The Definition of Religion is Changing

[RoccoR]

RE: The Definition of Religion is Changing
⁜→ Prof.Lunaphiles, et al,

BLUF: By "practice" I assume you actually mean some "ritual." I have evolved. I started out as a Catholic (steeped in ritual), slid down to Agnostic (no ritual, but a belief that there might be a deity (Supreme Being). And I am gradually drifting towards being an atheist (no ritual and no belief in a Supreme Being).

(QUESTION)

I need clarification as to the need for a change in the definition. What purpose does it serve?

The definition that I have deliberated provides for the Christians' argument that atheists do have religion. Although, atheism and humanism are not religions, just as theism is not a religion; atheists and humanists guard concepts concerning aspects of reality, just as diligently as theists. This guarding of concepts is how organized religions originate.

Furthermore, what do we call the practice of exercises that we do to maintain our sense of dignity? Most people want to impress others and join in community; and that is corollary to dignity - worthy of respect. Organized religions prescribe the exercises for their membership.

Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains a person's dignity.

(COMMENT)

In my eyes, I see no measure of additional "dignity" (worthy of honor or respect) being afforded or associated with a practitioner of any religion (in fact it can be quite the opposite in some cases). Honor and Respect (dignity) are NOT dependent on the practice of → or exercises in any Religion. Religion is personal and in its connection to all other things bound by religious dogma, scripture, or rule. Dignity is the manner in which a person conducts himself and carries oneself; dignity is an enhancement of a positive presence.

In many cases, the original Americans wanted to divorce themselves from being judged on the basis of their beliefs.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[DGS49]

At the core of any religion is the belief in someone or something that is not provable. For Theists, that unprovable belief is the belief in "god." For atheists, there is no belief in "god," but one could argue that belief in Evolution is also irrational, even if it is, in a limited way, logical. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, or beneficial mutation (which is mathematically impossible), hence, any assertion that it is fact, is a religious - not scientific - assertion.

 

[ReinyDays]

Do we believe in things that can be explained? ... like the Kreb's Cycle ...

Or do we believe in things that cannot be explained? ... like the Virgin Birth ...

The first is science, the second is religion ...

Evolution cannot explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, or beneficial mutation (which is mathematically impossible)

Of course Evolution explains these things, not in a way that you or I can understand, we have to accept these explanations on faith ... or spend the money to attend university for the next 10 years ... and you definitely need to work on your math skills ... these things are near certain, mathematically ...

Whereas the Hindu concept of reincarnation will defy any attempt to explain ... we must believe only on faith ...

 

[$ecular#eckler]

By "practice" I assume you actually mean some "ritual."

For theists, ritual, may be necessary; but I mean what you described here:

Dignity is the manner in which a person conducts himself and carries oneself; dignity is an enhancement of a positive presence.

"The manner in which a person conducts himself," is essentially a practice of exercises.

In many cases, the original Americans wanted to divorce themselves from being judged on the basis of their beliefs.

I doubt that very much - that sounds like some atheist propaganda.
And I am going to judge atheists based on their claims to be independent critical thinkers free of dogma by questioning their reverence for the American government chartering system. What is the basis of their trust in the system when it is easily proven to be faulty?

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

Article I. Section 5.

This section is what leads to the political chaos. The concepts described should be secured with definite details that are enforced by the judiciary, and any lawyer should be able to recognize the tremendous inadequacies here. Let's go through it. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[$ecular#eckler]

At the core of any religion is the belief in someone or something that is not provable.

It would seem that way since theists have dominated the evolution of society in an effort to organize people to do community, because of the lack of reliable social justice system - government.

For Theists, that unprovable belief is the belief in "god."

"Belief in God" is easy to prove - there are millions and millions of people who believe in God. The existence of God is what needs to be proven.

For atheists, there is no belief in "god," but one could argue that belief in Evolution is also irrational, even if it is, in a limited way, logical. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, or beneficial mutation (which is mathematically impossible), hence, any assertion that it is fact, is a religious - not scientific - assertion.

I do not think it is a good idea to describe religions as being specifically devoted to guarding unproven theories. I believe that teaching what is right and what is wrong for good community is the basis for organized religion. I do not know what you would call such to be. Education, civics, duty???

 

[ding]

"belief in God" is easy to prove - there are millions and millions of people who believe in God. The existence of God is what needs to be proven.

So the universe popping into existence from nothing, hardwired to produce intelligence doesn't give you pause for reflection?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I wouldn't say atheists have a religion. I would say that some atheists behave as if they have a religion. Both the good and the bad aspects of a religion.

Can you list those aspects?

 

[zaangalewa]

In late 2002 I joined my first internet discussion forum - Atheist Network. I am an atheist. It did not take long until I engaged in a discussion about the definitions of atheism and religion. And, it did not take long after that that I was banned for my insistence that the definition, "belief and worship of the supernatural (or god)," is an incorrect definition for religion, because it merely reinforces theism. There is not enough difference between belief and worship to justify the conjunction to differentiate religion from theism, when theism is defined as belief in god. Belief is the minimal form of worship; and a person cannot worship anything if they do not believe it to be worthy of guarding.

This and several other my semantic arguments have been presented at various atheist forums ever since then, and I have been banned from most of them; and most of the atheist forums have dissolved, because of lack of interest and funding from the members.

Anyway, I periodically review the definitions on the popular websites.

Definition of religion | Dictionary.com

Definition of religion from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more.

www.dictionary.com

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Definition of RELIGION

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1a: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Eventually, they will get it right.

Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains a person's dignity.

Make it more easy. "Religio" means in Latin just simple also something like "scruple" - ah: you have it here under "archaic Latin". With other words: A bad conscience shows a good conscience. And religious people are rebound on this reason in god - or for atheists: in their belief what's good. Atheists are rebound in the belief that it is good not to believe. Without bad conscience.


And dignity? Dignity is a present of god to everyone. We are children of god - human beings. Who fights against the dignity of human beings fights against god.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

"belief in God" is easy to prove - there are millions and millions of people who believe in God. The existence of God is what needs to be proven.

So the universe popping into existence from nothing, hardwired to produce intelligence doesn't give you pause for reflection?

Sure it does, but to conclude that it had to be some supernatural force that has been described in legends to appear on Earth and do things that otherwise are impossible, and has gone away, because it has fulfilled its service to Mankind, and that it is the obligation of individuals to do things for the supernatural being; does not make sense to me.

I am aware of many different theist religions. I think it would be a good idea for the almighty god to make an appearance again; and get us all on the right track. All together, now that we have mass communications to do the mass communication that the almighty god did not do in those legends, but should have.

 

[justinacolmena]

not enough difference between belief and worship to justify the conjunction to differentiate religion from theism, when theism is defined as belief in god.

There's a Saturday night haircut on the barstool, and a hangover headache in church on Sunday, and all the women have to wear scarves over their heads and remain silent if they don't want to be scalped and lobotomized like Rosemary Kennedy.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Definition of Religion is Changing
⁜→ Prof.Lunaphiles, et al,

BLUF: People should be judged on the performance and abilities and NOT on religious beliefs.

In many cases, the original Americans wanted to divorce themselves from being judged on the basis of their beliefs.

I doubt that very much - that sounds like some atheist propaganda.

(COMMENT)

When I was a supervisor, and I had to write a performance appraisal, the religious beliefs of my people never was a factor.

When I was in the military, religious affiliation was never a factor. When I was a Counterintelligence Agent doing background investigations, never once did I ask about anything even close to religious beliefs. I always inquired about loyalty, integrity, honesty, and character.

Whatever religion means, whatever a Supreme Being means, theism means - is only of importance to the given individual. It should never be the criteria by which people are judged. We have seen this elsewhere in the world where they have religious police, we've seen the persecution of people because of their religion. We want people to be free to worship (or not) as the case may be... But we should be very careful about how we allow religion to infect our society.

“We are prepared to sacrifice … we will sacrifice our ‎children"‎
.......................................................................................Jibril Rajoub
.......................................................................................Fatah Central Committee Secretary

"The texts clearly say that if an inch of the ‎Muslims’ lands (i.e., including all of Israel) is stolen, Jihad becomes a ‎personal religious commandment for everyone who is capable of it. This is ‎the Shari’ah law that the religious legal scholars have followed from the ‎beginning, from the days of the companions [of Muhammad].
...................................................................................... Muhammad Hussein
......................................................................................Palestinian Authority Mufti

​

Religions can be many things. It can be a tool for "good" and it can be a tool for "evil." And while your thoughts, as expressed here, are well intentioned, they can be twisted right out of your hand by unscrupelous people with latent motives and a hidden agenda.

Just My Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

I wouldn't say atheists have a religion. I would say that some atheists behave as if they have a religion. Both the good and the bad aspects of a religion.

Can you list those aspects?

Sure. Hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. And a loosely defined dogma of materialism and deification of man.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

When I was a supervisor, and I had to write a performance appraisal, the religious beliefs of my people never was a factor.

That is because the evolution of society has unfurled the delegation of authority by the expansion of job opportunities.

When I was in the military, religious affiliation was never a factor.

So, how did you handle the conscientious objector?

When I was a Counterintelligence Agent doing background investigations, never once did I ask about anything even close to religious beliefs. I always inquired about loyalty, integrity, honesty, and character.

And you do not think those things are religious, because they do not relate to the person's belief in a supernatural dimension of reality and the effect that may have on their sense of logic and reasoning in describing their loyalty and honesty and so forth.

That is because modern American society has diluted theist religions - it is not the way religion is supposed to be. It is kind of odd for a person to limit their belief in a magical supernatural and specified morality to just one hour a week - why bother at all???

Whatever religion means, whatever a Supreme Being means, theism means - is only of importance to the given individual. It should never be the criteria by which people are judged. We have seen this elsewhere in the world where they have religious police, we've seen the persecution of people because of their religion. We want people to be free to worship (or not) as the case may be... But we should be very careful about how we allow religion to infect our society.

“We are prepared to sacrifice … we will sacrifice our ‎children"‎
.......................................................................................Jibril Rajoub
.......................................................................................Fatah Central Committee Secretary

"The texts clearly say that if an inch of the ‎Muslims’ lands (i.e., including all of Israel) is stolen, Jihad becomes a ‎personal religious commandment for everyone who is capable of it. This is ‎the Shari’ah law that the religious legal scholars have followed from the ‎beginning, from the days of the companions [of Muhammad].
...................................................................................... Muhammad Hussein
......................................................................................Palestinian Authority Mufti

​

Religions can be many things. It can be a tool for "good" and it can be a tool for "evil." And while your thoughts, as expressed here, are well intentioned, they can be twisted right out of your hand by unscrupelous people with latent motives and a hidden agenda.

Just My Thought,

Most Respectfully,
R

Your lack of using the quotation tool, and this other stuff, is distracting.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Sure. Hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. And a loosely defined dogma of materialism and deification of man.

Are these the good or bad aspects???

 

[ding]

"belief in God" is easy to prove - there are millions and millions of people who believe in God. The existence of God is what needs to be proven.

So the universe popping into existence from nothing, hardwired to produce intelligence doesn't give you pause for reflection?

Sure it does, but to conclude that it had to be some supernatural force that has been described in legends to appear on Earth and do things that otherwise are impossible, and has gone away, because it has fulfilled its service to Mankind, and that it is the obligation of individuals to do things for the supernatural being; does not make sense to me.

I am aware of many different theist religions. I think it would be a good idea for the almighty god to make an appearance again; and get us all on the right track. All together, now that we have mass communications to do the mass communication that the almighty god did not do in those legends, but should have.

So what exactly does some supernatural force mean to you? Because I submit it's because you have never considered a reasonable perception that you have never given serious thought to the origin question. And why must this supernatural force be limited or restricted or defined by legends? Why aren't those legends ancient man's attempt at answering the origin questions? Why can't you make your own attempt at answering the origin questions without limiting your understanding to someone else's understanding especially since you may not properly understand their allegorical accounts the way they did?

I don't understand what you think the creator of existence owes you exactly? Isn't existence enough? And as to your assertion that the Creator came and went away, that is based upon your faulty interpretation of allegorical accounts of ancient man. I don't believe the Creator's involvement in our affairs is any more or less than it ever was which is to say we are pretty much on our own. You confuse ancient man's answers to the origin questions as dogma. I don't believe it is dogma. It's just how they passed information and knowledge down 6,000 years ago and beyond.

 

[ding]

Your lack of using the quotation tool, and this other stuff, is distracting.

Agreed

 

[ding]

Sure. Hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. And a loosely defined dogma of materialism and deification of man.

Are these the good or bad aspects???

They seem bad to me. The good were already listed in the Webster 1828 post but I'll post them again here for you...

...a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion

But is a good behavior of someone who has a religion.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

So what exactly does some supernatural force mean to you? Because I submit it's because you have never considered a reasonable perception that you have never given serious thought to the origin question. And why must this supernatural force be limited or restricted or defined by legends? Why aren't those legends ancient man's attempt at answering the origin questions? Why can't you make your own attempt at answering the origin questions without limiting your understanding to someone else's understanding especially since you may not properly understand their allegorical accounts the way they did?

I don't understand what you think the creator of existence owes you exactly? Isn't existence enough? And as to your assertion that the Creator came and went away, that is based upon your faulty interpretation of allegorical accounts of ancient man. I don't believe the Creator's involvement in our affairs is any more or less than it ever was which is to say we are pretty much on our own. You confuse ancient man's answers to the origin questions as dogma. I don't believe it is dogma. It's just how they passed information and knowledge down 6,000 years ago and beyond.

That sounds like deism to me, and so it does not matter if there is an Origin, other than that is the ultimate pursuit of science to correctly identify and describe it; and does not require religious organization except for the cosmologists to guard the reason for the pursuit of identifying the Origin.

Here, on Earth we are obligated to each other to do what is best for Mankind and the Earth.

 

[ding]

So what exactly does some supernatural force mean to you? Because I submit it's because you have never considered a reasonable perception that you have never given serious thought to the origin question. And why must this supernatural force be limited or restricted or defined by legends? Why aren't those legends ancient man's attempt at answering the origin questions? Why can't you make your own attempt at answering the origin questions without limiting your understanding to someone else's understanding especially since you may not properly understand their allegorical accounts the way they did?

I don't understand what you think the creator of existence owes you exactly? Isn't existence enough? And as to your assertion that the Creator came and went away, that is based upon your faulty interpretation of allegorical accounts of ancient man. I don't believe the Creator's involvement in our affairs is any more or less than it ever was which is to say we are pretty much on our own. You confuse ancient man's answers to the origin questions as dogma. I don't believe it is dogma. It's just how they passed information and knowledge down 6,000 years ago and beyond.

That sounds like deism to me, and so it does not matter if there is an Origin, other than that is the ultimate pursuit of science to correctly identify and describe it; and does not require religious organization except for the cosmologists to guard the reason for the pursuit of identifying the Origin.

Here, on Earth we are obligated to each other to do what is best for Mankind and the Earth.

It's actually monotheism.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional.

Everything which has unfolded since the beginning of space and time is information that can be used to answer the origin question. The origin and everything which has unfolded since space and time were created from nothing matters because it informs us of our purpose. So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God. If you perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything you see will skew to that result. But if you have a reasonable perception of God then you may be more willing to make an objective assessment.

As for the necessity of religion I will just say it would be odd if we did not build our understanding on the understanding of others who had the most wisdom, intellect and talent. That's pretty much how knowledge is gained on anything. We rely on authorities of the respective subjects. So in this regard religion is no different. If you want me to comment more on this I can share with you what Maimonides had to say about the necessity of prophets.

 

[ding]

Here, on Earth we are obligated to each other to do what is best for Mankind and the Earth.

That depends upon your answers to the origin questions. If there is no purpose or intention to the creation of existence, then what would the point be of being obligated to each other or doing what is best for mankind or earth. If there is no purpose or intention to the creation of existence then there is no good or bad or right and wrong. There are just opinions or preferences.

Why did you capitalize mankind and earth?