I think I do, in fact, make such a case. "

I didn't see it then, could you point it out?

You would have to take a look around on my posts in various threads. Unless a simple statement that I make such a case suffices?

"Are you implying that there is somehow a clear, consensual meaning of religion that requires those elements that I reject, and that I am attempting to ignore them?"

What I am saying is that if you narrow things too much, then you can make the answer be whatever you want, but that such an answer may not be relative enough to address the question at hand.

True. Then again, the opposite is just as true and IMO more relevant here. Plenty of doctrines that do not deserve to be called religions are oftem mistaken for such.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Can there be too much atheism?

Yes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes.

How so?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You would have to take a look around on my posts in various threads. Unless a simple statement that I make such a case suffices?


True. Then again, the opposite is just as true and IMO more relevant here. Plenty of doctrines that do not deserve to be called religions are oftem mistaken for such.

"You would have to take a look around on my posts in various threads. "

Are you serious? I am not gonna go digging around through your 37,601 post looking for this suppose case you made to have those elements removed from discussion of religion in this thread. At this point I am assuming you are just playing games and giving me the run around.

"Unless a simple statement that I make such a case suffices?"

No, clearly it is does not suffice. Is this really how you "debate"? By making allusions to vague posts you may have made somewhere, and auguring subjectivity? And what, I am suppose to take you seriously?

"True. Then again, the opposite is just as true and IMO more relevant here. Plenty of doctrines that do not deserve to be called religions are oftem mistaken for such."

If there is a point A and a point C then there is a point B between them.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I like how people can only defend the pureness of religion if they ignore the bulk of religion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think we just disagree on a few definitions.

Let me give you an example: I have meditated off and on for decades. Over the years I've learned many different forms of meditation. TM is okay sometimes, zazen can be great, walking meditations can be great. But I don't hold any of those dogmatically. They are all tools to achieve an end, and I'm happy to retire any given tool if I find a better one.

It strikes me with *most* religion that this flexible / retire a tool orientation is rare. It seems to me that *most* religions are far more dogmatic about "our tool is the correct tool, now and forever".

If your approach is more flexible, I think we're in agreement.

And the "now and forever" approach isn't without benefits, it's simply dogmatic.

You defining religion by majority thought rather than the mesning of the word itself.

To me, what you say is religious. I mean, I get up every morning, light a candle and pray (when i feel called not on a routined basis), i may chant gongyo for a minor so. Zazen once in a blue moon. Pay my respect at Mass once a year easter. Come home, watch a movie, and study before sleeping.

That is my lifestyle. My spirituality.

Me.

In general, religion means having a dogma (tradition-say if you carried on your practice to your kids), a practice (which you have many), and a doctrine (zazen one day and another practice another)


Rare, yes. It does not mean its not religious. It just means how you practice religion isnt the norm for many major faiths. Thats okay. It doesnt change the definition of the word itself.

 

[Quintessence]

I am and I am also fine with people responding to those post. It is called a debate for a reason, and there is no reason why we can't expect people to back up their position.

Is there something in particular you'd like me to elaborate upon? I don't mind clarifying things I've said where they've been unclear. Though honestly, I'm still trying to figure out the question because it doesn't make much sense to me right now. I don't understand how one could have "too much" or "too little" or "just enough" of something like culture (of which religion is a subcategory).

It seems to me culture/religion is just something one has. It's not some quantifiable thing one could have too much of, too little of, etc. Though I suppose if one is all judgmental and such, one might feel inclined to have reasoning along the lines of "to me the only correct culture/religion is mine, and this person doesn't express enough of my correct culture/religion... they have too little culture/religion." Is that the angle you were intending with the question? Being judgmental about other people's traditions and saying they have "too much" of it when we don't like it?

I like how people can only defend the pureness of religion if they ignore the bulk of religion.

I'll grant I haven't read every response to this thread thoroughly, but where was this "pureness of religion" mentioned? That sounds like as much nonsense to me as "too much/little religion."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Is there something in particular you'd like me to elaborate upon? I don't mind clarifying things I've said where they've been unclear. Though honestly, I'm still trying to figure out the question because it doesn't make much sense to me right now. I don't understand how one could have "too much" or "too little" or "just enough" of something like culture (of which religion is a subcategory).

It seems to me culture/religion is just something one has. It's not some quantifiable thing one could have too much of, too little of, etc. Though I suppose if one is all judgmental and such, one might feel inclined to have reasoning along the lines of "to me the only correct culture/religion is mine, and this person doesn't express enough of my correct culture/religion... they have too little culture/religion." Is that the angle you were intending with the question? Being judgmental about other people's traditions and saying they have "too much" of it when we don't like it?



I'll grant I haven't read every response to this thread thoroughly, but where was this "pureness of religion" mentioned? That sounds like as much nonsense to me as "too much/little religion."

So now it is culture? Way of life didn't pan out so now you claim it is culture.

I'll agree that religion is part of culture, but so are many things like crack whores.

 

[LuisDantas]

"You would have to take a look around on my posts in various threads. "

Are you serious? I am not gonna go digging around through your 37,601 post looking for this suppose case you made to have those elements removed from discussion of religion in this thread. At this point I am assuming you are just playing games and giving me the run around.

The level of mutual respect and confidence that we will have is your choice as much as mine.

I don't feel any particularly need for your approval, if that is any help. If you choose to doubt me, I will live with that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I like how people can only defend the pureness of religion if they ignore the bulk of religion.

And that is the core issue. Who gets to decide what legitimately qualifies as religion?

Ultimately, it is an arbitrary call.

But if you disagree, feel free to show an argument for why I should submit for someone else's understanding of what characterizes a religion, and what that would be.

Surely you can't expect me - or anyone really - to feel duty-bound to recognize as valid every single claim of religious validity? I sincerely doubt any sane human would do such a foolish thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is there such a thing as too much religion, and if so what would that be?

Yes, and I would say that the world has had a bloody (meant literally) surfeit of it.

• The religion that makes people kill each other -- that's too much.
• The religion that sets nation against nation -- way too much.
• The religion that makes people refuse medical care for their children -- stupidly too much.
• The religion that says, "go to other nations, and whatever they believe, rob them of it and replace it with your belief, and call it 'missionary work.'" Way, way too much.
• The religion that caused humans to sacrifice other humans in order to "please the gods" (and thus get favours). Don't even go there.
• The religion that insists that children's genitals be mutilated? Please!
• The religion that assumed that young, virgin females could rightfully be taken for yourself and raped (yes, raped!)? See the Canaanites and Boko Haram -- some 3000 years apart but still doing the same things.

(In case anybody didn't notice, I actually do not like religion very much.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. Religion is a spiritual lifestyle. How do you have too much spirituality?

Actually, I think a lot of the religion in the world is not very "spiritual" at all. Quite the reverse, actually.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually, I think a lot of the religion in the world is not very "spiritual" at all. Quite the reverse, actually.

Religion, by definition, refers to our spiritual lifestyle. It refers to what or who we take up and what we base our morals on or get our morals from.

Take out the bias. Religion is an expression of ones faith.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

And that is the core issue. Who gets to decide what legitimately qualifies as religion?

Ultimately, it is an arbitrary call.

But if you disagree, feel free to show an argument for why I should submit for someone else's understanding of what characterizes a religion, and what that would be.

Surely you can't expect me - or anyone really - to feel duty-bound to recognize as valid every single claim of religious validity? I sincerely doubt any sane human would do such a foolish thing.

"But if you disagree, feel free to show an argument for why I should submit for someone else's understanding of what characterizes a religion, and what that would be."

I am not suggesting anything of the sort, I am suggesting you back up your own claim. Own some personal responsibility.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religion, by definition, refers to our spiritual lifestyle. It refers to what or who we take up and what we base our morals on or get our morals from.

Take out the bias. Religion is an expression of ones faith.

Sorry, I think you have a naïve, narrow view of religion if that's what you think. For many people, religion has almost nothing to do with "spiritual lifestyle." I know quite a few fundamentally religious people who exhibit no hint of "spirituality" at all. They do, however, have whole tomes full of rules and "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." Spirituality doesn't require the beating of your children until they believe what you believe. Spirituality isn't interested in what anybody else believes or cares about, either. If you are spiritual, then that is your own gift, but it is entirely your own. You don't give it to anybody. You don't demand it from anybody. You don't care if anybody has it, doesn't have it -- or even wants it.

 

[LuisDantas]

"But if you disagree, feel free to show an argument for why I should submit for someone else's understanding of what characterizes a religion, and what that would be."

I am not suggesting anything of the sort, I am suggesting you back up your own claim. Own some personal responsibility.

Do you realize that what you ask makes no sense whatsoever?

Besides, you are ignoring what I just pointed out - namely, that there is no such a thing as a generally accepted set of criteria for deciding what qualifies as a religion.

I would be offended if you had shown that you gave it enough effort to deserve my resentment.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, I think you have a naïve, narrow view of religion if that's what you think. For many people, religion has almost nothing to do with "spiritual lifestyle." I know quite a few fundamentally religious people who exhibit no hint of "spirituality" at all. They do, however, have whole tomes full of rules and "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." Spirituality doesn't require the beating of your children until they believe what you believe. Spirituality isn't interested in what anybody else believes or cares about, either. If you are spiritual, then that is your own gift, but it is entirely your own. You don't give it to anybody. You don't demand it from anybody. You don't care if anybody has it, doesn't have it -- or even wants it.

One thing I notice is that all professing to be spiritual have negative and extremely judgemental views of religion but people who have a healthy religion find positiveness in all other views outside their own.

Ive not met a religious person call me anything negative. Ive heard many "spiritual (and not religious)" people have, though.

If you dont have a religion, what are you doing to express your spirituality?

Religion is a word. In itself, it has no bias.

That and christianity doesnt define religion. Stop putting religion as negative when half the world who has no experience in the negativity you guys have with christianity do not see nor live gheir religion that way.

Babies are innocent. Adults are sinners.

I rather be a happy naive person than rant about how my ex religion does this or that religion does that. Youre judging people.

If your spirituality doesnt respect people, of course you dont have a religion.

Im not that negative to see that. Im hoping we just misunderstand each other instead.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One thing I notice is that all professing to be spiritual have negative and extremely judgemental views of religion but people who have a healthy religion find positiveness in all other views outside their own.

And right away, I begin to see the signs of division You have just divided the world into a "them and us" paradigm, in which "they" are negative and "us" are positive. Surprised you don't see it.

But on the contrary, there are many quite "spiritual" people (the Dalai Lama or Mohandas Gandhi, perhaps) who while not ostentatiously religious, are quite accepting of other views.

Ive not met a religious person call me anything negative. Ive heard many "spiritual (and not religious)" people have, though.

Oddly, as an atheist, I've met very, very many religious people -- even on this site -- who have called me quite negative things, because I have not god-beliefs. And those who I have seen as "spiritual" in their own way (there are names, though I won't mention many - @metis and @RabbiO and @arthra and others on other forums) who have been nothing but just and caring in their comments. Have you not met them?

If you dont have a religion, what are you doing to express your spirituality?

Why does it take religion to express spirituality? What ever happened to beauty? To knowing that you don't know and can't know everything, but that you can seek? Of seeing the poignancy of living a finite life in an infinite universe? Of acknowledging your connectedness to all the things that you know about? Those are deeply spiritual thoughts, in my view. Thinking "I get to be with God some day" is not so much spiritual but wishful thinking.

Religion is a word. In itself, it has no bias.

It comes from the Latin religare, that to which "I bind myself." Once bound, sorry, but you do indeed have a bias.

Babies are innocent. Adults are sinners.

Pure judgement. Yes, there are adults who are sinners. But being adult does not automagically make one a sinner. Even playing with yourself doesn't make you a sinner. (And by the way, babies play with themselves and GASP!

I rather be a happy naive person than rant about how my ex religion does this or that religion does that. Youre not judging people.

If your spirituality doesnt respect peoppe, of course you dont have a religion.

Im not that negative to see that. Im hoping we just misunderstand each other instead.[/QUOTE]

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One thing I notice is that all professing to be spiritual have negative and extremely judgemental views of religion but people who have a healthy religion find positiveness in all other views outside their own.

And right away, I begin to see the signs of division You have just divided the world into a "them and us" paradigm, in which "they" are negative and "us" are positive. Surprised you don't see it.

But on the contrary, there are many quite "spiritual" people (the Dalai Lama or Mohandas Gandhi, perhaps) who while not ostentatiously religious, are quite accepting of other views.

Ive not met a religious person call me anything negative. Ive heard many "spiritual (and not religious)" people have, though.

Oddly, as an atheist, I've met very, very many religious people -- even on this site -- who have called me quite negative things, because I have not god-beliefs. And those who I have seen as "spiritual" in their own way (there are names, though I won't mention many - @metis and @RabbiO and @arthra and others on other forums) who have been nothing but just and caring in their comments. Have you not met them?

If you dont have a religion, what are you doing to express your spirituality?

Why does it take religion to express spirituality? What ever happened to beauty? To knowing that you don't know and can't know everything, but that you can seek? Of seeing the poignancy of living a finite life in an infinite universe? Of acknowledging your connectedness to all the things that you know about? Those are deeply spiritual thoughts, in my view. Thinking "I get to be with God some day" is not so much spiritual but wishful thinking.

Religion is a word. In itself, it has no bias.

It comes from the Latin religare, that to which "I bind myself." Once bound, sorry, but you do indeed have a bias.

Babies are innocent. Adults are sinners.

Pure judgement. Yes, there are adults who are sinners. But being adult does not automagically make one a sinner. Even playing with yourself doesn't make you a sinner. (And by the way, babies play with themselves and GASP! get erections! Oh, my!)

I rather be a happy naive person than rant about how my ex religion does this or that religion does that. Youre not judging people.

No, actually, I'm not. I'm describing the history of the world -- not as I "judged" it but as it has played out. The Catholics burned the Protestants, the Protestants burned the Catholics -- and everybody hated the Jews. That's just how it was.

If your spirituality doesnt respect peoppe, of course you dont have a religion.

That is a pure nonsense line. If you don't recognize what the "Humanist" in my profile means, then I am not here to enlighten you on my respect for people. And I can do that without religion, thank you very much. (In fact, too often I've seen that religion is the great "preventer of respect for others."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Do you realize that what you ask makes no sense whatsoever?

Besides, you are ignoring what I just pointed out - namely, that there is no such a thing as a generally accepted set of criteria for deciding what qualifies as a religion.

I would be offended if you had shown that you gave it enough effort to deserve my resentment.

"Besides, you are ignoring"

Just because I did not respond to it directly that does not mean I ignored it. I gave it fair consideration, and realized that once you sweep away all the nonsense it comes down to the fact that you made a claim about excluding certain elements from these considerations and you never backed up that claim.