What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)

[Moontanman]

Comparative studies push the evidence favouring the theist's side.

 

 

Only if you assume they are true with no evidentiary support. Immortal, so far you have done nothing but dig a hole you cannot escape from. You claim special knowledge but fail to show how you can show this knowledge as anything but your own assumptions about what you think god should be like. You believe what you do because of faith in your beliefs... totally circular reasoning if it can be called reasoning at all.

 

Your so called comparative studies is nothing more than your own conformation biases supporting what you think should be true. Your views on this do not significantly differ from Ken Ham's biblical glasses...

 

So far, and I have been keeping track, all you are doing is making unsupported claims asserting things you cannot possibly know to be true... Faith in your beliefs, that is all you have, yes we came to this conclusion a while back, and you admitted you had no empirical evidence then, you still don't immortal, it might very well be enough for you to believe but it fails miserably when you try to show this "faith in your belief" as part of empirical reality...

[ewmon]

I think the "supernatural" helps distinguish religion from philosophy, whether it's supernatural beings or knowledge or rewards, and obviously from every other form of knowledge or experience (commonsense, science, etc).

 

Current mainstream religions seem ultimately based on a single supernatural being, whether named Elohim, God, Allah, etc for their supernatural knowledge and reward.

 

Lesser/previous religions seem mostly based on physical experiences — whirling (a la dervishes), psychedelic mushrooms (Mesoamericans etc) and other drugs, chants, meditations, auguries/divinations (entrails, bones, etc), sweat lodges, fasting, inhaling fumes (a la Delphic oracle), communing with nature, etc — just about anything to modify or transcend the limits of our human abilities to perceive/know, and hopefully, to connect with so-called supernatural knowledge, which by definition, is not naturally available to us.

 

Supernatural rewards are well-known — heaven, hell, paradise, reincarnation, karma, etc.

[swansont]

Just by having a Phd you cannot escape from the cave, you're still a prisoner of the cave, the person who is an illiterate and the one who holds a Phd is even when it comes to religion. When I mean knowledge I'm not talking of knowledge acquired via sense organs, I'm speaking of experiential knowledge, knowledge acquired via immediate insight.

 

Earlier you said that to be religious you have to follow the true word of some god. Now you say it's by insight.

 

Which is it?

 

 

Can you please clarify based on what part of my posts or based on what you arrived at that conclusion? My definition includes both eastern religions as well as western religions, so can you make it clear for me?

 

Other have definitions that disagree with yours. Thus, your definition is not universal.

 

If your use of "universal" means that it applies to all, then you can't follow the "true word of a god" if that god doesn't exist in the religion.

 

[Iggy]

I guess you didn't understand what I meant, Logos, the word of God is not something which exists in a Holy Book like the bible, Koran or the bhagavad gita, just as numbers and mathematical truths exists in a platonic realm even the word of God exists out there in the numinous, its imperishable and incorruptible unlike the word of God which exists in our holy books which are corrupted and even forged. So Timothy is definitely out.

 

I admire your ability to know the mind of God. You are the first person I've ever met with the supernatural ability to decide what is and what is not the word of the creator of the universe. Would you consider editing the holy books, or authoring your own revelation, so that less fortunate people without superhuman powers can know what God wants and says?

[immortal]

Earlier you said that to be religious you have to follow the true word of some god. Now you say it's by insight.

 

Which is it?

 

 

I didn't said that, I said God became man so that man might become God. Just be believing in Christ you won't become a Christian you need to become Christ to be a Christian.

 

 

Icon of The Ladder of Divine Ascent (the steps toward theosis as described by St. John Climacus) showing monks ascending (and falling from) the ladder to Jesus. Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai.

 

This is the main central tenet of not only Christianity but of all religions of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

 

That's what being religious means to become identical with God. Being religious means not to establish the Gospel all over the earth and not converting as many people into Christianity, the latter are not religious people for they don't know what being religious means.

 

 

Other have definitions that disagree with yours. Thus, your definition is not universal.

 

Try to make a fundamentalist agree with you, they will continue to believe what they want to believe despite all evidence contradicting their beliefs, their own religious scriptures shatter their belief systems, that's why we label them as fundamentalists. The central tenet of a religion defines itself as to what characteristics one should have to attain membership into that religion. These fundamentalists do not have the characteristics and values in them to qualify themselves as part of that religion and hence they are not religious. I gave you a precise definition as to what you need to have in you to receive membership into Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism for I know the central tenet of these religions.

 

If your use of "universal" means that it applies to all, then you can't follow the "true word of a god" if that god doesn't exist in the religion.

 

I guess you don't know what being liberal means, Christianity has its own pantheon of Gods, Buddhism has its own pantheon of Gods and so does Hinduism, Hellenistic religions and Islam. Universal doesn't mean that there is only one true word of God and it universally applies to all, no, that's not what I said, if that was the case then this definition is not any better than the definitions which fundamentalists make up for themselves.

 

My definition is universal means every religion in this world has its own central tenet and this central tenet is what defines that religion for all of us and that common universal central tenet is to achieve Divinization. It literally means to become more divine, more like God, and/or take upon a divine nature.

 

This is the reason why I insist that if you need to be a Christian you need to become Christ, if you need to be a Brahmin you need to become Brahman, if you need to be a Jew you need to become Ein Sof, if you need to be a Buddhist you need to become Adi Buddha, if you need to be a Muslim you need to become Allah.

 

This is the central tenet of all these religions whether it is east or west and north or south, this central tenet is universal and is what defines religion for all of us. This has nothing to do with faith just by believing in Christ, YHWH and Allah you won't become a Christian, Jew and a Muslim, these people are not religious.

[swansont]

 

I didn't said that, I said God became man so that man might become God. Just be believing in Christ you won't become a Christian you need to become Christ to be a Christian.

 

Here's what you said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Sounds to me like you have made a requirement that to be religious you must follow the true word of God and know what the empirical and scriptural evidence is saying

 

 

That's what being religious means to become identical with God. Being religious means not to establish the Gospel all over the earth and not converting as many people into Christianity, the latter are not religious people for they don't know what being religious means.

 

Hence my question: how does an illiterate person, who can't read scripture to find out what it means, ever become religious, according to your definition? How could this happen if you had a religion where there was no sacred book, or "word" to follow? How do you become more like the divine when you can't acquire the knowledge of what the divine is like?

 

What if "the word" tells you to do things that are not like the divine?

 

You say that fundamentalists who kill are not being like the divine, and therefore aren't religious. Don't the scriptures record that God killed people?

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

You say " This has nothing to do with faith just by believing in Christ, YHWH and Allah you won't become a Christian, Jew and a Muslim, these people are not religious."

If that's true than according to Humpty, there's a difference between theism and religion.
How does that tally with the generally held idea that atheism is the opposite of religion?

 

Also, the word divinization implies that there are many people who have not "become God" (whatever that means).

According to your strange interpretation of the word "religious", the word divinization is redundant.

Since you don't think anyone is religious unless they have achieved divinization and anyone who has done so is religious then the two words (according to you) mean the same thing.

 

The problem with your opinion of what it means to be religious is that the word is used by everyone else in another way.

What you call religious is everyone else would call "divinised".

They don't mean the same thing: that's why there are different words for them.

And the word for what you think religious means is such an obscure word that most people have never heard of it.

 

The simple truth is that you don't need to be at one with God to be religious and, if you think you do then it's because you are not using the word correctly.

 

So the terrorists and their motivations are religious whether you like it or not.

 

(Don't repeat the insult of saying that I condone their actions in any way; you might find yourself facing legal action for libel.)

 

BTW, re ", I said God became man so that man might become God."

Not here and not recently you didn't.

On the other hand, you did say " I'm speaking of experiential knowledge, knowledge acquired via immediate insight. "

which is why Swansont said that you said it.

[immortal]

As I indicated if you people keep insist that even fundamentalists who behead innocent people are religious then those who hold and follow the central tenets of religions which was the main teachings of Jesus, Shankara, Buddha and Moses might have to find a all new word to identify themselves with because religion itself seems to have been corrupted and actually that's what the trend seems to indicate.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious

 

I always thought spiritual and religious were synonyms and I still think it is and I always thought my definition of religion defined what being religious means. Now I realize why majority of the people differentiate between spirituality and religiosity with the amount of comparative studies, scholarly studies, archaeological evidence, modern science and cultural transfusion which questions the belief systems of the orthodox religions which mainly works on the principle of blind faith and people have started to realize that that's not what being religious means, its a good sign to see that people have started to realize that religion is not about believing instead its about doing.

 

"A study of the differences between those self-identified as spiritual and those self-identified as religious found that the former have a loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental view of the numinous, while those identifying themselves as religious see their god as more judgmental.^[16]"

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/07/Spiritual-But-Not-Religious.aspx?p=1

 

But that doesn't mean that those who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious are truly religious people because many of these people are beginners, ignorant and confused people who have got no idea as to what they are doing, they do yoga and meditation without themselves being aware of the fact that they are worshipping a different image of God and are committing blasphemy to their own religion, if you are a Christian you shouldn't do yoga because that's blasphemy you are worshipping a different God, either identify yourself as a Christian or start calling yourself as a Sanatana Dharmin, they can be easily manipulated without the guidance of tradition and letting them define religion only creates more confusion. On the whole my definition of religion should be accepted as the correct universal definition as to what defines someone as religious because it constitutes the central tenet of all the religions of the world having the hallmark of our ancients on it.

 

These so called seekers have differenced themselves with organized religion only to arrive at my conclusion of religion which I have already arrived at through my research. As I said when more and more people and religious scholars investigate religion and question beliefs which are held on prejudice they will realize that my views on science and religion were right and everyone should agree on it.

[John Cuthber]

"As I indicated if you people keep insist that even fundamentalists who behead innocent people are religious"

It's not our insistence.

If you asked them why they do this they would tell you that their religion requires it.

 

"those who hold and follow the central tenets of religions which was the main teachings of Jesus, Shankara, Buddha and Moses might have to find a all new word to identify themselves with because religion itself seems to have been corrupted and actually that's what the trend seems to indicate."

Nope, it's not a corruption it is, for example, right there in the Bible which Jesus said we should follow.

For example if some mob stones a gay man to death they can say that they were acting in accordance with their religion and cite Leviticus

If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

So, either you say that the bible isn't a religious book or you have to accept that these people were following their religion.

 

The fact that the Bible contains a lot of things that are not acceptable is not my problem because I think it's all hogwash.

It's only an issue if you try to live your life by it.

 

(And I chose an Old Testament law deliberately in order to include the other major monotheistic religions.)

[immortal]

I am not sure if Buddhism in the west will ever coalesce into a coherent and distinct sect. Whichever culture Buddhism has encountered it has become assimilated into that culture, hence we see quite different sects of Buddhism. However, in the West instead of just receiving one form of Buddhism and assimilating it as in the past, we are exposed to various forms of Buddhism, into various places in the Western world. Anyway, this isn't a study of how religion spreads in the modern world. Bottom line there are some Buddhists who ignore the supernatural elements of Buddhism. Stephen Batchelor is probably the most famous example. Asked if religious, most seem to answer 'don't care'.

 

Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist and neither are you and a whole bunch of people who don't accept Buddhist cosmology are not Buddhists either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

 

Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist and neither are you and a whole bunch of people who don't accept Buddhist cosmology are not Buddhists either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

 

There are tons of people who are philosophical Buddhists but not religious Buddhists, i.e. they endorse and see the benefits of principles derived from Buddhism (like detachment, attempts to minimize or eliminate suffering, etc.) but reject the explicit and implicit claims of supernatural cause and teleology (the mystical version of karma, rebirth, souls, demons attempting to lure the Buddha away from Enlightenment and Other Capitalized Abstractions, and so on..). Such people also reject, pay no heed to those attempting to establish an orthodoxy (they couldn't care less -- in terms of their own belief of what counts as "correct" Buddhism, what the Dalai Lama or any other famous teachers might advise, though they may take an interest in such teachings generally).

 

Dragging things kicking and screaming back on topic, once again it remains the case that specific instances of arguing the "right" version of this or that religious doctrine doesn't change what constitutes a religion. Immortal's stance is plainly a case of No True Scotsman, and no amount of window-dressing will change that.

 

YES, many (if not most) fundamentalists happen to be religious. Doing things we may regard as harmful, or as "incorrect" (in quotes because the notion that there is One Right Way to interpret a religious doctrine is itself fundamentalist, hence the hilarious irony of Immortal's stance)...IS NOT some magical disqualifier/exemptor from religious status.

 

During the chattel slavery era in the United States, religious people debated and in some cases fought over slavery, yet the adherents behind both major positions towards slavery within such religious ranks (supporting and opposing) were still religious, because they all had something like the following:

 

*a moral narrative implicitly or explicitly identifying norms (for adherents) regarding what is to be considered good and bad;

*belief in some form of supernatural causality;

*an orthodoxy for such belief, administered/moderated by some authority figure (priesthoods, preachers, etc.);

 

It doesn't MATTER which -- if any of these factions -- got X doctrine "right" or wrong. They shared (and still share) in common certain general qualities of belief and practice which mark their (ever-feuding) systems as religions.

[ydoaPs]

 

Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist and neither are you and a whole bunch of people who don't accept Buddhist cosmology are not Buddhists either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

You're not a Christian because you don't accept the Christian cosmology of a YEC flat Earth.

[immortal]

You're not a Christian because you don't accept the Christian cosmology of a YEC flat Earth.

 

Religion isn't about how Grand Canyon was formed or dogmatically asserting the shape of earth, that's a characteristic of fundamentalists who are not religious and who don't know what being religious means, religion is about understanding your relationship with the personal God and his relationship with the manifested cosmos, don't put me on the same boat with them, I want to sail the opposite way.

[ydoaPs]

 

Religion isn't about how Grand Canyon was formed or dogmatically asserting the shape of earth, that's a characteristic of fundamentalists who are not religious and who don't know what being religious means, religion is about understanding your relationship with the personal God and his relationship with the manifested cosmos, don't put me on the same boat with them, I want to sail the opposite way.

Oh, so fundamentalists don't define YOUR religion, but they do for Buddhists..........

[immortal]

Oh, so fundamentalists don't define YOUR religion, but they do for Buddhists..........

 

They don't define for Buddhists either. Someone needs to jerk you to make you realize that orthodox Christianity is not same as Buddhism, your comparison doesn't stand.

[ydoaPs]

 

They don't define for Buddhists either. Someone needs to jerk you to make you realize that orthodox Christianity is not same as Buddhism, your comparison doesn't stand.

You JUST said:

Stephen Batchelor is not a Buddhist and neither are you and a whole bunch of people who don't accept Buddhist cosmology are not Buddhists either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

Immortal -

Do you understand, and acknowledge, the following fact:

There exist religious people whose interpretation of their religion (or of yours, for that matter) conflicts with your own...

??

In other words, do you acknowledge that differently religious is still religious?

(Note: if your answer is no, that would make your own position a fundamentalist one)

Edited January 14, 2013 by Chad Makaio Zichterman

[immortal]

 

There are tons of people who are philosophical Buddhists but not religious Buddhists, i.e. they endorse and see the benefits of principles derived from Buddhism (like detachment, attempts to minimize or eliminate suffering, etc.) but reject the explicit and implicit claims of supernatural cause and teleology (the mystical version of karma, rebirth, souls, demons attempting to lure the Buddha away from Enlightenment and Other Capitalized Abstractions, and so on..). Such people also reject, pay no heed to those attempting to establish an orthodoxy (they couldn't care less -- in terms of their own belief of what counts as "correct" Buddhism, what the Dalai Lama or any other famous teachers might advise, though they may take an interest in such teachings generally).

 

Dragging things kicking and screaming back on topic, once again it remains the case that specific instances of arguing the "right" version of this or that religious doctrine doesn't change what constitutes a religion. Immortal's stance is plainly a case of No True Scotsman, and no amount of window-dressing will change that.

 

YES, many (if not most) fundamentalists happen to be religious. Doing things we may regard as harmful, or as "incorrect" (in quotes because the notion that there is One Right Way to interpret a religious doctrine is itself fundamentalist, hence the hilarious irony of Immortal's stance)...IS NOT some magical disqualifier/exemptor from religious status.

 

During the chattel slavery era in the United States, religious people debated and in some cases fought over slavery, yet the adherents behind both major positions towards slavery within such religious ranks (supporting and opposing) were still religious, because they all had something like the following:

 

*a moral narrative implicitly or explicitly identifying norms (for adherents) regarding what is to be considered good and bad;

*belief in some form of supernatural causality;

*an orthodoxy for such belief, administered/moderated by some authority figure (priesthoods, preachers, etc.);

 

It doesn't MATTER which -- if any of these factions -- got X doctrine "right" or wrong. They shared (and still share) in common certain general qualities of belief and practice which mark their (ever-feuding) systems as religions.

 

LoL, there is an orthodoxy tell your so called slayers of Buddhism to keep themselves away from Buddhism.

 

Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

 

BTW, thanks to everyone for revealing your ignorance about religion.

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

 

LoL, there is an orthodoxy tell your so called slayers of Buddhism to keep themselves away from Buddhism.

 

Distorted Visions of Buddhism: Agnostic and Atheist

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-issues-for-2010/october/distorted-visions-of-buddhism-agnostic-and-atheist/

 

BTW, thanks to everyone for revealing your ignorance about religion.

 

Completely unresponsive. I'm guessing that's not likely to change any time soon.

[John Cuthber]

 

BTW, thanks to everyone for revealing your ignorance about religion.

But, if true religion is about being one with God, then those of us who are not so blessed are necessarily ignorant of it. We can not know it.

You just thanked us for stating the obvious.

 

But, before you bother to ponder that too much, perhaps you should answer Chad's rather telling question.

[immortal]

 

Completely unresponsive. I'm guessing that's not likely to change any time soon.

 

It was right on the money, I earlier gave you a precise definition as to what it is required to be a Buddhist. Your ignorance and inability to precisely define Buddhism and religion as a whole is not my fallacy.

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

 

It was right on the money, I earlier gave you a precise definition as to what it is required to be a Buddhist. Your ignorance and inability to precisely define Buddhism and religion as a whole is not my fallacy.

 

That you consider yourself to be the sole arbiter of meaning with regards to religion is abundantly clear.

 

That doesn't make your post responsive. You're simply declaring yourself right and dismissing any and all contrary claims out of hand, with reference to (or even mere acknowledgement of) their substance.

 

Welcome to fundamentalism. Your stance is exemplifying the very things you ostensibly regard as anathema.

 

Also, your refusal to answer a straightforward yes/no question is duly noted.

 

The specific minutiae of claims within Buddhist doctrine are completely irrelevant to the topic. Buddhism IS, as practiced by many millions of people, a religion. This DOES include those who claim Buddhism as their religious affiliation despite engaging in actions and making claims to which you, or I, or any of a host of other people -- might raise objection.

 

So once again...yes or no...

 

Do you acknowledge the fact that differently religious is still religious?

 

(If not, your position is a form of fundamentalism)

[immortal]

But, if true religion is about being one with God, then those of us who are not so blessed are necessarily ignorant of it. We can not know it.

You just thanked us for stating the obvious.

 

But, before you bother to ponder that too much, perhaps you should answer Chad's rather telling question.

 

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist. The framework for my definition of religion is built on its own, I don't have to make up anything or cover it up, its there in all the religions of the world, since I accept one sect from every religion of the world that would make me the most liberal person and not a fundamentalist. I hope you guys know the meaning of being liberal at least.

[Chad Makaio Zichterman]

 

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist. The framework for my definition of religion is built on its own, I don't have to make up anything or cover it up, its there in all the religions of the world, since I accept one sect from every religion of the world that would make me the most liberal person and not a fundamentalist. I hope you guys know the meaning of being liberal at least.

What makes your position fundamentalist is obvious: you are asserting that there is One Right Definition, and (implicitly) also asserting that you, specifically, have it.

 

It doesn't matter which religious affiliation you claim -- or even IF you claim religious affiliation at all -- for purposes of identifying fundamentalism. What marks your position as fundamentalist is the notion that you (and implicitly, you alone) Have The Right Answer.

 

Multiple attempts have been made to get you to accurately acknowledge other posters' bases for identifying a practice or set of beliefs as religious vs. nonreligious, all to no avail. There is no engagement on your part, only out of hand dismissal and No True Scotsman (with an occasional ad hominem for good measure).

 

 

[John Cuthber]

 

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist.

OK, this is a banana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Apple.jpg

 

You guys seem to assume I have made my own personal definition of religion banana and since this definition is not agreed by everyone instead of accepting my definition you guys want to make me as a separate sect and want to call me a fundamentalist.