Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

Taken from the same source of your description:

Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition. Talal Asad writes that "there cannot be a universal definition of religion ... because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes"

"Religious scholars" is hardly the only viewpoint.
"critical" examination is necessary for definition, I don't see what they are trying to get at.
Of course there are "ideological consequences", that is the whole point, but a definition doesn't create them it simply makes them apparent. Which is, in my opinion, a good thing.
I am sick of people saying that reasonable discussion is impossible, it isn't true. You can define anything easily, 'religion is what the subject interprets it as', it isn't a very informative definition but it is fairly universal. If it truly is impossible to derive a useful definition of religion than the problem is not in the nature of belief, it is in the easily correctable flaws in the language.
(I am not providing a definition as that has already been done and is not my current concern, I am only opposing the idea that things cannot be effectively defined or proven. Obviously nothing is certain, and no simple border will be a perfect fit, but we live in a world where you have to make a few assumptions...)

USA courts legally ruled that it was a religion, though, and I'm sure they debated for days about it.

Which addresses a very specific instance of a law, and has nothing to do with religion in general. I would expect from the limited article that the subject's religious views were being repressed due to religious intolerance.

Not the point though. I meant to say that it's become an increasingly organized set of beliefs. There's a point in every religion where it moves from an oppressed group of people who believe the same thing into a large, accepted organization, and that's what's happening.

It will be a religion when:
1. They create a proper symbol for atheism.
2. They create a ritualistic set of actions, like monthly meetings/debates.
3. Someone tells atheists what to do and what to believe, and nobody questions him/her.

ALL. Atheism and similar beliefs can exist without contact with others. It is impossible for a religion to spread without contact. There will always be atheists that are not part of any organised atheist group.
3. There already exist many groups that exist in such a state and have nothing to do with religious beliefs(although it is difficult for fanatical beliefs to coexist), just because someone calls themself atheist messiah and demands obedience from all atheists doesn't change the nature of atheism itself, it just means that someone is starting a new organisation and using an old name...

[Micro102]

all chidre, when they are born, are atheists, so those rules do not apply

[penguinofhonor]

It will be a religion when:
1. They create a proper symbol for atheism.
2. They create a ritualistic set of actions, like monthly meetings/debates.
3. Someone tells atheists what to do and what to believe, and nobody questions him/her.

Antiques Roadshow is a religion!

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Lets stop the bickering, since we ALL know that Lord Xenu will one day break free of his prison and lead his galctic fleet of turbo DC-9's to earth to H-bomb us al to death via a massive volcanic orgy.  i have it on good authority (Tom Cruise).

[redacted123]

Lets stop the bickering, since we ALL know that Lord Xenu will one day break free of his prison and lead his galctic fleet of turbo DC-9's to earth to H-bomb us al to death via a massive volcanic orgy.  i have it on good authority (Tom Cruise).

I believe that's DC-10s.

[EDIT]Edited for grammatical correctness.

[Starver]

Lets stop the bickering, since we ALL know that Lord Xenu will one day break free of his prison and lead his galctic fleet of turbo DC-9's to earth to H-bomb us al to death via a massive volcanic orgy.  i have it on good authority (Tom Cruise).

I believe that's DC-10's.

I believe that whichever it is, I prefer apostrophes not be used in plurals.  Yeah, I know that some style books say they can be in that kind of "word", but really there's no reason to do so most of the time.  And the above isn't one of those times [that they may need to be].

(Off topic, except insofar as acceptable use of apostrophes is one of my major, if possibly irrational, beliefs!)

[redacted123]

Lets stop the bickering, since we ALL know that Lord Xenu will one day break free of his prison and lead his galctic fleet of turbo DC-9's to earth to H-bomb us al to death via a massive volcanic orgy.  i have it on good authority (Tom Cruise).

I believe that's DC-10's.

I believe that whichever it is, I prefer apostrophes not be used in plurals.  Yeah, I know that some style books say they can be in that kind of "word", but really there's no reason to do so most of the time.  And the above isn't one of those times.

(Off topic, except insofar as acceptable use of apostrophes is one of my major, if possibly irrational, beliefs!)

Ah, you're right actually. The idea that it might be wrong occurred to me but I thought that since Gorjo did it I could get away with it.

[Starver]

Ah, you're right actually. The idea that it might be wrong occurred to me but I thought that since Gorjo did it I could get away with it.

And you would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for...

Ah.  Right, just me on my lonesome.  And I don't feel up to actually peskiness and/or meddling at the moment.  No dog, either.

And, sorry, I appear to have staged a minor hijack of this thread for the purposes of grammar naziism.  Nothing to see here.  Please move on.  Feel free to ignore the mark of the Pedant's Curse that I've undoubtedly dropped here.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Grammer-Nazi's are just OP's. Tom told me so, in one of his telepathic sending's.  I get lot's of them.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Please believe me when i say:  Tom doesn't really send me telepathic sendings.

I thought it was the DC-9 in the original story, since the DC-10 wasn't yet created, but I am very possibly and absolutely wrong on this, since it's pure assumption.  he was also still using H-Bomb at the time so...................................

[RAM]

Can we at least agree that Scientology proves that faith alone is not enough?

[Ampersand]

I'm afraid not. They were rocket powered DC-8s

[AtomicPaperclip]

I think humans have an instinctual desire for god on the genetic/chemical level.

We could just as easily be "Sims" in a computer game. We might be AI, just like the people in the Matrix don't realize that they aren't in the real world.

Maybe some day our universe will be dragged into the recycle bin, and some 8 year old will make a new metaphorical neighborhood.

[Sergius]

Taken from the same source of your description:

Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition. Talal Asad writes that "there cannot be a universal definition of religion ... because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes"

So, no, you can't really define religion. USA courts legally ruled that it was a religion, though, and I'm sure they debated for days about it.

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Not the point though. I meant to say that it's become an increasingly organized set of beliefs. There's a point in every religion where it moves from an oppressed group of people who believe the same thing into a large, accepted organization, and that's what's happening.

It will be a religion when:
1. They create a proper symbol for atheism.
2. They create a ritualistic set of actions, like monthly meetings/debates.
3. Someone tells atheists what to do and what to believe, and nobody questions him/her.

Is geometry a shape? No.
Is arithmetic a number? No.
Is grammar a language? No.

Is internet a website? No.
Is electronics a device? No.
Is metal an chemical element? No.

Is polytheism a religion? No
Is monotheism a religion? No.
Is atheism a religion? No.

[Neruz]

I think humans have an instinctual desire for god on the genetic/chemical level.

We could just as easily be "Sims" in a computer game. We might be AI, just like the people in the Matrix don't realize that they aren't in the real world.

Maybe some day our universe will be dragged into the recycle bin, and some 8 year old will make a new metaphorical neighborhood.

People have an instinctual desire to believe that there is a reason for things; because if there is a reason for things then you can appeal to that reason and change things.

The idea tha things are random, that you have absolutely zero control over the world around you, is a very scary idea, to some the thought that a meteor could simply fall from the sky and we would all die for no reason whatsoever, pure random chance, is enough to give them nightmares.

God acts like a safety blanket; when something horrible happens it's alright, as bad as it was, there was a reason for it. God puts a nice warm human face on what is otherwise a cold and uncaring universe.


It's not a desire for God, it's a desire for protection.

[3]

And always remember that due to the nature of that "protection" - said "protection" applies regardless of the structural beliefs of the faith at hand - say, the spheres God inhabits - so long as God has some more control over things than individual humans do, God will offer said protection.

It really does come down to chance versus design - not logic versus superstition, not good versus evil, not free will versus being imposed upon. And as far as many can see, that's the simplest explaination for people putting faith into things that they have not necessarily got any logical reason (beyond the above, of course) to. The concept at the root of atheism's "success" is the concept that the human mind, via understanding such an impulse, can easily overcome it, and this supposedly irrational desire to place "misguided" faith loses its relevance, therefore making our lives so much more "enlightened" and "simple".

Of course, it's not quite that easy, or quite that simple. There's another element to the psychology behind religion as well: the need for order. It's generally accepted that all humans like order as opposed to chaos to a more or less degree, probably because it's just simpler for our brains to deal with it like that. What many people dislike most at a fundamental level is change, being forced to adapt, to think on your feet, being put outside of your comfort zone. Religion has evolved - quite organically, in my eyes, that is to say, through no deliberate effort - into something that relembles a tool: a means of establishing order with greater ease, and that's where the modern conflicts begin. Sorting out the entire business of "to believe or to not believe" is the simpler half of the equation as far as I see it: already, with the so-called "secular society" still young, we're already seeing elements of belief that take the functional place of religion in secular lives - humanism, for example, or even - ha - atheism in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what it means.

When it comes down to God, note this: atheists have no conclusive evidence to prove the non-existence of God, just as I have no conclusive evidence to prove the non-existence of Cthulhu. Many theists have some secondary evidence in support of the existence of God(s) of whatever nature, but this is highly inconclusive. Of course, you may take your pick, but don't be fooled into thinking that you can argue about it. As an atheist, one can state that one doesn't believe in God, but can do no more than that - you have nothing to back your argument up with. Tread carefully.

Edit: Fixed misword typo