|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2005 : 07:22:59 [Permalink]
|
Once again,
1) You call me a non-religious freethinker. Ok no problem.
2) You define non-religious freethinkers as having a religious type belief. Problem, since I am included in this group.
--
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 10:22:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
But isn't that still your meaning of life? Nothing?
The Ol' "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice" |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 13:46:17 [Permalink]
|
To BigPapaSmurf:
I religious-type belief system... I didn't really put it that way. If I were pushed to phrase it similarly, I might say "religious-like", but I've already established that my definition of the word "religion" is slightly different from yours. So why are you getting offended? In some slang, "the shit" means good, so if I said, "Dude, you are the shit", and you got offended, and then I explained it meant something good, would you still be offended?
All I meant to say was that all freethinkers have worldviews. Also, many freethinkers who share similar worldviews form communities and rituals/traditions that fill the same emotional/psychological need as theistic religious communities and rituals. As a result, some freethinking groups consider themselves organized religions. (That doesn't mean we automatically group you with us. I certainly don't, which is why I referred to you as "nonreligious".)
I still don't get why it makes you want to puke. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/04/2005 13:49:22 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 21:14:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox:
R. Wreck wrote: "I do think it's a little odd that a group calling itself a "religion" would include athiests."
I think it's a little ethnocentric to insist that for something to be a religion it must include faith in supernatural gobbledygook. As is stated above, there are great world religions in history that do not include such faith. Also, there are contemporary Western religions (like Unitarianism) that are based in critical thinking and philosophical humanism. To me, it seems most useful to define "religion" based on how people in the real world actually apply the term.
What is a religion?
quote:
1 [C or U] the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:
the Christian religion
2 [C] INFORMAL an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly:
Football is a religion for these people.
I am using religion as in the first definition, i.e. pertaining to a god or gods, belief or worship. I believe that that definition is what the vast majority of people in the real world would agree with. Therefore including athiests in a "religion" is somewhat oxymoronic.
quote:
Regarding atheistic religions as philosophies - a philosophy is just a system of values and set of beliefs that make up a worldview. A philosophy becomes a religion when people with similar philosophies form a common social identity and set of rituals.
So we could have the Nazi religion or the Communist religion because a bunch of people all espouse that philosophy?
quote:
R. Wreck also wrote: "Like many here, I do not share the need for creed that many people have. I do acknowledge though that a large segment of the population finds it important to explore these metaphysical issues, and this seems like a fairly intelligent and harmless way to do so."
What is the difference between religious atheists who are part of a "creed" like Humanism or Universism, and the huge network of skeptic clubs, other than how the word "religion" is defined?
What is a creed?
quote:
creed [Show phonetics]
noun [C] (ALSO credo) FORMAL
a set of beliefs which expresses a particular opinion and influences the way you live
OK, so anyone can have a creed. What I was referring to though was "the creed":
quote:
a short formal statement of Christian religious belief, said in church
i.e. a bit of dogma. The difference is that the religious creed is based on faith and the skeptic/humanist "creed" is based on logic, reason, and evidence. Different world views, but again most would assiciate the word "creed" with some sort of faith based belief system. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 08:12:46 [Permalink]
|
Altruism gone mad, IMO.
I have no issues with "creed/credo"
This offends me in the same manner that a sign reading "Jesus loves capitalism, please buy a Porsche" might offend some Christians. Its yet another way of attempting to convert pagan types by incorporating things they believe with theism. Dont say anything bad about thier weird beliefs and they might fill the coffers again next week. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 13:15:05 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote: “I am using religion as in the first definition, i.e. pertaining to a god or gods, belief or worship. I believe that that definition is what the vast majority of people in the real world would agree with. Therefore including atheists in a "religion" is somewhat oxymoronic. ”
That first definition (which does, BTW, reveal itself to be ethnocentric by its special emphasis on Christianity) doesn't exclude atheists. After it mentioned God and gods it says “or any such system of belief and worship” Obviously how one interprets that will depend on what they think “such” means. It's a little vague. But I've already explained in earlier posts how certain nontheistic religions qualify as having a belief system that deals with the same questions (meaning of life, nature of reality) as theistic religions, as well as rituals, which can qualify as a form of worship. Take Quakers (another clearly established religious minority). They do not worship a god or gods in any traditional sense, and their form of “worship” involved sitting around together in silence until someone feels moved to speak. To a Quaker, worship is just ritualistic acknowledgement of what one values in terms of their philosophical wordview. So when religious Humanists get together and sing or listen to songs with Humanist lyrics, or organize lectures or send a card for “Darwin Day” or “Winter Solstice” it is not a huge stretch in semantics to say they are engaging in a type of religious “worship”. Sheesh, look at how Zen Buddhist “worship”. Not exactly praying or singing God's praises.
Or how about this – what the heck is a god? We throw that word around willy nilly, and just assume we're all talking about the same thing, but push average people form all different cultures on their definition and we end up with both a lot of nonsense and a lot of diversity.
In regards to “the creed” you aren't even talking about religion in general, you are talking specifically about Christianity.
Most people would not take “religion” to mean what the first definition in the Cambridge dictionary says because most people in the world don't even speak English. Same goes for “creed”. Indeed, you are right that most people associate “religion” specifically with belief in metaphysical concepts, such as gods, the God, souls, and afterlife, spirits, fate, etc. So instead of saying that I think we should define words based on how people actually use them, I should have said this:
The English word “religion” is often associated in common language with theism, particularly Christianity, because the overwhelming majority in English-speaking populations are shaped by heavy cultural influence of the Christian faith. And in America, certainly, the majority of people are self-declared Christians. Because of this reigning majority, a huge percentage of English speaking people are totally ignorant and/or intolerant of other, theologically very different, religions.
However, an educated person has at least an awareness of the larger human family. What are we to call communities of people who have a common belief system that influences how they live their life, structure their values and what they think in terms of the meaning of life, and who have communal traditions and rituals based on that common belief system? It bares such a close resemblance to theism in terms of the social purpose it serves and the intellectual/psychological concerns that it deals with, that it makes the most sense to call them “religions”. If things like Quakerism, Zen Buddhism, Unitarianism and the Humanist Society aren't religions, then what are they? They are certainly characterized by much more than mere philosophy.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 13:19:56 [Permalink]
|
To BigPapaSmurf,
For my part, it's not altruism, it's self-defense – I AM a religious atheist. Certified clergy even.
And the Christian gets mad at the sign ‘cause Jesus is their sacred deity and so they'd regard such a sign as blasphemy. I don't see any reason why we nontheists should get our panties in a bunch over our minor philosophical or semantics differences. I hate and won't self-apply the term “brights” (even though I totally fit the definition of a bright, and am labeled a bright by self-declared brights), but I wouldn't say it offends me. More like annoys.
Hmmm... but re-thinking about it, if you hate Universist Movement as much as I hate The Brights, I am starting to understand why it makes you want to puke. It's funny how emotionally charged people can get over words and their various connotations. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/06/2005 13:28:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 20:18:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What are we to call communities of people who have a common belief system that influences how they live their life, structure their values and what they think in terms of the meaning of life, and who have communal traditions and rituals based on that common belief system?
By defining "religion" so broadly, you're basically saying that everyone belongs to some religion or other, even if they don't acknowledge it. But, silly semantic arguments about English aside, a religion is "a system of belief and worship" that people share.
Sheesh. Sending out Darwin Day cards isn't an act of worship of biology, it's a gag and/or a political statement, in response to the political activism of religious fundamentalists. Acknowledging the fact that Darwin was the progenitor of what is now the foundation of modern biology is something that people from many religions do, it isn't reserved for humanists or atheists. As such, it fails to distinguish a religion, unless you now wish to define "Darwinism" as one, and then claim that most people practice more than one religion (sometimes simultaneously).quote:
It bares such a close resemblance to theism in terms of the social purpose it serves and the intellectual/psychological concerns that it deals with, that it makes the most sense to call them “religions”.
Political parties, chess clubs and knitting circles all bear that same close resemblance in terms of social purpose, even if they deal with different "intellectual/psychological" concerns than, say, an atheist's club. But none of them worship anything, not even the atheists. It only makes sense to call them (or just atheism) religions if the "worship" part doesn't matter, and you're just talking about common beliefs.quote:
If things like Quakerism, Zen Buddhism, Unitarianism and the Humanist Society aren't religions, then what are they?
The only one I wouldn't call a religion is humanism. The other three are religions, characterized by a system of belief and worship, even if drastically different from stereotypical Christian worship.
But I can't, for the life of me, even guess what the humanist view of "the meaning of life" would be. It doesn't seem to be a question that humanism attempts to answer. "What is Humanism?" doesn't seem to touch upon it, and with lines like "Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge," it seems to deny that such the question of the meaning of life is answerable.
On the other hand, that article explains quite a bit. Is the "Humanist Society" made up of religious or secular humanists?quote:
They are certainly characterized by much more than mere philosophy.
Sure, they all share many characters, again, of a local chess club:- a group of people
- serving a common purpose
- for people with shared values
- offering a method to intellectual/psychological fulfillment
- etc.
Some afficianados might even suggest that chess offers guidelines by which one should live one's life.
Really, the more I think about it, the more a chess club seems to fi |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 21:57:51 [Permalink]
|
In my neck of the woods we say "Football isn't a sport, it's a religion".
If anything qualafies as a religion, it's a fan club of some kind. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 23:44:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
In my neck of the woods we say "Football isn't a sport, it's a religion".
If anything qualafies as a religion, it's a fan club of some kind.
Would anyone you know cut off contact with their children over a disagreement over a football team? Would anyone you know cut off contact with their children over a disagreement over religion? Usually different things.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 23:47:32 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dave W:
If you think a chess club fits my definition of a religion, then you really haven't been paying close enough attention. First of all, I never offered up my concise definition of “religion”. Secondly, a concept like religion is so dependent on cultural context and usage, that over enough time and societies, eventually it is impossible to define the concept in a way that includes all groups that have been considered religions in common usage, while excluding all groups that have not been considered religions. It's like language – we have rules, but because it takes on a life of its own via cultural evolution, we have to make exceptions here and there. However, I will actually make an attempt at defining religion below so you can criticize my actual definition, rather than just responding to what you assume my definition is based on clips of a limited and casual conversation.
By defining "religion" so broadly, you're basically saying that everyone belongs to some religion or other, even if they don't acknowledge it.
That completely ignores the at least three times that I referred to “nonreligious” people.
Also, I didn't define religion this way. Open an introduction textbook to a class on religious studies or talk to anyone who likes to learn about different world religions for fun. They can be wildly different in beliefs as well as philosophical emphasis. How do you define “religion” in a way that includes everything from Methodists to ancestor-worshipping shamanists to atheistic Buddhists, because no one denies that all three of them are religious persuasions.
The Cambridge dictionary definition (which I've seen many times before) really only applies to Western culture. I agree with you that describing Darwin Day cards as “worship” borders on nonsense, but what the else are we supposed to do when the damn dictionary writers don't get with these times? Are you going to tell me you never looked up a word in the dictionary and found it to be horribly outdated from how the word is contemporarily understood?
You know, you're right. I should have just stuck with my original assertion that the Cambridge dictionary definition of “religion” is sorely incomplete.
Political parties, chess clubs and knitting circles all bear that same close resemblance in terms of social purpose, even if they deal with different "intellectual/psychological" concerns than, say, an atheist's club.
I'm not sure why you bring those up since we've already established that the intellectual and psychological concerns were essential to it being considered a religious group. Not only that, but I CLEARLY stated that I didn't include any atheist club in my definition of religion. Part of the definition should be that the adherents to the religion must agree to using that label, and that is exactly why I referred to BigPapaSmurf as “nonreligious”.
But none of them worship anything, not even the atheists.
Like I said, Quakers don't worship anything either (they call what they do “worship” but it doesn't not fit any commonly understood definition of “worship” outside of the context of Quakerism), nor do Buddhists and many other groups whose status as “religions” is unquestioned both academically and in common discourse.
It only makes sense to call them (or just atheism) religions if the "worship" part doesn't matter, and you're just talking about common beliefs.
You are selectively leaving things out. Again, the “worship” thing is just stupid because it requires that to be a religion the adherents must believe in some higher power to be worshipped. That's the part that is ethnocentric, because most Eastern religions don't work that way. If we change “worship” to “rituals” the definition starts to work a lot better when applying it to real life. And some atheist groups that call themselves “religion” do indeed have common rituals.
So basically I'm defining re |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2005 00:17:19 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 00:58:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dry_vby
In my neck of the woods we say "Football isn't a sport, it's a religion".
If anything qualafies as a religion, it's a fan club of some kind.
[/quote]Would anyone you know cut off contact with their children over a disagreement over a football team? Would anyone you know cut off contact with their children over a disagreement over religion? Usually different things.
[/quote]
A crude simplification, to be sure.
Although I am aware of cases when a particularly disappointed follower of a losing concern , feulled by the demon drink, has turned on there family to very bad ends.
You need only cast a gaze towards the violence purpatrated in the name of soccer in England and Europe, not to mention South America.
I do stand by my fan sentiment, though, given that the extention of the term is "fanatic". |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
| Edited by - Dry_vby on 08/07/2005 00:59:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 01:17:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In response to Dave W:
If you think a chess club fits my definition of a religion, then you really haven't been paying close enough attention. First of all, I never offered up my concise definition of “religion”. Secondly, a concept like religion is so dependent on cultural context and usage, that over enough time and societies, eventually it is impossible to define the concept in a way that includes all groups that have been considered religions in common usage, while excluding all groups that have not been considered religions. It's like language – we have rules, but because it takes on a life of its own via cultural evolution, we have to make exceptions here and there. However, I will actually make an attempt at defining religion below so you can criticize my actual definition, rather than just responding to what you assume my definition is based on clips of a limited and casual conversation.
We don't have anything else but "clips of a limited and casual conversation" to go by. And what's now completely frustrating is that you claim you haven't offered a "concise" definition (as if I asked for one), and that you cannot offer one (due to linguistic limitations, despite the fact that meaning exists apart from language), but you'll try to anyway. That and the fact that you attribute to me a cultural bias that I specifically disavowed - and I demonstrated my detatchment from it, to boot (which you ignored) - and it seems quite obvious that this portion of this discussion is likely to go nowhere, fast.
But on the off chance that I'm wrong...quote:
Also, I didn't define religion this way. Open an introduction textbook to a class on religious studies or talk to anyone who likes to learn about different world religions for fun. They can be wildly different in beliefs as well as philosophical emphasis. How do you define “religion” in a way that includes everything from Methodists to ancestor-worshipping shamanists to atheistic Buddhists, because no one denies that all three of them are religious persuasions.
Easy, as "systems of belief and worship." That you cannot see what it is that Buddhists worship doesn't negate their worship, and the object of worship of the former two groups should be obvious.quote:
The Cambridge dictionary definition (which I've seen many times before) really only applies to Western culture.
Baloney. It seems to work fine for Eastern and other atheistic religions, too.quote:
I agree with you that describing Darwin Day cards as “worship” borders on nonsense, but what the else are we supposed to do when the damn dictionary writers don't get with these times?
We're supposed to realize our inherit biases, just as you're asking us to do, but seem reluctant to do yourself.quote:
Are you going to tell me you never looked up a word in the dictionary and found it to be horribly outdated from how the word is contemporarily understood?
Please...
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 01:58:58 [Permalink]
|
.....and so things once again get bogged down in semantics.
It would be great to be able to carry through a discussion without first having to agree on an independantly authorised meaning for every word being utilised.
Hell, after reading all this I can't even remember what the topic is.
Must be that short attention span. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 15:29:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It would be great to be able to carry through a discussion without first having to agree on an independantly authorised meaning for every word being utilised.
Without agreeing on definitions, all you would have is two or more people talking at the same time about different things.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
