What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)

[immortal]

 

That's moot. The poster asked where this was happening, and I gave two examples. There are more. That it is a minority view doesn't matter to the question that was asked, and the effect is not a minority one when that minority is actually in a position to exert a large amount of influence.

 

Honestly, beheading infidels shouting the name "Allah O Akbar" and releasing videos of that over the internet to threaten all the pagans and infidels falls under the definition of religion according to you? I asked where does religion stop women from taking up higher university education and not what some people do in the name of religion, the latter doesn't fall with in the definition of religion.

[swansont]

 

Honestly, beheading infidels shouting the name "Allah O Akbar" and releasing videos of that over the internet to threaten all the pagans and infidels falls under the definition of religion according to you? I asked where does religion stop women from taking up higher university education and not what some people do in the name of religion, the latter doesn't fall with in the definition of religion.

 

If you do it in the name of some god, or because some god-related text tells you to do it, then yes I think it's religion. How do you classify it?

[immortal]

If you do it in the name of some god, or because some god-related text tells you to do it, then yes I think it's religion. How do you classify it?

 

The misuse of religion and misinterpretation of religious texts to justify one's unjustifiable acts is not something new to us or something which is only specific to Islamic fundamentalists even the Nazis did it. We shouldn't let these fundamentalists define what religion is for us because their interpretations are neither based on scriptural evidence nor by empirical evidence. In fact these fundamentalist groups doesn't even classify as institutional religion whether its the Taliban or any other group for that matter, even if it is the Catholic Church any religious body which supports such notions against the word of God is not a religion, its the corruption of religion. If such groups are classified as part of religion then genuine religious people might have to exclude such groups or make themselves exclude from religion and find a all new word to preserve the word of God.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9098525/Nazi-leader-Heinrich-Himmler-a-fan-of-yoga.html

 

 

 

Although the Nazi leader was not known to practice the physical exercises associated with yoga, he was fascinated with the Bhagavad Gita, the 700-verse Hindu scripture that outlines the principles of yoga and karma, and had a German translation of the Sanskrit original always at his side.

 

But far from embracing the hippy-style attitudes of peace and love so often associated with the scripture, Himmler, who helped orchestrate the Holocaust, connected it with his desire for racial purity and the justification of killing to achieve this.

 

"He identified himself and the SS with the old Indian Kshatriya caste and its publicised attitude of unscrupulous killing for one's 'higher purpose'," writes Mathias Tietke, in his new book "Yoga in National Socialism", which is published this week.

 

Himmler was not alone amongst the Nazis in possessing a fondness for yoga, and believing it could help fortify Germans for the trials of waging war.

 

SS Captain Jakob Wilhelm Hauer apparently managed to convince the SS commander that "yoga can internally arm us and prepare us for the battles ahead".

[swansont]

 

The misuse of religion and misinterpretation of religious texts to justify one's unjustifiable acts is not something new to us or something which is only specific to Islamic fundamentalists even the Nazis did it. We shouldn't let these fundamentalists define what religion is for us because their interpretations are neither based on scriptural evidence nor by empirical evidence. In fact these fundamentalist groups doesn't even classify as institutional religion whether its the Taliban or any other group for that matter, even if it is the Catholic Church any religious body which supports such notions against the word of God is not a religion, its the corruption of religion. If such groups are classified as part of religion then genuine religious people might have to exclude such groups or make themselves exclude from religion and find a all new word to preserve the word of God.

 

How many misguided individuals until it becomes a religion? This smacks of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. I suspect that nobody would qualify as a religion with a strict application of "notions against the word of God"; seems to me the existence of more than one sect of any religion means there is a disagreement about what exactly the word of God entails. (people conveniently ignoring parts of Leviticus would be a prime example in the Christian world)

[Moontanman]

 

 

They are only a minority of people who misinterpret religious texts for their justification for cruel acts, it is definitely not the opinion of genuine muslims. Its wrong to put the blame on religion for someone misinterpreting and misusing religion, just because someone misused a technology doesn't mean that the science behind that technology is bad.

 

Immortal... do you actually read these "religious" texts or do you just assume they can't say the things you don't believe in. God, in all of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic mythos religious texts, often the demands the death of various people is not a misinterpretation, such acts are demanded by god quite often...

Edited January 2, 2013 by Moontanman

[Ringer]

If you don't like Swansont's example of keeping women down how about a specific one from the Christian Bible

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

 

So women cannot attempt to take authority over a man, therefore if a women does something a man disagrees with she is doing wrong in the eyes of god (which usually ends in death).

 

[iNow]

He'll probably respond that Christianity is not a religion.

[immortal]

If you don't like Swansont's example of keeping women down how about a specific one from the Christian Bible

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

 

So women cannot attempt to take authority over a man, therefore if a women does something a man disagrees with she is doing wrong in the eyes of god (which usually ends in death).

 

That shows how ignorant you guys are when it comes to religion, how about this one.

 

 

"114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

 

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

 

- Gospel of Thomas

 

Again where does religion stop women from taking up higher education or having a higher authority over men? Just because a majority of people blindly agree on and follow false beliefs thinking that as the true word of God doesn't mean they deserve to be called as being religious when it was never the true word of God. As I said I will never let these ignorant new atheists and those who hold false belief systems like orthodox Christianity, Hinduism etc to define what religion is for us for they know nothing about their own religion and not about what the empirical and scriptural evidence is saying.

 

He'll probably respond that Christianity is not a religion.

 

Christianity is indeed a religion for Christ has each one with in him whether an angel, a mystery or a human.

[Ringer]

 

That shows how ignorant you guys are when it comes to religion, how about this one.

The ad hominem is both unnecessary and incorrect. I have been interested in religion since I was a child, just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they don't know what it entails.

 

"114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

 

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

 

- Gospel of Thomas

 

Again where does religion stop women from taking up higher education or having a higher authority over men? Just because a majority of people blindly agree on and follow false beliefs thinking that as the true word of God doesn't mean they deserve to be called as being religious when it was never the true word of God. As I said I will never let these ignorant new atheists and those who hold false belief systems like orthodox Christianity, Hinduism etc to define what religion is for us for they know nothing about their own religion and not about what the empirical and scriptural evidence is saying.

And no true Scottsman . . . Just because you personally ignore certain teachings of he Bible doesn't mean they are not in there and are not used by other religious people in their belief system. Who are you to say which of the gospels are the true word of God and which are not? Your whole argument does nothing to dispute the fact that there are teachings in religious texts that put the role of women beneath that of men and specifically deny them rights men have.

 

[immortal]

The ad hominem is both unnecessary and incorrect. I have been interested in religion since I was a child, just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they don't know what it entails.

 

 

It was very much necessary and was an well intended criticism for you guys don't know the true message of religion and blindly think that religion as defined by fundamentalists and ignorant people from orthodox belief systems is the true word of God. Most of the atheists are liars when they say, the very fact that they have studied all of religion is what made them to hold that atheistic position, which is a lie because if they had studied the whole of religion of the world and the history of humanity it doesn't allow them to hold such a dishonest atheistic position. You guys showed your ignorance of religion when you people believed the misinterpreted and misused versions of a religious scripture as actually the true word of God without knowing the truth about religion.

 

And no true Scottsman . . . Just because you personally ignore certain teachings of he Bible doesn't mean they are not in there and are not used by other religious people in their belief system. Who are you to say which of the gospels are the true word of God and which are not? Your whole argument does nothing to dispute the fact that there are teachings in religious texts that put the role of women beneath that of men and specifically deny them rights men have.

 

Every religion has teachings which is mainly for outside masses which are basically social constructs and hidden teachings known only to an initiated few.

 

In the Gospel of Matthew (13:10-17) Jesus provides an answer when asked about his use of parables:

 

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

He replied "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

 

The outside masses though hearing it daily do not understand it and are often misled into believing that this interpretation is the true message of the scripture without knowing the mystical interpretation of the scripture which contains the core essence of a religion.

 

Neither religion nor God is responsible for the maniac acts of fundamentalists and the ignorant false belief systems of majority of people who claim themselves to be Christians, Hindus and Muslims without knowing what's there in their own religion, they don't deserve to be called as being religious because when each of their religion is taken as a whole in a full context much of the modern belief systems of these people turns out to be false and is with variance with the true message of their ancient ancestors who started their religion.

 

See these examples as to how modern people from past centuries have continuously lost the core essential beliefs of their religion which show strong contrasts when compared to the belief systems of the ancients who started these religions.

 

The age of the Upanishads:

 

"The method of yoga described in the Yoga Yajnavalkya is both comprehensive and universally applicable—open to both women and men. Yajnnavalkya explains the principles and practice of yoga, the path to freedom, to Gargi, his wife. The Yoga Yajnavalkya demonstrates that Vedic culture provided women with equal opportunities and encouragement for their spiritual pursuits to attain freedom.

 

The most pleasing feature of this period is the presence of women teachers, many of whom possessed highest spiritual knowledge. The famous dialogue between Yajnavalkya and his wife Maitreyi and Gargi Vachaknavi show how enlightened the women of that age were. According to the Sarvanukramanika, there were as many as 20 women among the authors of the Rig Veda. These stories stand in contrast to the later age when the study of Vedic literature was forbidden to women under the most severe penalty."

Which show strong contrasts when compared to belief system of Hindus from the past centuries for example - Sati system i.e burning alive of widow women which were added later as a law which was purely a social construct rather than a divine word of God.

Muhammad's ethics of war:

"During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion and first Caliph, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:

 

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well!

Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

Muslims view that the Muslims fought only when attacked, or in the context of a wider war of self-defense. They argue that Muhammad was the first among the major military figures of history to lay down rules for humane warfare, and that he was scrupulous in limiting the loss of life as much as possible."

In the Qur'an:

There are some Ayats in Qur'an which relates to Defensive Jihad. The Qur'an states:

 

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (Al-Baqarah 190-193)

 

I find it funny how atheists join hands with fundamentalists and say that the discrimination of women and killing of innocent people carried out by fundamentalists is quite justified because their religious scriptures demands such acts when the fact of the matter is these fundamentalists are neither religious and nor are their acts in any sense of the word be justifiable with in their own religious scriptures. The root causes that lead to worse societies is not due to religion but instead it is due to ignorance of religion, mainly social and political factors and a lack of high education standards to women which religion never prohibits in any way.

 

In fact, a godless materialistic society such as the League of Militant atheists holding such anti-religious motivations cannot give a happy liberal society for it is as much a fundamentalist view to say no gods as it is to say only my god is the true God without knowing the power of myth and its ability to psychologically cure us.

 

Christine Downing recounts the Greek view of the gods as energies that affect everyone. In so being they are referred to "as theos, that is, as immortal, permanent, ineluctable aspects of the world". Disputes among the Greek pantheon were frequent, yet, Downing emphasizes, no god of the Classical era ever denied the existence of another god. And she cautions us as humans that to deny even one of the pantheon diminishes the richness of individuals and of the world.

Edited January 5, 2013 by immortal

[Ringer]

It was very much necessary and was an well intended criticism for you guys don't know the true message of religion and blindly think that religion as defined by fundamentalists and ignorant people from orthodox belief systems is the true word of God. Most of the atheists are liars when they say, the very fact that they have studied all of religion is what made them to hold that atheistic position, which is a lie because if they had studied the whole of religion of the world and the history of humanity it doesn't allow them to hold such a dishonest atheistic position. You guys showed your ignorance of religion when you people believed the misinterpreted and misused versions of a religious scripture as actually the true word of God without knowing the truth about religion.

. . .

Please refer me to where I ever said that religion is defined by fundamentalists. I was actively involved in religion for a large part of my life as is the majority of my family. I just happen feel it makes absolutely no difference to me if religion is true or not, and if any deity is just they would base judgment on merit not worship. I think of myself more as apatheistic instead of atheistic.

 

You never asked to show an example of your interpretation of biblical texts necessitates women being lesser in stature than men, you asked for any example and one was given. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't invalidate it as evidence. To say that the very parts of biblical texts that are very obviously and literally anti-equality aren't misinterpretations or are being misused seems to be more dishonest than any of the other posts I've seen on here. Not to mention to say that you, personally, know which parts of religious teachings are really God's words and which aren't seems to be extremely arrogant.

 

And to address the parts I snipped, do you think I can't find counter-quotes in most, if not all, of the very same books? All it really does is show that the teachings are contradictory, which is to be expected when books of rules are written in different time periods and then put together. But that does less to show that any god wrote the books and does more to show that the books were written by people who were making guidelines that fit into contemporary views.

 

[immortal]

Please refer me to where I ever said that religion is defined by fundamentalists.

 

I said that in general because few members gave examples of fundamentalists who doesn't qualify as being religious, that's why I referred as you guys and didn't specifically targeted at you, thanks for clarifying your position.

 

You never asked to show an example of your interpretation of biblical texts necessitates women being lesser in stature than men, you asked for any example and one was given. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't invalidate it as evidence. To say that the very parts of biblical texts that are very obviously and literally anti-equality aren't misinterpretations or are being misused seems to be more dishonest than any of the other posts I've seen on here. Not to mention to say that you, personally, know which parts of religious teachings are really God's words and which aren't seems to be extremely arrogant.

 

 

The one example you gave was from a pseudo-Pauline letters which were forged letters in the name of Paul, the truth of Christianity is that God is androgynous and Christ is neither male nor female and in early Christian times women maintained equal authority with men, they taught, they preached and they used to run ministries and these anti-feminism elements were added later into the canon by the orthodox community in the name of forged Pauline letters which shows that these are not the true words of god but was mainly influenced by social and political factors rather than based on the true divine principles of God, perhaps Truth goes hand in hand with arrogance, yes my words look extremely arrogant because I speak the truth. Your example does nothing other than to prove my point that inequality between gender is mainly due to social and political factors rather than due to religion.

 

I didn't said the views of orthodox community are misinterpretations or are misusing it, I said that to fundamentalists, one cannot call the explicit verses in the Torah showing discrimination to women where the men is exempted and forgiven for breaking a law while the women is stoned to death as mere misinterpretations, I said they were ignorant and not that they have misinterpreted it, they have been misled into believing that which directly contradicts the true divine principle showing that the authors were influenced by social and political factors rather than basing their reasons for such discrimination of gender on a divine principle.

 

 

And to address the parts I snipped, do you think I can't find counter-quotes in most, if not all, of the very same books? All it really does is show that the teachings are contradictory, which is to be expected when books of rules are written in different time periods and then put together. But that does less to show that any god wrote the books and does more to show that the books were written by people who were making guidelines that fit into contemporary views.

 

The teachings of certain traditions may be contradictory to teachings of certain sects with in a religion who oppose the true divine principle due to their ignorance but there are teachings across religions which are amazingly identical and all based on a single common divine principle and therefore the conclusion shouldn't be that the all of religion was made up by humans, there is divinity out there.

 

[Moontanman]

The teachings of certain traditions may be contradictory to teachings of certain sects with in a religion who oppose the true divine principle due to their ignorance but there are teachings across religions which are amazingly identical and all based on a single common divine principle and therefore the conclusion shouldn't be that the all of religion was made up by humans, there is divinity out there.

 

 

 

Show some evidence for that last assertion immortal.... You keep making that claim but repetition doesn't make anything true...

 

 

 

I said that in general because few members gave examples of fundamentalists who doesn't qualify as being religious, that's why I referred as you guys and didn't specifically targeted at you, thanks for clarifying your position.

 

 

 

Who died and left you in charge to decide who is religious and who is not?

 

 

The one example you gave was from a pseudo-Pauline letters which were forged letters in the name of Paul, the truth of Christianity is that God is androgynous and Christ is neither male nor female and in early Christian times women maintained equal authority with men, they taught, they preached and they used to run ministries and these anti-feminism elements were added later into the canon by the orthodox community in the name of forged Pauline letters which shows that these are not the true words of god but was mainly influenced by social and political factors rather than based on the true divine principles of God, perhaps Truth goes hand in hand with arrogance, yes my words look extremely arrogant because I speak the truth. Your example does nothing other than to prove my point that inequality between gender is mainly due to social and political factors rather than due to religion.

 

Can you show any support for that statement?

 

 

 

I didn't said the views of orthodox community are misinterpretations or are misusing it, I said that to fundamentalists, one cannot call the explicit verses in the Torah showing discrimination to women where the men is exempted and forgiven for breaking a law while the women is stoned to death as mere misinterpretations, I said they were ignorant and not that they have misinterpreted it, they have been misled into believing that which directly contradicts the true divine principle showing that the authors were influenced by social and political factors rather than basing their reasons for such discrimination of gender on a divine principle.

 

 

 

 

Again who are you to make that judgement? Who gave you special knowledge? Can you prove any of it?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Moontanman

[iNow]

I said that in general because few members gave examples of fundamentalists who doesn't qualify as being religious

Many of the positions you've espoused have been a bit ludicrous, but the quoted portion above is especially so. This is about the most straight forward example I've ever seen of the no true scotsman fallacy.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[Ringer]

I said that in general because few members gave examples of fundamentalists who doesn't qualify as being religious, that's why I referred as you guys and didn't specifically targeted at you, thanks for clarifying your position.

Why do they not qualify as being religious?

The one example you gave was from a pseudo-Pauline letters which were forged letters in the name of Paul, the truth of Christianity is that God is androgynous and Christ is neither male nor female and in early Christian times women maintained equal authority with men, they taught, they preached and they used to run ministries and these anti-feminism elements were added later into the canon by the orthodox community in the name of forged Pauline letters which shows that these are not the true words of god but was mainly influenced by social and political factors rather than based on the true divine principles of God, perhaps Truth goes hand in hand with arrogance, yes my words look extremely arrogant because I speak the truth. Your example does nothing other than to prove my point that inequality between gender is mainly due to social and political factors rather than due to religion.

1 Timothy 2 is in both the King James Version and New International Version (the two I have) of the Bible so why are those texts not legitimate? What Bible do you use for worship? IIRC Christ specifically makes very little mention of women, and no rules that I know of, but at the same time does not discredit previous rules set forth about them. Using religious texts as a reference to further an agenda of subjugating women is exactly what you were asking for.

I didn't said the views of orthodox community are misinterpretations or are misusing it, I said that to fundamentalists, one cannot call the explicit verses in the Torah showing discrimination to women where the men is exempted and forgiven for breaking a law while the women is stoned to death as mere misinterpretations, I said they were ignorant and not that they have misinterpreted it, they have been misled into believing that which directly contradicts the true divine principle showing that the authors were influenced by social and political factors rather than basing their reasons for such discrimination of gender on a divine principle.

 

 

They are exact quotes though. A women's hand being cut off if they interfere with a man's altercation, selling a women to her rapist, killing all males and raping the females of entire villages, killing your neighbor for worshiping incorrectly, killing children that curse at their fathers, etc. Those are not misinterpretations, they are in the major books of religious texts that people use as guidelines for life. I could make your same argument towards the equality of women, that women are lower in God's eyes, but political and societal views shape us into believing that they are equal.

 

The teachings of certain traditions may be contradictory to teachings of certain sects with in a religion who oppose the true divine principle due to their ignorance but there are teachings across religions which are amazingly identical and all based on a single common divine principle and therefore the conclusion shouldn't be that the all of religion was made up by humans, there is divinity out there.

 

Again, why can you see which of these are true teachings and which are not?

[immortal]

Why do they not qualify as being religious?

 

 

Simply because their acts are not influenced by a divine origin or of a supernatural origin from God but more influenced by social and political forces for their own religion and God doesn't allow such acts, so if we assume Quran is of a divine origin then any acts which goes against the laws of the divine cannot be called as Holy and hence fundamentalists cannot be qualified as being religious, remember we are trying to find the root causes of these things and its very important to figure out the truth as to which causes have a divine origin and which aren't, only causes which is of a divine origin can be qualified as religious.

 

1 Timothy 2 is in both the King James Version and New International Version (the two I have) of the Bible so why are those texts not legitimate? What Bible do you use for worship?

 

They are not legitimate because they were forged letters in the name of Paul and the true opinion of the true Paul on women is something very different and very liberal.

 

Paul and the Eschatological women by Robin Scroggs

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1461319?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101541228911

 

Paul and Women: Elaine Pagels

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1461971?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101541228911

 

IIRC Christ specifically makes very little mention of women, and no rules that I know of, but at the same time does not discredit previous rules set forth about them. Using religious texts as a reference to further an agenda of subjugating women is exactly what you were asking for.

 

No, Jesus was the first one to change the double standard laws which where biased against women, he often broke various Jewish laws and went out of his way to help women and even talked to them and preached to them, Mary was the first female student who received his teachings.

 

Jesus's interaction with women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus'_interactions_with_women

 

That link shows how misinformed you are and by the way only those which is from a divine origin can be termed as holy or religious and a human man made agenda can never be qualified as religious because it was never the word of God.

 

They are exact quotes though. A women's hand being cut off if they interfere with a man's altercation, selling a women to her rapist, killing all males and raping the females of entire villages, killing your neighbor for worshiping incorrectly, killing children that curse at their fathers, etc. Those are not misinterpretations, they are in the major books of religious texts that people use as guidelines for life. I could make your same argument towards the equality of women, that women are lower in God's eyes, but political and societal views shape us into believing that they are equal.

 

 

Again, why can you see which of these are true teachings and which are not?

 

There is nothing special about me, that's what the Jewish prophet and Moses himself say and many of the Muslims say and that's the first impression one gets when you read the Torah.

 

"'How can you say, "We are wise because we have the word of the LORD," when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies? - Jeremiah 8:8

http://bible.cc/jeremiah/8-8.htm

 

 

25: he[Moses] gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: 26 “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.27: For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28: Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to testify against them. 29: For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.” - Deuteronomy 31: 25-29

It is God who treats men and women as equal and it is humans devoid of divinity who corrupt the word of God. Therefore religion is not the root cause of discrimination of women instead the root causes are mainly social and political influences.

 

Many of the positions you've espoused have been a bit ludicrous, but the quoted portion above is especially so. This is about the most straight forward example I've ever seen of the no true scotsman fallacy.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

 

One doesn't become a Christian by believing in Christ, one doesn't become a Muslim by accepting Muhammad as his prophet. One becomes a Christian by practically leading a life based on the principles of Christ and becomes a Muslim by following and implementing the principles of Muhammad in his life. If your entire characteristics and the your way of life is entirely against the teachings of Christ and Muhammad then you don't deserve to be called as a Christian or a Muslim, you are calling yourself Islamic only for namesake and doing everything against the laws of Islam and the teachings of Muhammad.

 

Just because you don't know what characteristics are required to qualify someone as being religious doesn't mean I have committed a fallacy.

 

Who died and left you in charge to decide who is religious and who is not?

 

 

For now I'm a member of sfn and I'm participating in this thread as a member, I'm not in charge of anything.I speak for myself.

 

Can you show any support for that statement?

 

Valentinians believed that God is androgynous and frequently depicted him as a male-female dyad. This is related to the notion that God provides the universe with both form and substance. The feminine aspect of the deity is called Silence, Grace and Thought. Silence is God's primordial state of tranquillity and self-awareness She is also the active creative Thought that makes all subsequent states of being (or "Aeons") substantial. The masculine aspect of God is Depth, also called Ineffable and First Father. Depth is the profoundly incomprehensible, all-encompassing aspect of the deity. He is essentially passive, yet when moved to action by his feminine Thought, he gives the universe form.

 

-The Gnostic society Library

 

God is androgynous, he has both male and female aspect in him.

 

Again who are you to make that judgement? Who gave you special knowledge? Can you prove any of it?

 

Read above.

[swansont]

The misuse of religion and misinterpretation of religious texts to justify one's unjustifiable acts is not something new to us or something which is only specific to Islamic fundamentalists even the Nazis did it. We shouldn't let these fundamentalists define what religion is for us because their interpretations are neither based on scriptural evidence nor by empirical evidence.

 

It's not a matter of letting fundamentalists decide what religion is for us, it's a matter of letting them (and everyone) decide what it is for them. You've set yourself up as the arbiter of what counts as religion, and using a very narrow definition. So narrow that I doubt anything qualifies. I think that perhaps you don't qualify, since deciding who is belonging to a religion is a judgement, and I thought that was a no-no.

 

Most everyone else defines religion as a belief involving a higher power of some sort. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, or think they are or aren't following their religious text properly. As long as they believe it, it's a religion. People who worshipped the sun and the planets had a religion. People who selectively interpret their sacred book still have a religion. Argue as much as you want whether they are right or not, and what the one "true" religion is, and I probably won't care, but it's still a religion.

 

One doesn't become a Christian by believing in Christ, one doesn't become a Muslim by accepting Muhammad as his prophet.

 

That will come as a surprise to many Christians and Muslims, who probably don't give a rat's ass what you think.

[Prometheus]

 

Most everyone else defines religion as a belief involving a higher power of some sort.

 

I think i disagree with most people then. I know Buddhism, and i think Jainism, have no creator deities - and even though they both have plenty of other deities in them, neither are defined by them. Both religions would be unchanged by taking all mention of these deities out. Taoist belief of the Tao is so loosely defined it's difficult to know whether this thing is a higher power. It's defined to be unknowable, so giving it any properties such as higher power would contradict this.

 

Therefore i would suggest that either religion is not defined by belief in a higher power (though it's present in most of them), or these particular religions aren't really religions.

 

 

 

How many misguided individuals until it becomes a religion? This smacks of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

 

By the same token could Hitler's justification of the supreme race be based on 'science'? Regardless of whether those beliefs were truly scientific is irrelevant so long as his understanding is that it is based on science (social Darwinism in this case).

 

I don't expect anyone here to say a true scientist could not also be a mass murderer, I just wish to illustrate that humans do these things, religious or not. It wouldn't be enough simply to get rid of religion to stop genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic teachings. Might be a start though.

[immortal]

 

It's not a matter of letting fundamentalists decide what religion is for us, it's a matter of letting them (and everyone) decide what it is for them.

 

No, if they want to have their own belief systems and rebel against the word of God tell them to find an another name rather than calling themselves holy or religious without knowing the true meanings of such sacred words.

 

You've set yourself up as the arbiter of what counts as religion, and using a very narrow definition. So narrow that I doubt anything qualifies. I think that perhaps you don't qualify, since deciding who is belonging to a religion is a judgement, and I thought that was a no-no.

 

 

Its not an arbitrary judgement, to decide whether I belong to a particular religion or not first you should know what my religion is and then you need to know what constitutes as the core beliefs of that religion and that can be known from the scripture and the tradition which upholds the core values of that particular religion, one doesn't decide what constitutes as religion based on a majority, this is not a numbers game, this definition forms the very soul of that religion and hence it is very much important to have that values in you in order to qualify yourself as belonging to that religion.

 

 

Most everyone else defines religion as a belief involving a higher power of some sort. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, or think they are or aren't following their religious text properly.

 

It does matter what beliefs they are following, if their belief is that beheading innocent people is the core value of Islam then tell them to go to hell because no definition of Islam allows such beliefs.

 

 

As long as they believe it, it's a religion. People who worshipped the sun and the planets had a religion.

 

Every religion has its own definition of religion, the people who worshipped the sun and the planets do qualify as a religion because according to them the sun and the planets are not just physical elliptic spheres revolving around their orbits but instead they are also anthropomorphic Gods who control our fate based on the position of the planets and hence it is of a divine origin. The word god and religion has been used so loosely in some of the threads that it has become a habit to associate god with anything they like. Every religion has its own pantheon or deity and each of it is precisely defined. On the whole only those things which are from a divine origin or which having a likelihood of a divine origin can be considered religious.

 

People who selectively interpret their sacred book still have a religion. Argue as much as you want whether they are right or not, and what the one "true" religion is, and I probably won't care, but it's still a religion.

 

Its quite easy to find out which beliefs are from a divine origin and which aren't by doing comparative religious studies and scholarship, its same like how do you run a case in a court, if the witnesses claim matches with the evidence of their exact location, the timing of the event and in the absence of contrary evidence it can at least be qualified as a religion with a likelihood of having a divine origin, if you just make up something on your own then it doesn't qualify as religion.

 

 

That will come as a surprise to many Christians and Muslims, who probably don't give a rat's ass what you think.

 

If that's the case then they are slayers of Christianity and slayers of Islam.

[iNow]

One doesn't become a Christian by believing in Christ, one doesn't become a Muslim by accepting Muhammad as his prophet. <...> Just because you don't know what characteristics are required to qualify someone as being religious doesn't mean I have committed a fallacy.

You are, quite simply, wrong and merely repeating yourself over and over will not suddenly make you correct. You are arguing based on a fallacy, and you are losing credibility here with nearly each post you make.

[immortal]

You are, quite simply, wrong and merely repeating yourself over and over will not suddenly make you correct. You are arguing based on a fallacy, and you are losing credibility here with nearly each post you make.

 

I very well established my credibility by showing that there is nothing in the core religious beliefs of the major religions of the world where it says women should be exempted from higher education and actually religion strives for the opposite by providing equal opportunity and even higher authority to women and stops the discrimination of women which are mainly caused by social and other political factors. Your personal bias against religion and gullible conclusions is well known to everyone.

[iNow]

I very well established my credibility by showing that there is nothing in the core religious beliefs of the major religions of the world where it says women should be exempted from higher education and actually religion strives for the opposite by providing equal opportunity and even higher authority to women and stops the discrimination of women which are mainly caused by social and other political factors.

None of those things mean that people who espouse those things as a direct result of their interpretation of their religious texts are not themselves religious.

 

Your personal bias against religion and gullible conclusions is well known to everyone.

I was commenting on your quickly vanishing credibility, and comments like this one here don't help to turn that trend around.

[Moontanman]

iNow immortal his his own definitions of what religion is and what evidence is, it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with him.

[immortal]

None of those things mean that people who espouse those things as a direct result of their interpretation of their religious texts are not themselves religious.

 

Ah, that shows you don't know what being religious means.

 

I was commenting on your quickly vanishing credibility, and comments like this one here don't help to turn that trend around.

 

Sorry I am not in for such ego trip.

 

1. Asserting people who believe in God are broken

2. Making false analogies and equating God with tooth fairies.

3. Believing our ancients invented gods rather than discovering them.

4. Religion equals poverty.

 

Just to name a few, go and preach that to someone else not to me.

[iNow]

Ah, that shows you don't know what being religious means.

 

How is it that you feel this not the No True Scotsman fallacy?