Why is religion discussed so much on a board full of (mostly) athiest?

[cloudshipsrule]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The only thing we have in common is that we aren't religious*, so it tends to come up.

*and that we're sexual perverts, but they won't let us discuss that in public anymore

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I can't speak for everyone but me myself, I'm very interested in religion, for many reasons. Allthough I wouldn't call myself an atheist.

[MWare]

On a forum dedicated to the investigation of paranormal claims, it would be odd to not discuss religion - which defines itself with paranormal claims.

[Spindrift]

We're overwhelmingly not Conspiracy Theorists, but we spend a lot more time on that subject than anything else.

[wahrheit]

A forum with lots of atheists also discussing religion?

No ****, Sherlock.

[PastorJennifer]

As for me, I am an atheist who had an experience of religious ecstasy during a time of mourning and grief. Go figure! As a consequence, I understand the mindset of religiously minded people. I happened, thanks to Richard Dawkins and others, to have interpreted my extremely powerful religious experience as a neurological phenomenon. I have therefore a certain empathy for religiously committed people, although I cannot accept the nonsense that accompanies their beliefs.

[Irony]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.

Probably lots of reasons, but I can think of two offhand. One is that from a psychological and cultural perspective religion is a fairly interesting subject. The other is basically the same reason that people will discuss being mugged despite not being a muggers themselves.

[Hokulele]

Whether you agree with it or not, religion has an impact on most people's life every day. Kinda like finance, but with more yelling.

[Darth Rotor]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.
Preaching to a choir is an exercise in comforting self affirmation. No reason to let clergymen have all the fun.

Oh, and what the Marquis said.

And Hok, you are sooooooooo nominated. If that will Pith off friend Tricky, so be it. :D

Whether you agree with it or not, religion has an impact on most people's life every day. Kinda like finance, but with more yelling.

Brady to the Indy secondary. Repeatedly. ;)

DR

[Hokulele]

Brady to the Indy secondary. Repeatedly. ;)



HEY! :mad:


But thanks for the nom. Anything that pisses off Tricky is good in my book.

Brady to Moooooosssssss!

[/end derail]

[ksbluesfan]

I enjoy discussing religion with people who share my beliefs. There aren't many people that I know personally who are atheists.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.

Religion, like any area of study, should be scrutinized logically.

[Upchurch]

Speaking for myself, being atheist is not the same thing as being anti-religious.

Now, granted, I'm anti-some religions, but I condemn them on their own failings rather than simply because they are religions.

[slingblade]

It's a topic of abuse for me. I pick at it like a scab.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The only thing we have in common is that we aren't religious*, so it tends to come up.

*and that we're sexual perverts, but they won't let us discuss that in public anymore

Isn't that on the Secret Forum? Oh. Damn. Now I'll have to choke myself. :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Leaving aside the general issue of religion as relates to skepticism (or areas of interest for participants of the forum), there are a number of subjects which we discuss here where there is a ton of diversity (politics) and near universal agreement (CT). Religion per se isn't the only topic of discussion in this subforum. We also discuss issues as diverse as Creationism, Church/State and actions of personalities like Fred Phelps.

[Kopji]

I find that atheism is a realization that came during part of a longer journey that involved an awful lot of religion.

For years I hoped to someday be completely rid of this place and have no interest in returning. There is sometimes a fear in being here... fear that in some strange way, belief might reach out and snatch me back into the darkness.

But there were people here for me when I needed help, and now it seems right that I be here, (at least occasionally), for others who come this way.

That, and the wounds sometimes itch. :D

[autumn1971]

I'd rather choke my chic....
Nahh. Too easy.

[autumn1971]

Religion, like any area of study, should be scrutinized logically.

Actually, I tend to disagree. Areas of study involving empirical research should be scrutinized logically, but areas outside of the empirical should be scrutinized in other ways.
I am a hard-headed rationalist, but I love all sorts of music and film and dance and art and fart-jokes.
I think that there are many reasons for my love of my non-empirical interests, and many reasons why my non-empirical interests are much better than your non-empirical interests.

I just hope that they are never scrutinized logically.
(mine would still be better than yours)

[articulett]

I think religion props up this notion that "faith is a good way of knowing something"--better than logic and facts and evidence. They tell kids this... and when people believe this, they are susceptible to all sorts of manipulation. Religions tend to do something to thinking that I find sinister-- there's this threat of eternal suffering for "not having faith" and "biting from the tree of knowledge" and this notion that believing an unbelievable story is the best and most important thing you can do. Religions encourage a distrust of science and those who believe differently and don't believe at all. I think it exploits the trust of youngsters and makes them so much more likely to believe all sorts of woo that "resonates" with them. Faith and feelings and confirmation bias is the essence of all woo, isn't it? And religion makes sure these childish tendencies persist into adulthood. And all woo use the same strategies of the religious--"inner knowingness", anecdote, emotional appeal, claims of higher truths, mysticism, "special knowledge", expected deference with aspersions cast towards doubt, science, logic, and doubters. Woos are always attacking skeptics-- because skeptics demand evidence... and religions have taught people to accuse those of demanding evidence as arrogant.

Let's face it--when it comes to promoting woo and demanding respect for doing so--nothing does it quite as well as religion. All woo has an easy template by following the formula of religions. They all turn the doubters into the bad guys and themselves into the "chosen" or "blessed" or "gifted" folk-- "in on the secrets of the universe". And good, trusting people are readily sucked in and made ignorant while thinking they know "higher truths".

[cnorman18]

I think religion props up this notion that "faith is a good way of knowing something"--better than logic and facts and evidence. They tell kids this... and when people believe this, they are susceptible to all sorts of manipulation. Religions tend to do something to thinking that I find sinister-- there's this threat of eternal suffering for "not having faith" and "biting from the tree of knowledge" and this notion that believing an unbelievable story is the best and most important thing you can do. Religions encourage a distrust of science and those who believe differently and don't believe at all. I think it exploits the trust of youngsters and makes them so much more likely to believe all sorts of woo that "resonates" with them. Faith and feelings and confirmation bias is the essence of all woo, isn't it? And religion makes sure these childish tendencies persist into adulthood. And all woo use the same strategies of the religious--"inner knowingness", anecdote, emotional appeal, claims of higher truths, mysticism, "special knowledge", expected deference with aspersions cast towards doubt, science, logic, and doubters. Woos are always attacking skeptics-- because skeptics demand evidence... and religions have taught people to accuse those of demanding evidence as arrogant.

Let's face it--when it comes to promoting woo and demanding respect for doing so--nothing does it quite as well as religion. All woo has an easy template by following the formula of religions. They all turn the doubters into the bad guys and themselves into the "chosen" or "blessed" or "gifted" folk-- "in on the secrets of the universe". And good, trusting people are readily sucked in and made ignorant while thinking they know "higher truths".

For 90+% of religions, you are absolutely right. Religion is the most popular basis for scams and manipulation on earth, even beating out "poor understanding of mathematics," aka "gambling," and "love of country."

I'll leave it at that.

(Surprised?)

[Elind]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.

What's more interesting is why you are prompted to ask?

[Fnord]

Why is religion discussed so much on a board full of (mostly) athiest?

Because it's there!

[frankvan]

I enjoy discussing religion with people who share my beliefs. There aren't many people that I know personally who are atheists.

Amen to that. We're sort of like the skunks at the picnics most places. Most non-atheist religion discussions tend to get very tiresome, preachy, and full of pious-sounding gibberish. They aren't even "discussions without a few agnostics/atheists participating.

[grayman]

For me the question is the same whether it be religion, ESP, dowsing, UFOs, Bigfoot, and so forth; I ask, "What makes you believe in this?"

The psychology student in me wonders why people hold their beliefs and what separates a belief from an obsessive/compulsive disorder.

[CFLarsen]

Speaking for myself, being atheist is not the same thing as being anti-religious.

Now, granted, I'm anti-some religions, but I condemn them on their own failings rather than simply because they are religions.

Are you then also not condemning some religious people?

[Elind]

Speaking for myself, being atheist is not the same thing as being anti-religious.

Now, granted, I'm anti-some religions, but I condemn them on their own failings rather than simply because they are religions.

Two questions occur.

Which religions would you not be anti?

How do you separate the religion from the "failings"?

[Upchurch]

Are you then also not condemning some religious people?
Well, I suppose. I'd like to think that I judge people by their actions rather than what groups they belong to, but I'm only human. Prejudice is bound to sneak up on me now and then.

eta: Wait, I think I read that wrong.

Yes, there are some religious people I do not condemn.


Which religions would you not be anti?
For me, that would be mostly the heretical and religiously liberal ones, I suppose. It isn't like I have a list.


How do you separate the religion from the "failings"?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If I'm judging a religion based on its merits and failings, I'm not separating those qualities from that religion.

[Elind]

For me, that would be mostly the heretical and religiously liberal ones, I suppose. It isn't like I have a list.

Are there any heretical ones? Scientologists perhaps?;)
As to religiously liberal, I presume you mean something like Unitarian who, as far as I understand it pretend to have no real answers other than feel good rituals?

A list would be good, if only for further discussion reasons.



I'm not sure I understand the question. If I'm judging a religion based on its merits and failings, I'm not separating those qualities from that religion.

I was thinking of the ability of religion to justify it's beliefs, and inability thereby defined as failed, IMHO. If you mean something like relatively peaceful or not (in this age), I don't consider that a matter of fundamental success or failure, just the way the pendulum swings.

[Upchurch]

Are there any heretical ones? Scientologists perhaps?;)
Yes, there are heretical religions ("heresy" meaning "to choose"). No, Scientology is not one of them.


As to religiously liberal, I presume you mean something like Unitarian who, as far as I understand it pretend to have no real answers other than feel good rituals?
Unitarian Universalism is certainly one example of a liberal religion. Your description misses the mark. If you are interested, I recommend starting here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism) and continuing here (http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml).


A list would be good, if only for further discussion reasons.
And probably take the thread even more off-topic. There are other threads on UU. Taking the lazy man's way out, I'll just defer to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theology).


I was thinking of the ability of religion to justify it's beliefs, and inability thereby defined as failed, IMHO. If you mean something like relatively peaceful or not (in this age), I don't consider that a matter of fundamental success or failure, just the way the pendulum swings.
Making false or unfalsifiable claims as statements of fact would certainly be a failing, but I was thinking primarily along the lines of those religions whose members hurt themselves and/or others.

I don't claim to have any universal criteria but base things on a case-by-case determination.

[CFLarsen]

Well, I suppose. I'd like to think that I judge people by their actions rather than what groups they belong to, but I'm only human. Prejudice is bound to sneak up on me now and then.

eta: Wait, I think I read that wrong.

Yes, there are some religious people I do not condemn.


Oh, I'm not accusing you of prejudice.

It's just that, since religions don't exist outside the human mind, it doesn't make sense to judge a religion on its own. A religion is nothing without those who believe in it. It's the religious people who make the religion what it is.

Can you condemn a religion, if you don't condemn the religious people believing in it?

[H-o-l-l-y]

If we were all religious it would be more debate or preaching rather than discussion?
So its a pretty good choice of place to discuss, because religion is interesting to people who dont necessarily believe it! Just like 911 conspiracies.. if you believed everything the media (ect.) told you there would be no conspiracy therefore no discussion.

[articulett]

Oh, I'm not accusing you of prejudice.

It's just that, since religions don't exist outside the human mind, it doesn't make sense to judge a religion on its own. A religion is nothing without those who believe in it. It's the religious people who make the religion what it is.

Can you condemn a religion, if you don't condemn the religious people believing in it?

Really? I see most religious people of victims of their own trust and naivete... at least women and kids... I mean you believe this stuff because the authority figures tell you it's true, right? And that you will be rewarded for faith and punished for doubt... and they inculcate it with that whole story about "biting from the tree of knowledge". I don't think religion is very ego gratifying for women... I think they are more often afraid not to believe. The good heavenly stuff seems to be reserved for the guys as well as everything in the ecclesiastical hierarchies, priests, clergymen, gurus, "the chosen", disciples, prophets, popes, etc. But who wants to think it if means you or your kids might suffer eternally. I think you can condemn religion--at least the meme that "Faith is good" or "faith leads to higher truths" etc. without condemning the victims of it.

[CFLarsen]

Really? I see most religious people of victims of their own trust and naivete... at least women and kids... I mean you believe this stuff because the authority figures tell you it's true, right? And that you will be rewarded for faith and punished for doubt... and they inculcate it with that whole story about "biting from the tree of knowledge". I don't think religion is very ego gratifying for women... I think they are more often afraid not to believe. The good heavenly stuff seems to be reserved for the guys as well as everything in the ecclesiastical hierarchies, priests, clergymen, gurus, "the chosen", disciples, prophets, popes, etc. But who wants to think it if means you or your kids might suffer eternally. I think you can condemn religion--at least the meme that "Faith is good" or "faith leads to higher truths" etc. without condemning the victims of it.

I wasn't saying otherwise. I said that it doesn't make sense to condemn (a) religion without condemning at least some of those who believe in it.

[dacium2007]

Probably because 95% of the population are religions, so we probably deal with mainly religions people all day.

[Elind]

Making false or unfalsifiable claims as statements of fact would certainly be a failing, but I was thinking primarily along the lines of those religions whose members hurt themselves and/or others.


I'll check your links, but hurting themselves is implicit in holding beliefs that are untrue and by definition unprovable, as well as passing such thinking to the genuinely innocent.

As to harming others, there are varying degrees to be sure, but I have a case to claim "harm" every time a law is passed based on a religious belief alone.

[Upchurch]

Can you condemn a religion, if you don't condemn the religious people believing in it?
Andreas Heldal-Lund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Heldal-Lund) of Operation Clambake (http://xenu.net/) often makes the distinction between Scientologists and The Church of Scientology, saying he has a problem with the latter but not the former.

So, yes, it apparently is possible.

[Upchurch]

I'll check your links, but hurting themselves is implicit in holding beliefs that are untrue and by definition unprovable, as well as passing such thinking to the genuinely innocent.
But holding beliefs that are untrue are not inherent to all religions. Some religions even support letting the young (and old) figure things out for themselves.


As to harming others, there are varying degrees to be sure, but I have a case to claim "harm" every time a law is passed based on a religious belief alone.
Are all religions guilty for the acts of a few religions?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are all religions guilty for the acts of a few religions?

While I appear to be in the minority on this forum, I feel that any religion is not guilty for the acts of individual practitioners of that particular religion.

[Upchurch]

While I appear to be in the minority on this forum, I feel that any religion is not guilty for the acts of individual practitioners of that particular religion.
I agree, even when those individual practitioners are among the religious leadership.

[Darat]

A ("living") religion is the sum of its practitioners, but like other such groupings it may have emergent behaviours which can then feedback to its practitioners. Therefore sometimes a religion may be a contributing factor to the "why" of what someone does.

[Elind]

But holding beliefs that are untrue are not inherent to all religions. Some religions even support letting the young (and old) figure things out for themselves.

:confused: It isn't?
Perhaps I am using too broad a brush for you, but I was of the opinion that advocating fundamental belief in something while fully admitting it is unprovable (as I understand that word) is a definition of religion. I'm not aware of any that don't make it a fundamental tenet of their existence to perpetuate their "faith". Can you tell me which don't fit that bill?



Are all religions guilty for the acts of a few religions?I'm not talking suicide bombers here, and no, one religion is not guilty for the sins of another; they are all equally guilty within themselves for foisting primitive superstitions on humanity.

[Elind]

While I appear to be in the minority on this forum, I feel that any religion is not guilty for the acts of individual practitioners of that particular religion.

Any acts? Not even when those acts are in accordance with the teachings of the religion?

[Elind]

A ("living") religion is the sum of its practitioners, but like other such groupings it may have emergent behaviours which can then feedback to its practitioners. Therefore sometimes a religion may be a contributing factor to the "why" of what someone does.

You have a talent for saying something softly softly.;)

[Upchurch]

But holding beliefs that are untrue are not inherent to all religions. Some religions even support letting the young (and old) figure things out for themselves.
:confused: It isn't?
No, it isn't.


Perhaps I am using too broad a brush for you, but I was of the opinion that advocating fundamental belief in something while fully admitting it is unprovable (as I understand that word) is a definition of religion. I'm not aware of any that don't make it a fundamental tenet of their existence to perpetuate their "faith". Can you tell me which don't fit that bill?
I already have.

The one I'm most familiar with, UU, is a non-creedal religion. That means they don't require you to believe anything. They do advocate certain principles, like tolerance, but that is neither true nor untrue and ultimately, you don't have to agree with them.

Children growing up in UU are exposed to a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions and when they of age (read "seniors in high school"), they are invited to make a "statement of faith". I haven't been through the process myself, but I've seen several of these statements and there have been a disproportionate number of atheists, and even a few agnostics, to come out of it.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Upchurch
But holding beliefs that are untrue are not inherent to all religions. :confused: It isn't?



No, it isn't.

OK. I presume in your cryptic minimalist responses that you mean UU again. On the other hand I would ask what it is then that qualifies UU as a religion, by the commonly accepted convention (I predict a dissention here)? If they have no superstitious fundamentals, by definition unprovable, then I suspect it is a social organization that gains comfort from familiar rituals, or perhaps meditation.

In discussions like this one tends to assume that the discussion is about mainstream "religions" that are practiced by 90%+ of humanity.


I already have. Sorry. I must have missed that.

The one I'm most familiar with, UU, is a non-creedal religion. That means they don't require you to believe anything. They do advocate certain principles, like tolerance, but that is neither true nor untrue and ultimately, you don't have to agree with them.

Children growing up in UU are exposed to a wide variety of religious and philosophical traditions and when they of age (read "seniors in high school"), they are invited to make a "statement of faith". I haven't been through the process myself, but I've seen several of these statements and there have been a disproportionate number of atheists, and even a few agnostics, to come out of it.As I stated above, I fail to see where that qualifies as religion in any traditional sense. Social connection is what I see.

[Upchurch]

Sorry, if I'm being short in this post. You aren't the first one to make this claim.

On the other hand I would ask what it is then that qualifies UU as a religion, by the commonly accepted convention (I predict a dissention here)? If they have no superstitious fundamentals, by definition unprovable, then I suspect it is a social organization that gains comfort from familiar rituals, or perhaps meditation.
Classic No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) fallacy.

A: All religions have property X.
B: UU does not have property X.
A: Well, UU is not really a religion.

Care to justify that any?


In discussions like this one tends to assume that the discussion is about mainstream "religions" that are practiced by 90%+ of humanity.
Hasty Generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

UU's roots go back a good 400+ years. There were as many Unitarian Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) as there were Catholic (and more than Methodist and Calvinists). Thomas Jefferson being one of them. UU is recognized as a religion by the U.S. Government. Whatever you want to think, you are in the minority in your opinion that UU is not a religion.

The real question here is what are you going to do. You have made a claim. I have provided you with information that does not fit your claim. You now have the choice. You can either ignore the new information in favor of maintaining your claim or you can adjust your claim to account for the new information.


As I stated above, I fail to see where that qualifies as religion in any traditional sense. Social connection is what I see.
Argument From Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Congrats, you made the hat trick.

[arthwollipot]

While I appear to be in the minority on this forum, I feel that any religion is not guilty for the acts of individual practitioners of that particular religion.Except in circumstances where individuals believe that they are acting according to the requirements of a religion.

For example, imagine a fictional religion that required the sacrifice of children. It is a commandment, a sacrement to this fictional religion. I would not blame the individual for the murder of the children, I would blame the religion for inducing the individuals to murder children.

Ok, a pretty extreme example. But Violent Islamic Fundamentalism (which I hold distinct from mainstream Islam) is the cause of suicide bombings in Iraq, not the individuals. Individuals are sheep - they will do whatever their religion (in this case Violent Islamic Fundamentalism) tells them to do.

[Elind]

UU's roots go back a good 400+ years. There were as many Unitarian Founding Fathers (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html) as there were Catholic (and more than Methodist and Calvinists). Thomas Jefferson being one of them. UU is recognized as a religion by the U.S. Government. Whatever you want to think, you are in the minority in your opinion that UU is not a religion.

The real question here is what are you going to do. You have made a claim. I have provided you with information that does not fit your claim. You now have the choice. You can either ignore the new information in favor of maintaining your claim or you can adjust your claim to account for the new information.


I don't see any new information provided except the claim of 400 years.

Honestly, I am interested to know more because I will fully admit I am not very knowledgeable about UU, although I had a friend who was one. Let's just say he was a character, into preaching about things like "everything happens for a reason" (but not a traditional god) and so on. In his case, struck me as somewhat "New Age" mysticism.

I haven't tried to prove anything to you. I stated a personal opinion which you are free to try to dissuade me of.

There are religious faiths and there are religious/social rituals. Both can be comforting to people. I am of the opinion that UU is a way for people perform the latter without actually admitting anything unbelievable about the former.

As Wikipedia says, "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith)" or "belief system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system),"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#_note-2) but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions."

Obviously there can be looser definitions of religion and if anyone can call anything they want "religion" then the term becomes meaningless; but in spite of your defense of UU as religion, I have not heard you attempt to say why it is one, unless it is simply what I described earlier, being "ritual".

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Actually, I tend to disagree. Areas of study involving empirical research should be scrutinized logically, but areas outside of the empirical should be scrutinized in other ways.
I am a hard-headed rationalist, but I love all sorts of music and film and dance and art and fart-jokes.
I think that there are many reasons for my love of my non-empirical interests, and many reasons why my non-empirical interests are much better than your non-empirical interests.

I just hope that they are never scrutinized logically.
(mine would still be better than yours)

Religion is philosophy, and why it can't necessarily be discussed empirically, we should at least apply logic to it.

[Upchurch]

I don't see any new information provided except the claim of 400 years.
Then you aren't paying attention. The whole of religion is not represented by fanaticism and superstition. There are other aspects of religion that have been around for a long, long time. Don't forget that mathematics and science has its origins in ancient Greek religious and philosophical thought.

This is purely my opinion, but I like to think that modern liberal religious thought is a continuation of that tradition.


Honestly, I am interested to know more because I will fully admit I am not very knowledgeable about UU, although I had a friend who was one. Let's just say he was a character, into preaching about things like "everything happens for a reason" (but not a traditional god) and so on. In his case, struck me as somewhat "New Age" mysticism.
Religious freedom is a double edged sword. While it allows you the freedom to pursue skepticism and atheism, it also allows you the freedom to pursue woo. What can I say?


There are religious faiths and there are religious/social rituals. Both can be comforting to people. I am of the opinion that UU is a way for people perform the latter without actually admitting anything unbelievable about the former.
False Dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

There possibilities other than simply faith and/or social ritual. There is also pursuit of understanding(s) and meaning(s). There is learning points of view, contexts, and perspectives.

Using an overly simplified example, science does not speak to questions of morality. Science gives a description of what is, but doesn't place moral or ethical value on it. That doesn't mean that the answers to those questions should not be pursued, even if they can't necessarily be obtained. Religious thought is a method for pursuing those kinds of answers.

What you're implying is that all religions are orthodox, meaning that those from on-high simply hand down the "right" answers for the masses to consume. I won't deny that doesn't happen because it does. However, not all religions are orthodoxies. As I've pointed out, some are heretical and encourage the masses to find their own answers.

Why is UU a religion? Because it directly facilitates the search for understanding and meaning in our existence. It just doesn't give you the answers.

Why are other social organizations not religions? The community band I belong to, for example, doesn't concern itself with morality, ethics, meaning or reality. We just play music and occasionally have a concert or a party.


(Ironically, I have more ritual and get more comfort out of going band than I do from going to a UU service. I've never quite thought about it in those terms.)

[Upchurch]

Religion is philosophy, and why it can't necessarily be discussed empirically, we should at least apply logic to it.
Absolutely agree.

[Elind]

Religion is philosophy, and why it can't necessarily be discussed empirically, we should at least apply logic to it.

I disagree, and so does the dictionary except in passing reference. Unless we include UU as a religion, which is what is being discussed.:D

[Elind]

There possibilities other than simply faith and/or social ritual. There is also pursuit of understanding(s) and meaning(s). There is learning points of view, contexts, and perspectives.

Not what I think of as a fundamental of religion if one removes "faith" from the board.

Using an overly simplified example, science does not speak to questions of morality. Science gives a description of what is, but doesn't place moral or ethical value on it. That doesn't mean that the answers to those questions should not be pursued, even if they can't necessarily be obtained. Religious thought is a method for pursuing those kinds of answers.

Scientists like Dawkins, and other "philosophers" believe that one can apply scientific principles to understanding morality. As an atheist I think I have some understanding of why I think I am more moral than not.

What you're implying is that all religions are orthodox, meaning that those from on-high simply hand down the "right" answers for the masses to consume. I won't deny that doesn't happen because it does. However, not all religions are orthodoxies. As I've pointed out, some are heretical and encourage the masses to find their own answers.

The latter category I suspect number less than us atheists. I am using what I consider commonly accepted defintions is all.

Why is UU a religion? Because it directly facilitates the search for understanding and meaning in our existence. It just doesn't give you the answers.

What is the point of searching for understanding and meaning if you expect to find no answers, or are you saying that you won't find them from outside yourself? Still sounds like a philosophy/meditation organization to me.

Why are other social organizations not religions? The community band I belong to, for example, doesn't concern itself with morality, ethics, meaning or reality. We just play music and occasionally have a concert or a party.

I think, if you think about it, morality, ethics and meaning have a lot to do with it.


(Ironically, I have more ritual and get more comfort out of going band than I do from going to a UU service. I've never quite thought about it in those terms.)

See what I mean?:D

[Upchurch]

Not what I think of as a fundamental of religion if one removes "faith" from the board.
Why do you assume that it is the classification of UU is wrong and not your definition of "religion"?


Scientists like Dawkins, and other "philosophers" believe that one can apply scientific principles to understanding morality.
What is he is actually doing is applying the philosophy of science principles. It's a subtle difference.


As an atheist I think I have some understanding of why I think I am more moral than not.
I never claimed you weren't. I also never claimed that religion was the only way to arrive at a concept of morality.


What is the point of searching for understanding and meaning if you expect to find no answers, or are you saying that you won't find them from outside yourself? Still sounds like a philosophy/meditation organization to me.
Ugh. I never claimed any of that. You're just making straw men now.

I said that UU doesn't claim to have The Answer. It's aims are to help you find your own answers, whatever those may be.

And all religions are philosophies. Religion is a subset of philosophy.


I think, if you think about it, morality, ethics and meaning have a lot to do with it.
*thinking*

No, it's really just the music and, to a lesser extent, food and games.


See what I mean?:D
No.

[CFLarsen]

Andreas Heldal-Lund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Heldal-Lund) of Operation Clambake (http://xenu.net/) often makes the distinction between Scientologists and The Church of Scientology, saying he has a problem with the latter but not the former.

So, yes, it apparently is possible.

Do you think it is possible to condemn a religion, if you don't condemn the religious people believing in it?

[Upchurch]

Do you think it is possible to condemn a religion, if you don't condemn the religious people believing in it?
I already said I did.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, there are heretical religions ("heresy" meaning "to choose"). No, Scientology is not one of them.

But I thought there where heretical splinter groups of scientologists.

[Upchurch]

But I thought there where heretical splinter groups of scientologists.
There are?

[ponderingturtle]

Classic No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman) fallacy.

A: All religions have property X.
B: UU does not have property X.
A: Well, UU is not really a religion.

Care to justify that any?

IF you look over enough religions there seems to be no unifying trait that all religions have.

So a religion is that what calls itself a religion. That also means that you can not so readily say that something isn't a religion.

[ponderingturtle]

There are?

I know there are groups of scientologists outside of the Co$, and would think that they would fit the classic use of the word heretic. Not sure on the doctrinal differences though.

[Upchurch]

IF you look over enough religions there seems to be no unifying trait that all religions have.
How about my pseudo-definition where I talk about meaning and understanding? I fully admit it isn't complete and well encapsulated, but I think I might be on the right track.


I know there are groups of scientologists outside of the Co$, and would think that they would fit the classic use of the word heretic. Not sure on the doctrinal differences though.
Are you talking about the groups of ex-scientologists?

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I think religion props up this notion that "faith is a good way of knowing something"--better than logic and facts and evidence. They tell kids this... and when people believe this, they are susceptible to all sorts of manipulation. Religions tend to do something to thinking that I find sinister-- there's this threat of eternal suffering for "not having faith" and "biting from the tree of knowledge" and this notion that believing an unbelievable story is the best and most important thing you can do. Religions encourage a distrust of science and those who believe differently and don't believe at all. I think it exploits the trust of youngsters and makes them so much more likely to believe all sorts of woo that "resonates" with them. Faith and feelings and confirmation bias is the essence of all woo, isn't it? And religion makes sure these childish tendencies persist into adulthood. And all woo use the same strategies of the religious--"inner knowingness", anecdote, emotional appeal, claims of higher truths, mysticism, "special knowledge", expected deference with aspersions cast towards doubt, science, logic, and doubters. Woos are always attacking skeptics-- because skeptics demand evidence... and religions have taught people to accuse those of demanding evidence as arrogant.

Let's face it--when it comes to promoting woo and demanding respect for doing so--nothing does it quite as well as religion. All woo has an easy template by following the formula of religions. They all turn the doubters into the bad guys and themselves into the "chosen" or "blessed" or "gifted" folk-- "in on the secrets of the universe". And good, trusting people are readily sucked in and made ignorant while thinking they know "higher truths".

Nominated!

[Elind]

Why do you assume that it is the classification of UU is wrong and not your definition of "religion"?

I don't claim to have the rights to defining it, but if anyone can claim to have a religion, then it becomes merely a social grouping with any common goals, like communism, naziism, scientology and so on. You seem to get peeved every time I suggest that I have always considered the basic fundamentals of a religion to have a certain faith in a superstitious belief that is self defined as unprovable. Why do you find that a problem? So far all you have said about UU being a religion is that you, or UU, says it is so.



What is he is actually doing is applying the philosophy of science principles. It's a subtle difference.Too subtle to be significant I suspect, when I understand what you say. Dawkins applies principles of evolution to the matter. That sounds like science to me.



I never claimed you weren't. I also never claimed that religion was the only way to arrive at a concept of morality.You may not have said so, but the majority of religions do.

Ugh. I never claimed any of that. You're just making straw men now.

I said that UU doesn't claim to have The Answer. It's aims are to help you find your own answers, whatever those may be.
Which is exactly what I said when offering two interpretations of your statement. What's with the Ugh?


And all religions are philosophies. Religion is a subset of philosophy.Religion may be a subset of philosophy, but one which incorporates the unexplainable as an explanation of itself, which in my mind means it's theology masquerading as philosophy.....except perhaps UU regardless of what we call it.





*thinking*

No, it's really just the music and, to a lesser extent, food and games.



No.And nothing to do with the interactions with people, or what good music does to your brain, or challenging compositions, like at church?

[Upchurch]

I don't claim to have the rights to defining it,
And yet, you insist that it must have certain properties. That is a claim.


but if anyone can claim to have a religion, then it becomes merely a social grouping with any common goals, like communism, naziism, scientology and so on.
Straw man (and possibly a Godwin). I'm not saying that anyone can claim to have a religion nor am I saying that every organization is a religion. I have presented a differentiation. If you are going to criticize at least criticize what I actually said.


You seem to get peeved every time I suggest that I have always considered the basic fundamentals of a religion to have a certain faith in a superstitious belief that is self defined as unprovable. Why do you find that a problem?
Because there is at least one piece of evidence that contradicts your belief. As I said, you can either fit your theory to data or you can fit the data to your theory. You are doing the latter.

For a guy who is so harsh on faith, you seem to have plenty of it in your own assumptions.


So far all you have said about UU being a religion is that you, or UU, says it is so.
That is not all I have done. I explained how it is a religion. I have presented other groups that says it is so. You seem to accept what you believe to be the general consensus, except when it contradicts your assumptions.


You may not have said so, but the majority of religions do.
Even if that is true, the majority of religions are not all religions, which is kinda my point.


Which is exactly what I said when offering two interpretations of your statement.
Read it again. Neither interpretation matches what I said. I never said I didn't expect to find any answers at all nor did I say anything about where I did expect to find answers (outside of myself or otherwise).

The "ugh" is for not only having to deal with more logical fallacies and mis-characterization of my argument but also because you're avoiding justifying you claim.


Religion may be a subset of philosophy, but one which incorporates the unexplainable as an explanation of itself, which in my mind means its theology masquerading as philosophy.
Are you claiming that theology is not really (i.e. masquerading as) philosophy? Have you ever studied either subject?


And nothing to do with the interactions with people, or what good music does to your brain, or challenging compositions, like at church?
Are you even reading what I'm writing?

Yes, all experience, band practice or otherwise, can contribute to understanding and meaning, but not in and of itself. It also requires reflection, interpretation, and context. No, band practice is not like going to a church in any meaningful respect.

[lolurigeller]

It makes for interesting discussions, so I'm not complaining. Just curious.

I've been on so many other different forums that I see the same kind of pattern where people will always seek to define themselves in relation to their idealogical counter-part.

I've seen so much sometimes that I just don't take it seriously anymore, it could be a flaming thread about the best way to make eggs sunnyside up, which side wins in a virtual MMORPG world in the most obscure place on the internet, the list of subjects goes on endlessly.

The subject of religion is a measly drop in the bucket.

[drkitten]

Perhaps I am using too broad a brush for you, but I was of the opinion that advocating fundamental belief in something while fully admitting it is unprovable (as I understand that word) is a definition of religion. I'm not aware of any that don't make it a fundamental tenet of their existence to perpetuate their "faith". Can you tell me which don't fit that bill?

Most of the religions that do not try to perpetuate themselves tend not to survive long, for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. One of the best known is Zorastrianism, which by and large does not accept converts at all, nor does it accept children of mixed marriage. Many, perhaps even most, African tribal religions do not accept converts; you are part of the religion if and only if you are part of the tribe and born into the tribal society. I am not aware of any Native American tribal religion that actively solicits converts, and most are positively hostile to them.

Similarly, there are sects (the American Shakers or the Harmonists are perhaps the best-known) that abstain from sex; these sects tend to die out in in a generation or two for obvious reasons.

There are a number of historical sects that had both characteristics. I believe that both first century Palestine and millenial versions of Christianity have been littered with them. But, of course, a sect that neither produces children nor accepts converts will not survive longer than the longest-lived founding member.

[Elind]

And yet, you insist that it must have certain properties. That is a claim.

I think that any word must have certain properties. I have only said what my interpretation of this word is, and am try to get you to explain something different, instead of just attacking my opinion.



Straw man (and possibly a Godwin). I'm not saying that anyone can claim to have a religion nor am I saying that every organization is a religion. I have presented a differentiation. If you are going to criticize at least criticize what I actually said.Methinks you like to label arguments too much, instead of responding to them. If you presented a differentiation I didn't read it, other than YOUR claim that it is so.



Because there is at least one piece of evidence that contradicts your belief. As I said, you can either fit your theory to data or you can fit the data to your theory. You are doing the latter.

For a guy who is so harsh on faith, you seem to have plenty of it in your own assumptions.:shrug: It's hard to say that one considers blind faith to be simple superstition without seeming harsh to those who have it. I had it once, so I have some perspective. This forum is to debate such issues. Forgive me for missing something, but which piece of evidence are you referring to?



That is not all I have done. I explained how it is a religion. I have presented other groups that says it is so. You seem to accept what you believe to be the general consensus, except when it contradicts your assumptions.As I said before, what you have done is say who says it (UU) is religion in what I think is the common understanding. That is nothing more nthan an opinion, just like my contrary one is. Shall we switch gear and discuss simply what is the meaning of the word religion, and what distinguishes that word from any, say, creed?



Even if that is true, the majority of religions are not all religions, which is kinda my point.

Either of us can invent a religion in the next few minutes, and say it is so. So?

Read it again. Neither interpretation matches what I said. I never said I didn't expect to find any answers at all nor did I say anything about where I did expect to find answers (outside of myself or otherwise).That seems to be our problem. You don't like precision in argument, and when one attempts to understand you respond that one didn't understand.

The "ugh" is for not only having to deal with more logical fallacies and mis-characterization of my argument but also because you're avoiding justifying you claim.
I think I'm repeating myself, but I am expressing my opinion and what I believe to be a generally accepted one, not making a claim as such. You like Wikipedia, it says; Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural), sacred, divine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), or of the highest truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth).

And that is essentially all I am saying. Now you can say that UU is a "system of thought" without invoking the supernatural, but if so you have not explained what that system is; in fact you seem to suggest it is as far from a defined system as one can get, and that is its primary attribute.

Are you claiming that theology is not really (i.e. masquerading as) philosophy? Have you ever studied either subject?
That's like asking if I have studied nuclear physics if I claim to know something about it or have read other opinions about it. While one can certainly argue that theology has connection and similarities with philosophy, it is the philosophy of a predefined religious belief, and as such, IMHO, is an effort to validate or define something predetermined, not obtain an independent truth.


Are you even reading what I'm writing?Are you even trying to read anything except what you are writing?:p

Yes, all experience, band practice or otherwise, can contribute to understanding and meaning, but not in and of itself. It also requires reflection, interpretation, and context. No, band practice is not like going to a church in any meaningful respect.So be it. You said something contrary earlier, which I thought was insightful in some way. Seems we were both wrong.

[Upchurch]

If you presented a differentiation I didn't read it, other than YOUR claim that it is so.

As I said:
Why is UU a religion? Because it directly facilitates the search for understanding and meaning in our existence. It just doesn't give you the answers.

Why are other social organizations not religions? The community band I belong to, for example, doesn't concern itself with morality, ethics, meaning or reality. We just play music and occasionally have a concert or a party.


Forgive me for missing something, but which piece of evidence are you referring to?

As I said:
I'll check your links, but hurting themselves is implicit in holding beliefs that are untrue and by definition unprovable, as well as passing such thinking to the genuinely innocent.
But holding beliefs that are untrue are not inherent to all religions. Some religions even support letting the young (and old) figure things out for themselves.


Either of us can invent a religion in the next few minutes, and say it is so. So?
You are missing the point again. I'm not saying anything anything can be a religion. I'm saying you are making a logical fallacy, in this case a hasty generalization. Logical fallacies represent flaws in reasoning.


That seems to be our problem. You don't like precision in argument, and when one attempts to understand you respond that one didn't understand.

No, I don't like fallacies in arguments. But to take you at your word, here is what was said:
Why is UU a religion? Because it directly facilitates the search for understanding and meaning in our existence. It just doesn't give you the answers.
What is the point of searching for understanding and meaning if you expect to find no answers, or are you saying that you won't find them from outside yourself?
It goes without saying (again) that I'm not saying either. What I'm saying is that orthodox religions have a "The Answer". UU doesn't have a "The Answer". Everyone is encouraged to find their own answer.


I think I'm repeating myself, but I am expressing my opinion and what I believe to be a generally accepted one, not making a claim as such. You like Wikipedia, it says; Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural), sacred, divine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), or of the highest truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth).

And that is essentially all I am saying.

That, however, isn't all that Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Definition_of_religion) is saying:
Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:

a notion of the transcendent or divine, often, but not always, in the form of theism
a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:
In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns" and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."
There is no "generally accepted" definition of religion.


Now you can say that UU is a "system of thought" without invoking the supernatural, but if so you have not explained what that system is; in fact you seem to suggest it is as far from a defined system as one can get, and that is its primary attribute.
I didn't realize I needed to. I did provide you with links to two resources. Have you taken a look at them?


That's like asking if I have studied nuclear physics if I claim to know something about it or have read other opinions about it.
Yes, it is. In order to speak knowledgeably about a subject, you do need to know something about the subject. You made absurd statements, I'm going to question the source of your information (or lack thereof).


While one can certainly argue that theology has connection and similarities with philosophy,
That, for instance, shows a fundamental unfamiliarity with philosophy.


You said something contrary earlier,
What?

[Elind]

Most of the religions that do not try to perpetuate themselves tend not to survive long, for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. One of the best known is Zorastrianism, which by and large does not accept converts at all, nor does it accept children of mixed marriage. Many, perhaps even most, African tribal religions do not accept converts; you are part of the religion if and only if you are part of the tribe and born into the tribal society. I am not aware of any Native American tribal religion that actively solicits converts, and most are positively hostile to them.

Similarly, there are sects (the American Shakers or the Harmonists are perhaps the best-known) that abstain from sex; these sects tend to die out in in a generation or two for obvious reasons.

There are a number of historical sects that had both characteristics. I believe that both first century Palestine and millenial versions of Christianity have been littered with them. But, of course, a sect that neither produces children nor accepts converts will not survive longer than the longest-lived founding member.

I take your point(s) and information, although even most of these do seek to perpetuate their beliefs, they just do it by procreation alone. As to those who follow a leader until they all die off one way or another, like Jonestown or the Hale Bopp groups well, we have words like sect or cult and just plain insane to describe the exceptions.

I am not suggesting that UU in this discussion is anything of the sort, but I am still unclear on how it qualifies as a "religion" anymore than a group of atheists philosophising about the meaning of life does (of course many religions like to call atheism a religion too).

[Elind]

You are missing the point again. I'm not saying anything anything can be a religion. I'm saying you are making a logical fallacy, in this case a hasty generalization. Logical fallacies represent flaws in reasoning.




No, I don't like fallacies in arguments. But to take you at your word, here is what was said:

It goes without saying (again) that I'm not saying either. What I'm saying is that orthodox religions have a "The Answer". UU doesn't have a "The Answer". Everyone is encouraged to find their own answer.


You don't know the difference between a fallacy and something you disagree with, don't understand, or have a different perspective of. Presumably that is the philosophy you practice.

By your definition atheism is also a religion comparable to UU, because atheists can philosophize about exactly the same issues that you go to a church to do, although they won't call it theology.

I was genuinely interested to learn what UU was about, without going to Wikipedia or Google. What you have taught me is that it teaches you to be every bit as intolerant, not to mention rude, as you accuse atheists, like me, of being towards religion.

You still haven't told me what you believe or why you get comfort from your religion (call it whatever you wish). A Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or Jew, or Zoroastrian I would guess, would have no such problem explaining their fundamentals. Saying you are "looking for the answer" doesn't hack it with simple people like me, humans have been doing that for millenniums.

Perhaps that is getting too personal for a debate like this, but I wish you the best in your advanced philosophy groups, I only ask that you post "The Answer" when you get it.;)

[CFLarsen]

I already said I did.

What are you condemning in a religion that is not man-made?

[ponderingturtle]

How about my pseudo-definition where I talk about meaning and understanding? I fully admit it isn't complete and well encapsulated, but I think I might be on the right track.


I missed it where was that?


Are you talking about the groups of ex-scientologists?

No, they believe in the truth of Dyanetics and Hubbard, they just split from the Co$

see Free Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29)

[Upchurch]

You don't know the difference between a fallacy and something you disagree with,
Perhaps you could explain how each of the fallacies I've pointed out do not apply?


You still haven't told me what you believe or why you get comfort from your religion (call it whatever you wish).
The "intolerance" you are sensing is probably my frustration from talking to someone who won't actually read what I wrote but insists on constructing straw men. Where did I say anything about UU giving me comfort? It doesn't. For me, that isn't what it is there for.

You're stacking so many assumptions on this conversation it's hindering you from actually participating.


Perhaps that is getting too personal for a debate like this, but I wish you the best in your advanced philosophy groups, I only ask that you post "The Answer" when you get it.;)
It isn't hard. All you have to do is read and respond to what I write. Making additional assumptions about what I mean just muddies the water.

[Upchurch]

What are you condemning in a religion that is not man-made?
Nothing. What in a religion could possibly not be man-made?


I missed it where was that?
Just that. Religion as a tradition in search of meaning and understanding, whereas science is a search for information and facts.


No, they believe in the truth of Dyanetics and Hubbard, they just split from the Co$

see Free Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_%28Scientology%29)
I am not familiar with this group. From what I read in the Wikipedia article, it sounds like they are also an orthodoxy, meaning that they are saying there is only one right way and they know what it is.

Heresy also has lots of different meanings and usages. Every orthodoxy would refer to every other religious philosophy outside of their own as a heresy, including other orthodoxies. By heretical religion, I'm referring to those religions that allow freedom of thought within their own religious system.

To put it another way, with in a particular religion, an orthodox religion has a top-down theology whereas a heretical religion has a bottom-up theology(ies).

[Senex]

Religion as a tradition in search of meaning and understanding, whereas science is a search for information and facts.



Hehehehe.... I can defend Ann Coulter better than you can defend religion. ;)

[Elind]

Perhaps you could explain how each of the fallacies I've pointed out do not apply?

This is an attempt at debate. You respond like a school teacher correcting a statement not by clarifying or correcting if appropriate, but by scoring with terms like ...Fallacy.



The "intolerance" you are sensing is probably my frustration from talking to someone who won't actually read what I wrote but insists on constructing straw men. Where did I say anything about UU giving me comfort? It doesn't. For me, that isn't what it is there for.You said:

Why is UU a religion? Because it directly facilitates the search for understanding and meaning in our existence. It just doesn't give you the answers.

...........

(Ironically, I have more ritual and get more comfort out of going band than I do from going to a UU service. I've never quite thought about it in those terms.)
I find it reasonable to infer from the above that you actually enjoy both, but to different degrees or in different ways. On the other hand if you DON'T enjoy UU or get any comfort from it I am interested to know why. We can try to avoid getting too hung up on common words like comfort and enjoy if you wish.

You're stacking so many assumptions on this conversation it's hindering you from actually participating.We have different styles. You are rather rigid in yours I think, but I am still interested to learn, to put it differently, why I should gain better insights into life through UU, as opposed to hanging out here, or reading Dawkins.



It isn't hard. All you have to do is read and respond to what I write. Making additional assumptions about what I mean just muddies the water.We both make assumptions, just like everyone else here does. I suspect you may assume others should already know what you think, as you have probably already addressed something, as you alluded to at the beginning of this exchange.

:)

[Elind]

Just that. Religion as a tradition in search of meaning and understanding, whereas science is a search for information and facts.

Of course this is a topic some people write books about, but as stated it is too simplistic to be very meaningful, and a poor choice of words to define science if one tries to be as brief as possible.


By heretical religion, I'm referring to those religions that allow freedom of thought within their own religious system. To put it another way, with in a particular religion, an orthodox religion has a top-down theology whereas a heretical religion has a bottom-up theology(ies).

Clarification appreciated. I almost asked what you meant by that several times, but we kept getting sidetracked.

However the bottom up analogy begs the question of what the goals are? I appreciate that they are understanding, and I believe the fundamental is Theistic in terms of worship, but without a mechanism to communicate and convince others of discovered truths, how can it be anything more than a vehicle for those unhappy with their original religion, but unwilling to resign from it?

Wikipedia doesn't help me understand much better.

[arthwollipot]

Hehehehe.... I can defend Ann Coulter better than you can defend religion. ;)

Yeah - damned freedom of speech. We'd all be better off without it.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah - damned freedom of speech. We'd all be better off without it.

Wow, that came out of nowhere. Are you suggesting that someone's freedom of speech is being infringed or threatened to be infringed? Or are you just making a sarcastic point just for the sake of making a sarcastic point?

[arthwollipot]

Hehehehe.... I can defend Ann Coulter better than you can defend religion. ;)

Yeah - damned freedom of speech. We'd all be better off without it.

Wow, that came out of nowhere. Are you suggesting that someone's freedom of speech is being infringed or threatened to be infringed? Or are you just making a sarcastic point just for the sake of making a sarcastic point?

It was largely just a sarcastic point. But it was based in the fact that the only way that I can see to defend Ann Coulter is to defend her right to say what she wants. So far as I can tell she has no other redeeming features. I was sarcastically lamenting the fact that freedom of speech means that we can't shut up the hatemongers among us.

I am in favour of freedom of speech, by the way.

It was a joke, and a pretty poor one at that. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[Lonewulf]

No problem, I didn't quite understand what you were trying to say there. Now I do.

[Upchurch]

This is an attempt at debate. You respond like a school teacher correcting a statement not by clarifying or correcting if appropriate, but by scoring with terms like ...Fallacy.
Well, this is an educational forum board. Sometimes we have to instruct as well. I didn't think I would need to hold your hand in guiding you to correct yourself.

I'm willing to debate, but you have to put forth a coherent argument. In the case of your straw man arguments, for example, I can't argue a position that is not the one I'm advocating.

(well, I probably could, but I wouldn't want you or anyone else to think that is the position I actually hold.)


I find it reasonable to infer from the above that you actually enjoy both, but to different degrees or in different ways. On the other hand if you DON'T enjoy UU or get any comfort from it I am interested to know why. We can try to avoid getting too hung up on common words like comfort and enjoy if you wish.
That's good. You're starting to anticipate your own mistakes. Now you just need to learn to avoid them.

You are moving the goal posts. "Enjoy" and "finding comfort in" are not the same thing. One can enjoy a great many things that doesn't necessarily make one feel better about hard things. You have inappropriately conflated the two terms.


We have different styles. You are rather rigid in yours I think, but I am still interested to learn, to put it differently, why I should gain better insights into life through UU, as opposed to hanging out here, or reading Dawkins.
Why is it either/or? I've always thought that more information and context is better than less. Religious thought has been a part of human history since there has been human history. To ignore it's history and influence, or to discount it as simply harmful, is to have an incomplete picture.

I prefer to study a little bit of everything.


Of course this is a topic some people write books about, but as stated it is too simplistic to be very meaningful, and a poor choice of words to define science if one tries to be as brief as possible.
Well, I did say it was a work in progress and incomplete.


However the bottom up analogy begs the question of what the goals are? I appreciate that they are understanding, and I believe the fundamental is Theistic in terms of worship, but without a mechanism to communicate and convince others of discovered truths, ...{snip}
You are still working under the assumption that all religions are basically like Evangelical Christianity. That they are geared to The Word, convert the unconverted, and bring everyone under one way of thinking. In a complex world, you have to drop such a simplistic assumption.

Although I belong to a religion, I am not theistic. I've been an atheist since my early teenage years. I don't care if anyone else shares my particular perception or understanding of the universe. (I do, however, care if others misrepresent what I think or do.) My goals in UU is a better understanding of how we view reality through the context of our perceptions.

To use a General Relativity metaphor, reality is the spacetime manifold and religion is the local mapping (x, y, z, t coordinate system) of it. I'm not only interested in my mapping but others' as well.

In this metaphor, you are essentially working under a Newtonian flat spacetime. That is, one mapping is true for all points in spacetime. You'd be right if we were only talking about facts and description of reality, but this Newtonian model is not true for understanding and meaning. Every religion, every culture, has a different interpretation of reality. If I have anything akin to a "belief" in all this, it is that greater insight can be drawn from understanding the different local mappings.

The appeal of UU to me is that it does not focus on a single mapping, but considers all mappings as basically valid once you understand that they are valid locally.

Let me say that last part again without the metaphor references:

The appeal of UU to me is that it does not focus on a single religious interpretation of reality, but considers all religious interpretations as basically valid once you understand that they are valid for a particular culture. (Where a "culture" can be as large as sect of Christianity or as small as a single person.)


{snip}... how can it be anything more than a vehicle for those unhappy with their original religion, but unwilling to resign from it?
Until you drop your assumptions that religion is universally something like Evangelical Christianity and inherently harmful, I can't really give you an answer you will find satisfactory because ultimately, you will always have to tie it back to these preconceived notions of domination and subjugation. My entire point in this thread is that may be true in some, or even most, religions, but it is not true in all religions.

[Lonewulf]

I view the majority of religions as ultimately harmful. Having ignorance of how the universe works has always been detrimental. The majority of religions that I know of essentially, at their core, presents an inherently false or unfalsifiable view of the universe that, only with sufficient editing, can actually be combined with known or discovered science.

This is true, in my knowledge, of Christianity, Catholicism, and Judaism; except for versions of which which don't hold the Bible as holding much fact at all, at least. Then there's Hinduism, and even Shintoism and similar beliefs.

The ones that I can stomach and that I feel aren't harmful are in the minority.

[Dorian Gray]

Coming up next on Obvious TV: Why so many conservative authors write about liberals, and why so many homophobes talk about gay marriage.

[Elind]

Well, this is an educational forum board. Sometimes we have to instruct as well. I didn't think I would need to hold your hand in guiding you to correct yourself.

This is what I mean, professor. Does it ever occur to you that you may misinterpret something?

I'm willing to debate, but you have to put forth a coherent argument. In the case of your straw man arguments, for example, I can't argue a position that is not the one I'm advocating.

(well, I probably could, but I wouldn't want you or anyone else to think that is the position I actually hold.)There go the labellings again. I'm not sure what straw man you are calling out at the moment and the whole problem we have, from this perspective, is your reluctance to actually explain your position in ways other than to say "that's not what I say".



That's good. You're starting to anticipate your own mistakes. Now you just need to learn to avoid them.Actually what I was trying to explain was what you did not understand. I'm glad you did this time.....now about this attitude thing..:(

You are moving the goal posts. "Enjoy" and "finding comfort in" are not the same thing. One can enjoy a great many things that doesn't necessarily make one feel better about hard things. You have inappropriately conflated the two terms.
And I tried so hard not to allow us to run into semantical goalposts in that. I enjoy what I find find comfort in, and I find comfort in what I enjoy, even though I know the differences.


Why is it either/or? I've always thought that more information and context is better than less. Religious thought has been a part of human history since there has been human history. To ignore it's history and influence, or to discount it as simply harmful, is to have an incomplete picture.
I find religious thought quite interesting. I thought that obvious. I don't ignore it's history, or I would not hold the opinion that it has been largely harmful in most ways, except perhaps as a social cohesive factor, akin to that offered by any good, and clever, tyrant.



I prefer to study a little bit of everything.

I suppose I do too, although I'm sure we both know the dangers of too little of too much.

Well, I did say it was a work in progress and incomplete.(Religion/Science) Always has been and always will be more incomplete than progressing, that is. Now if you want to talk about it in terms of investigating states of mind, spirituality, Id and so on we can agree, but "religion", no (and that has to do with our differences in areas of semantics).



You are still working under the assumption that all religions are basically like Evangelical Christianity. That they are geared to The Word, convert the unconverted, and bring everyone under one way of thinking. In a complex world, you have to drop such a simplistic assumption. It's not simplistic for at least two reasons. On the one hand I think of religion in these contexts as that which has a significant effect on human social evolution (maybe genetic too), and on the other simply that it is true for the majority of "religions". Drkitten gave some examples of where it did not apply, and also why they have little effect on humanity as a whole.

Although I belong to a religion, I am not theistic. I've been an atheist since my early teenage years. I don't care if anyone else shares my particular perception or understanding of the universe. (I do, however, care if others misrepresent what I think or do.) My goals in UU is a better understanding of how we view reality through the context of our perceptions.I have no problem with that goal, and isn't it applicable to all those who think of such things? (some don't).
However my irritant to you seems to be that I am persisting in trying to understand how UU offers that to you, since it still sounds like a Philosophy or Science of Mind Society to me and to hear you say you are a religious atheist sounds like an oxymoron to me; but then we get back into semantics, don't we?

To use a General Relativity metaphor, reality is the spacetime manifold and religion is the local mapping (x, y, z, t coordinate system) of it. I'm not only interested in my mapping but others' as well.I think you think you have already decided you have other's mappings too well categorized.:D

In this metaphor, you are essentially working under a Newtonian flat spacetime. That is, one mapping is true for all points in spacetime. You'd be right if we were only talking about facts and description of reality, but this Newtonian model is not true for understanding and meaning. Every religion, every culture, has a different interpretation of reality. If I have anything akin to a "belief" in all this, it is that greater insight can be drawn from understanding the different local mappings.Every religion and every culture has different explanation of reality, and a different semantic structure to describe it. All words are related to other words (try to define anything with one, or two). My personal opinion is that religions are an attempt to reduce the complex to a simple enough level where common people, without training in philosophy (like me, as you pointed out) can finally think they understand something, and then get on with making a living the rest of the week. (And Theology is the application of philosophical methods to justify the predefined fundamentals, which brings us back to a connection with semantics, as Orwell understood so well).


The appeal of UU to me is that it does not focus on a single religious interpretation of reality, but considers all religious interpretations as basically valid once you understand that they are valid for a particular culture. (Where a "culture" can be as large as sect of Christianity or as small as a single person.) While I don't think the word Culture is valid in a set of one; I think you are saying there are truths in all religious interpretations, valid for a given culture. This is somewhat self evident inasmuch as a culture is defined to a large extent (larger in some) by it's religion, but the word "truth" has a greater meaning than "works for me", as I'm sure most philosophers would say. Understanding them no doubt has insights, and even real truths within, but the primary social truths are also going to be exactly the same ones held by atheists, who don't think it amounts to religion.



Until you drop your assumptions that religion is universally something like Evangelical Christianity and inherently harmful, I can't really give you an answer you will find satisfactory because ultimately, you will always have to tie it back to these preconceived notions of domination and subjugation. My entire point in this thread is that may be true in some, or even most, religions, but it is not true in all religions.OK. I've been addressing "most".

However I also think we have had "most" of our difficulty because of the semantics mentioned above. I think that much of communication, and "positions" on any subject come from different understandings of words. Religion to me, and I think the majority, is a belief in either a Deistic or Theistic sense. You have adopted the word to define your perspective and then claim I don't understand what you mean. I wish you would find a variant of the word that doesn't label you as what you claim you are not.

English has so many words, yet so many with multiple meanings. Other examples that always cause problems come to mind. "Theory" is perhaps the most obvious one; then there is "Racism", now "Religion", and of course "Theology";)

I still don't know what you actually DO at a UU service however.....;)

[Upchurch]

This is what I mean, professor. Does it ever occur to you that you may misinterpret something?
Yes, but you have yet to explain where I have done so. In the mean time, you are making logical fallacies in your arguments. I will do the best I can to point them out, but only you can actually do anything about it.


There go the labellings again. I'm not sure what straw man you are calling out at the moment and the whole problem we have, from this perspective, is your reluctance to actually explain your position in ways other than to say "that's not what I say".
In the previous post, I was not referring to any specific straw man, just your use of them in general.

I actually am explaining my positions. The problem is that you are layering predefined notions on top of what I'm saying and thus missing the point. Boiled down into two simple bullet points, this is my position:

Not all religions are like the stereotype
Don't make assumptions



And I tried so hard not to allow us to run into semantical goalposts in that. I enjoy what I find find comfort in, and I find comfort in what I enjoy, even though I know the differences.
That's fine, but it is unreasonable to simply assume that because you find the terms synonymous that everyone does. I very much enjoy studying physics and politics, but the reality of nuclear weapons in a politically charged environment does not bring me any comfort.

Likewise, these assumptions you are bringing to what I'm saying that causes you to misinterpret me. Badly. You knew I was going to take issue with you interchange of "enjoy" and "comfort", why didn't you consider why I would take issue with it and address that in your own line of thinking before responding?


Now if you want to talk about it in terms of investigating states of mind, spirituality, Id and so on we can agree, but "religion", no (and that has to do with our differences in areas of semantics).
I thought you didn't claim to have the rights to define the word "religion"? Why do you insist on doing so?


It's not simplistic for at least two reasons. On the one hand I think of religion in these contexts as that which has a significant effect on human social evolution (maybe genetic too), and on the other simply that it is true for the majority of "religions".
It is simplistic. I think you will find that heretical religion has had a huge impact on social evolution. Consider The Enlightenment's influence on American political and social structure. At it's very heart, it was about religious freedom, bottom-up decision making, and self-direction.


However my irritant to you seems to be that I am persisting in trying to understand how UU offers that to you, since it still sounds like a Philosophy or Science of Mind Society to me and to hear you say you are a religious atheist sounds like an oxymoron to me; but then we get back into semantics, don't we?
Oxymorons, like paradoxes, are often the result of an incomplete understanding of the situation. The Twin Paradox in Special Relativity, for example, becomes entirely consistent within the larger scope of General Relativity.

Religion is a philosophy, a subset of it. It's like chemistry is physics, a subset of it. Where does the study of chemistry end and physics begin? The line gets fuzzy as you push the boundries.

Insisting that there must be broad, definitive lines separating religion and philosophy is bound to lead to paradoxes (or oxymorons) because the world is more complex than that.


My personal opinion is that religions are an attempt to reduce the complex to a simple enough level where common people, without training in philosophy (like me, as you pointed out) can finally think they understand something, and then get on with making a living the rest of the week.
Which leads us back to the beginning of this conversation. If that is your opinion (or hypothesis or claim), what do you do with the information of a religion that does not try to reduce the complex for the masses?

As I said before, you have two options.

First, you can adjust your opinion (or hypothesis or claim) to account for the outliers. For example, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed a tiny flaw in the then theory of light propagation. The orbit of Mercury around the Sun didn't quite match up to the calculation. These tiny flaws led Einstein to completely update Newtonian Mechanics.

Second, you can adjust the outliers to fit your opinion (or hypothesis or claim). In this case, heretical religions don't fit your definition of religion, therefore they must not be religions despite their generally accepted position as such.



This is somewhat self evident inasmuch as a culture is defined to a large extent (larger in some) by it's religion, but the word "truth" has a greater meaning than "works for me", as I'm sure most philosophers would say.Most modern philosophers make the distinction between truth (little "t") and Truth (capital "T"). truth is subjective while Truth represents ultimate, no kidding, that which is really, really, really true.

("Subjective" isn't entirely the correct term. truth can be objective in the sense that it is true irregardless of perspective. Scientific truth, for example, is objective but still truth (little "t"). We know this because scientific truth can and will change with time. What was scientifically true 400 years ago is not scientifically true now. It is, however, our best tool for describing Truth. Scientific truth incrementally approaches Truth.)


OK. I've been addressing "most".
Perhaps that is what you intend, but that is not what you have been writing.


However I also think we have had "most" of our difficulty because of the semantics mentioned above. I think that much of communication, and "positions" on any subject come from different understandings of words.
I agree. I'm trying to get you to realize that your understanding of the word does not include it's full scope. You are using a caricature, a stereotype. That that stereotype is generally accepted does not make it accurate.


I still don't know what you actually DO at a UU service however.....;)
All UU churches are congregational polities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_polity). Each church decides what they do during their own services. Pick 10 different UU churches, you will find 10 (or more) different services.

[Janot]

Has there ever been a culture which has been recognizably atheist? It seems to me that religion is such a profound human need that, viewed historically, an atheist is in a tiny minority of humans. Hardly surprising then that the topic which separates them from others is discussed to such an extent.

[Upchurch]

Has there ever been a culture which has been recognizably atheist?
Do you mean a culture devoid of theism or a culture that is majority atheist?

[Janot]

Do you mean a culture devoid of theism or a culture that is majority atheist?I suppose I mean a culture devoid of theism. As I see it, a culture usually feels the need to explain forces over which they had no control by assuming the existence of a higher power, one or many deities. Has a culture ever existed which did not do this?

[Upchurch]

I suppose I mean a culture devoid of theism. As I see it, a culture usually feels the need to explain forces over which they had no control by assuming the existence of a higher power, one or many deities. Has a culture ever existed which did not do this?
While not speaking to their motives, to my knowledge, there has never been a culture devoid of theism.

[Lonewulf]

What about cultures run on confucianism? :)

[Upchurch]

What about cultures run on confucianism? :)

Thought about that. I don't know that such cultures had no theistic minority. There might be some, but I don't know what they are.

[Lonewulf]

Well, the original question was over majority, not totality.

[Upchurch]

Well, the original question was over majority, not totality.

That's why I asked Janot to clarify the question.

[Elind]

Yes, but you have yet to explain where I have done so. In the mean time, you are making logical fallacies in your arguments. I will do the best I can to point them out, but only you can actually do anything about it.

You have done so in assuming my disagreement, or even misunderstanding, of your position is a logical fallacy.



In the previous post, I was not referring to any specific straw man, just your use of them in general.


Ditto.

I actually am explaining my positions. The problem is that you are layering predefined notions on top of what I'm saying and thus missing the point. Boiled down into two simple bullet points, this is my position:
Not all religions are like the stereotype
Don't make assumptions

And I am saying that our fundamental problem is different dictionaries. I believe one of your philosophers suggests that for different views, beliefs, to be understandable the languages used must first be mutually translatable. We are still working on that.



You knew I was going to take issue with you interchange of "enjoy" and "comfort", why didn't you consider why I would take issue with it and address that in your own line of thinking before responding?



I knew, and I knew you knew I knew, which was why I knew I had to mention that there might be a bump in the road due to the words I pulled out at the spur of the moment.;)

I thought you didn't claim to have the rights to define the word "religion"? Why do you insist on doing so?


You are doing so. I claim the higher ground because I use what I think is a more common usage. Diluting meanings does not help effectiveness.


It is simplistic. I think you will find that heretical religion has had a huge impact on social evolution. Consider The Enlightenment's influence on American political and social structure. At it's very heart, it was about religious freedom, bottom-up decision making, and self-direction.


Heretical, used in this manner is also new to me. It implies a connection to another, yet you speak as if your heretical perspective stands on its own.


Oxymorons, like paradoxes, are often the result of an incomplete understanding of the situation. The Twin Paradox in Special Relativity, for example, becomes entirely consistent within the larger scope of General Relativity.

Yes, but that does not mean we cannot use the word to illustrate a point without first claiming the impossible, namely that all possible related situations have been first examined and found True or False.

Religion is a philosophy, a subset of it. It's like chemistry is physics, a subset of it. Where does the study of chemistry end and physics begin? The line gets fuzzy as you push the boundries.

I'm glad you recognize fuzzy logic;), particularly when semantic boundaries are pushed. As to religion being a philosophy, you are correct in times when there was no science to speak of, just applied trial and error; natural philosophy I think. Religion does not explain reality anymore, it attempts to explain the meaning of reality, does it not? That too is philosophy, except that for the most part, with deference to your version of UU, it attempts to do on the basis of certain unverifiable givens, like God. That is called Theology.

Insisting that there must be broad, definitive lines separating religion and philosophy is bound to lead to paradoxes (or oxymorons) because the world is more complex than that.


One can always make something more complex than one started with, can one not?


Which leads us back to the beginning of this conversation. If that is your opinion (or hypothesis or claim), what do you do with the information of a religion that does not try to reduce the complex for the masses?


I made a deliberately reduced complexity statement, to make a general statement. No doubt many play with Theology just for personal satisfaction, but without the masses, there is no religion, just countless individual opinions. Again, we run into semantics, but we can call your version Religion One just to be clear, whereas the social construct for the masses will remain just Religion.

As I said before, you have two options.

First, you can adjust your opinion (or hypothesis or claim) to account for the outliers. For example, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed a tiny flaw in the then theory of light propagation. The orbit of Mercury around the Sun didn't quite match up to the calculation. These tiny flaws led Einstein to completely update Newtonian Mechanics.

Second, you can adjust the outliers to fit your opinion (or hypothesis or claim). In this case, heretical religions don't fit your definition of religion, therefore they must not be religions despite their generally accepted position as such.

As I said before, it seems to me that you use the word heretical because you still identify yourself by your differences with established beliefs. I think you should find better words to define what you are, so that you might better identify your uniqueness.


Most modern philosophers make the distinction between truth (little "t") and Truth (capital "T"). truth is subjective while Truth represents ultimate, no kidding, that which is really, really, really true.

I bet they also really really really disagree about the capitalization.:cool:

("Subjective" isn't entirely the correct term. truth can be objective in the sense that it is true irregardless of perspective. Scientific truth, for example, is objective but still truth (little "t"). We know this because scientific truth can and will change with time. What was scientifically true 400 years ago is not scientifically true now. It is, however, our best tool for describing Truth. Scientific truth incrementally approaches Truth.)


So if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, that is Truth, but if someone is there and hears it, it is truth?

I find it difficult to imagine anything that is not subjective, since that seems to imply I must be dead.


I agree. I'm trying to get you to realize that your understanding of the word does not include it's full scope. You are using a caricature, a stereotype. That that stereotype is generally accepted does not make it accurate.


And I think you dilute the meaning too much to be useful.


All UU churches are congregational polities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_polity). Each church decides what they do during their own services. Pick 10 different UU churches, you will find 10 (or more) different services.

That explains my quirky friend, mentioned earlier, having nothing in common with you.
:D

[Janot]

While not speaking to their motives, to my knowledge, there has never been a culture devoid of theism.Does this then not answer the question in the title of the thread? Such a virtually universal concept as religion is inevitably a main topic for atheist, because of the need to explain why the vast majority of mankind is thus deluded. Or am I missing the point? :confused:

[Upchurch]

You have done so in assuming my disagreement, or even misunderstanding, of your position is a logical fallacy.
No, your argument is filled with logical fallacies because your argument takes the form of logical fallacies. I'm not so petty that I would start claiming logical fallacies just because I don't agree with what you are saying.

May I recommend the following recent Skeptoid podcasts that does a pretty good job of outlining the most commonly used logical fallacies?
A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1 (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4073)
A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 2 (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4074)


You are doing so. I claim the higher ground because I use what I think is a more common usage. Diluting meanings does not help effectiveness.
It isn't a diluted meaning. It is a nuanced meaning.

Do you really mean more common usage or do you mean the usage that you are most familiar with? As I pointed out in the wikipedia article, there are lots of definitions of "religion".


Heretical, used in this manner is also new to me. It implies a connection to another, yet you speak as if your heretical perspective stands on its own.Heretical perspective does stand on its own. It is derived from the Greek root, haeresis*, meaning "to choose". Although it certainly can mean "to reject orthodoxy", it is not limited to it.


As to religion being a philosophy, you are correct in times when there was no science to speak of, just applied trial and error; natural philosophy I think. Religion does not explain reality anymore, it attempts to explain the meaning of reality, does it not?
:jaw-dropp

Wow. That is so spectacularly out of touch, I don't even where to begin. Read a book. Learn the basics of philosophy. Then, maybe, you can talk knowledgeably about this.


One can always make something more complex than one started with, can one not?
And one should where it is warranted, as it is here.


As I said before, it seems to me that you use the word heretical because you still identify yourself by your differences with established beliefs. I think you should find better words to define what you are, so that you might better identify your uniqueness.
I use the words because that is how they are used by the academics who study the subject. Should I not refer to the color or flavor of quarks because that is not how you use the words "color" and "flavor"?


I bet they also really really really disagree about the capitalization.:cool:
I bet you really, really, really have no idea what you are talking about. The usage may not be universally, but the concept is well understood.

Again, read a book.

[Upchurch]

Does this then not answer the question in the title of the thread?
Probably.

[T'ai Chi]

...
Read a book.
...
Again, read a book.

Anyone know the name of the rhetorical tactic that Upchurch is using here? Just curious.

[CFLarsen]

Anyone know the name of the rhetorical tactic that Upchurch is using here? Just curious.

"Education".

Yes, an unfamiliar concept to you.

[Upchurch]

Anyone know the name of the rhetorical tactic that Upchurch is using here? Just curious.
Argument by Handy (http://www.thetick.ws/tvvillains.html)? (about half way down the page)

[Elind]

"Education".

Yes, an unfamiliar concept to you.

No, unfortunately it is scoring points. The professor falls back routinely on word definitions that he knows very well were not the ones used by someone else, then cries "fallacy", as if that is philosophy.

I seem to get the same feeling from past exchanges with creationists, who fall back on the correct, but trivial, meaning of "theory".

I learned something about UU in this, but little else, except how to confuse rather than clarify a debate through the deliberate misuse of a dictionary, or misapplication of language to distract rather than inform.

Sorry, Upchurch, but I thought we were getting somewhere. I don't think that has been your objective.

[Upchurch]

No, unfortunately it is scoring points. The professor falls back routinely on word definitions that he knows very well were not the ones used by someone else, then cries "fallacy", as if that is philosophy.
That is simply dishonest. I have backed all my assertions, even the calls of fallacies, with support.

Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) and logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) are philosophy. Like religion, they are subsets of it. Thus, the categorization of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies) are also a part of logic and philosophy in general.

You are arguing from a position of ignorance. It is okay to not know this stuff. It is not okay to be introduced to this stuff and to ignore it. There is information out there that would give you a better understanding of philosophy and religion. I've pointed out some of it. It's up to you to educate yourself.


(Incidentally, calling me "the professor" and characterizing me as only interested in "scoring points" are both a logical fallacy known as ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).)

[Elind]

That is simply dishonest. I have backed all my assertions, even the calls of fallacies, with support.

Yes you have, without attempting very hard to understand the assertion proposed to you, or understanding it perfectly well but countering with a different dictionary meaning.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason)Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason) and logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) are philosophy. Like religion, they are subsets of it. Thus, the categorization of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies) are also a part of logic and philosophy in general.


I made a reference to philosophy in the context of the discussion, namely religion and, from my perspective, theistic religion. I should have said theology, although you could have made the same response, but when you offered a trivial definition of Science, for example, I had an idea what you were getting at and I did not tell you to go read some books or subscribe to Scientific America. When you ramble on about mappings in Newtonian space, I also tried visualize what you were saying. I didn't suggest it was a comic book analogy.


You are arguing from a position of ignorance. It is okay to not know this stuff. It is not okay to be introduced to this stuff and to ignore it. There is information out there that would give you a better understanding of philosophy and religion. I've pointed out some of it. It's up to you to educate yourself.

You come across as patronizing and pompous, and I couldn't have illustrated it better than the above myself.


(Incidentally, calling me "the professor" and characterizing me as only interested in "scoring points" are both a logical fallacy known as ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).)

Yeah. Thanks for pointing that out, again.

It was a moderately polite way of expressing displeasure with an attitude. Being a moderator, you know what alternatives are not allowed, although worse was not something I wanted anyway.

We have different ways of thinking. Let's just leave it at that and avoid the capital T truths in the future.

Cheers

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's try a different tact:

It's your claim ....sorry, "opinion" that holding beliefs that are untrue and passing those beliefs on to the genuinely innocent is inherent to religion. In order for that to be true, UU cannot be a religion.

Can you prove that UU is not a religion?

[Dancing David]

What about cultures run on confucianism? :)

They still usually have some form on animism or deities. In china there was quite a pantheon. Korea I don't know.

[Dancing David]

Okay, let's try a different tact:

It's your claim ....sorry, "opinion" that holding beliefs that are untrue and passing those beliefs on to the genuinely innocent is inherent to religion. In order for that to be true, UU cannot be a religion.

Can you prove that UU is not a religion?

yes, they don't persecute other religions!

;)

[Elind]

Okay, let's try a different tact:

It's your claim ....sorry, "opinion" that holding beliefs that are untrue and passing those beliefs on to the genuinely innocent is inherent to religion. In order for that to be true, UU cannot be a religion.

Can you prove that UU is not a religion?

I did not say that was the definition of the word religion, just a common aspect of it. However it is an interesting question in that I wonder if it is possible to prove, logically, by word meanings alone.

If words exist on the belief that they have a meaning, either standalone or in obvious context (EG. Tree v. hierarchical diagram), and if words with multiple differing meanings in some significant way that are not obvious from context (EG Religion), and if some such meanings can be shown to have evolved in cultural/social usage from a false premise, then, perhaps, one can argue that not all can be simultaneously true, and one or the other must be false. It may however be impossible to always say which is false and which is true if enough information is unavailable.

However, since I'm not the philosopher here, I pass the question to you.:D