What is a religion?

[Flyndaran]

I'm curious to read others' definition of religion. It's a word used all the time, but I think one that has no real set definition.
Is Mormonism a religion? Is scientology? If only one person believed something is it a religion or automatically a set of delusions? Am I sane for saying that Jesus, a greek name of a jewish rabbi that may have existed almost two millinenia ago loves you, but not sane for saying that Zeus loves you? What's the difference?

I'm a born atheist that has never "had" religion and the very concept never meshed with my psyche. I was six when I understood that the sunday school adults actually believed the stories they told us. It freaked me out and made me realize that adults could be just as full of it as any child my age. Fortunately I didn't catch any flack from my father. We had many in depth discussion about it, and even he realized that the god concept just would not fit in my head no matter how it was explained.

So help me a little with your own definitions and anecdotes, please.

[Slytovhand]

I choose to define a 'religion' as a set of beliefs one has about the nature of the universe.

Yep, incredibly broad, but that has the wonderful advantage of not being able to put one 'religion' above any other - they're all on an equal footing.

'Beliefs' then makes for the significant word... atheism therefore becomes a religion, as it is obviously about the nature of the universe, and regardless of how much scientific evidence is put forth, it is still a stack of beliefs all melded together. It is quite possible that this is all an illusion (as per Des Cartes).

I totally agree with you how some beliefs are considered perfectly normal, but others considered batshit crazy! That makes no sense to me at all (other than those beliefs which ridiculously go against what obviously happens around us - things which are logically inconsistent with real life). There are things I believe which get eyes rolled because of their lunacy, but I think things through and they make a hell of a lot more sense to me than other things! (ie - alien civilisations - if one believes in reincarnation, then there's really no reason not to believe that we have lived lives on other planets - statistically it makes far more sense than some guy born about 2 millenia ago can save your immortal soul for eternity...).

One minor anecdote - I know someone who says she is a witch, yet got offended when I called her a pagan.... sheesh!!!!!

[anriana]

I choose to define a 'religion' as a set of beliefs one has about the nature of the universe.

So Confucianism isn't a religion but atheism is?

[Flyndaran]

Could the mods correct my title typo. I meant to write "WHAT is a religion".

[Slytovhand]

So Confucianism isn't a religion but atheism is?

Not seeing the issue here...

If one made the definition reliant on 'supernatural forces', then maybe, but I don't - I just said it's about beliefs. Confucianism has just as much belief as atheism (and anything else, for that matter - since I can't see that one belief has a 'value' higher than any others).

What made you think I would see it this way???

[Flyndaran]

...
If one made the definition reliant on 'supernatural forces', then maybe, but I don't - I just said it's about beliefs. Confucianism has just as much belief as atheism (and anything else, for that matter - since I can't see that one belief has a 'value' higher than any others).
...

Atheism isn't a belief though. It's a lack of belief, so it shouldn't be called a religion. (It's a bit of a sore spot with me and others of the same non-belief as one could imagine.)

[Slytovhand]

Flyn - yep, not surprised it's a sore point :)

Sore point with me because atheists don't reckon that they 'believe' anything - they know!!!. Whereas, in reality, that's all any human can do (believe, that is).

Now - if one is Xtian, and therefore doesn't believe in the Hindu Gods, does that "lack of belief" make them atheist?

[anriana]

Not seeing the issue here...

If one made the definition reliant on 'supernatural forces', then maybe, but I don't - I just said it's about beliefs. Confucianism has just as much belief as atheism (and anything else, for that matter - since I can't see that one belief has a 'value' higher than any others).

What made you think I would see it this way???

Confucianism deals with leading a moral life, not the nature of the universe.

[Slytovhand]

Yes....?

Even in current circles, there is debate over whether it is considered a religion or not, given that it is a philosophy.

Personally, I see moral imperatives as being a part of the universe. At the very least, what people do, why they do it and the consequences of such actions and thoughts all fits. By 'nature of the universe', I'm not only referring to objective reality, but subjective as well.


But, this does lead to an obvious question from me.. I've defined what I call religion - what's your definition?

[Sylvia727]

A religion is a set of subjective beliefs about meaning. It answers the why of life, the universe, and everything. A religion is absurd when it contradicts known and solid science. A thousand years ago, a heliocentric (the sun as the center) religion would have been crazy, because scientists knew that the earth was the center of everything. Science and religion are two different ways of trying to explain the same thing. One looks at the how, and the other looks at the why.

Everyone's religion is just slightly different from the next person's, even two people sitting in the same church pew. Organized religion is a group of people with similiar beliefs coming together to reaffirm and discuss their religion. There are any number of unhealthy religions, from the cults that preach drinking poison to commune with aliens, to the sidestream religions that deny necessary medical treatment to children, to mainstream religions that deny divorce even to battered spouses. A red flag of an unhealthy religion is when an individual stops considering, discussing, questioning their religion and starts swallowing down whole what another person tells them.

As for whether atheism is a religion, I believe I answered that question in the I believe in atheism (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=730) thread.

[Boozy]

I'm not much of a philosopher, and I haven't thought about this much, but I have trouble seeing Confucianism and Taoism as religions. They don't answer those ultimate questions - the origins of life, whether or not there is a God, and what happens after we die. There are even various forms of Buddhism that do not try to tackle these questions.

I also don't see atheism as a belief system of any sort. It doesn't require any leap of faith.

[Evandril]

My definition of 'religion' would be similar...I'd say religion is a belief structure to explain that which cannot be proven. I would also classify atheistism a religion, because it requires belief there are no dieties of any sort. Notice I didn't say no 'omnipotent' dieties, I said dieties of any sort...And the existance or non-existance of such a being I do not feel would be provable, using scientific methods...Hence it being a belief.

[AFPheonix]

But as has been discussed in another thread entirely, atheism is the utter absence of religion. It is areligious, so while it may be a belief system, it is not a religion.

[Evandril]

That depends on the definition of 'religion', which is what this thread was about, I thought? I was giving my personal opinion on it, and what I felt it included.

Edit: What *was* religion defined as in that thread? I know people who believe in various religions, and concider themselves to be religious, who do not have any 'rituals' they practice..and others who accept the Christian religion, but don't act on their beliefs....How are the classified?

[crashhelmet]

To me, a "religion" is simply a set of beliefs. It doens't require any type of higher power. Just a set of beliefs that you abide by or allow to influence you in your daily actions.

Where it gets complicated is when theologies get involved. As was earlier pointed out, theologies help answer the questions that no one had been abel to answer before. In some, they stretch out to comfort people's fear or instill fear into them to keep them on the "right" path.

Clearly hypothetical, but I see the transition from Judaism to Christianity as being a battle over the fear of death and the after life. "You need ot convert to Christianity or you're going to burn in Hell!" Last i checked, Jews didn't believe in Hell. You went to Heaven if you were good, otherwise you went to "Paradise" or sumthin like that. The different Christian Denominations all grew out of the "I don't believe that, but I believe this" mentality. They simply have a core foundation.

Buddhism doesn't teach you to follow a supreme being. It teaches you to BECOME a supreme being. If you attain the highest level of enlightenment, you become a Buddha.

They're all different. Based on my definition, I believe Atheism to be a religion. It is simply the rejection of a theology. A belief in the absence of theistic entities.

CH

[Boozy]

To me, a "religion" is simply a set of beliefs. It doens't require any type of higher power. Just a set of beliefs that you abide by or allow to influence you in your daily actions.

Under that definition, things like vegetarianism and Republicanism could be considered religions.

Which could lead to some hilarious civil action suits under the First Amendment. :D

Buddhism doesn't teach you to follow a supreme being. It teaches you to BECOME a supreme being. If you attain the highest level of enlightenment, you become a Buddha.

To nitpick: a Buddha is not a supreme being.

[Evandril]

Just because I thought it was appropriate...here's the online Merriam-Webster definition of 'Religion'

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


IMO, the last one would apply to atheism.

[crashhelmet]

I got a kick out of this.

http://assets.comics.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/70000/0000/400/270402/270402.zoom.gif

CH

[crashhelmet]

To nitpick: a Buddha is not a supreme being.

True. I'll give you that one.
CH

[Gerrinson]

Science and religion are two different ways of trying to explain the same thing. One looks at the how, and the other looks at the why.

Actually, the logical conclusion is that science and religion are not explaining the same thing. Science attempts to explain how the universe works based on testable and observational evidence. Science then quantifies it into predictive models. If those models fail to properly predict reality, then they are corrected or reworked based on further data.

Religion attempts to explain why we exist and does so based upon belief in a god or gods that created everything. Religions usually go further and say that the how of 'this' or 'that' cannot be explained and must be evidence of the god or gods in question. Religion further demands that adherents follow a basic set of tenets to belong, must believe in A, B, and C, and must condemn those who believe differently. And all of this must be accepted on blind faith and is not to be questioned or <insert bad thing(s)> will happen.

Thus, science and religion are not 'trying to explain the same thing.' They try to explain two very different things that people sometimes confuse for one another. I can understand the confusion, it is a fairly easy mistake to make until you've thought it through quite thoroughly.



If my explanation sounds bitter, but you can blame my church and family for letting me read the Bible. Then I asked questions and was told that what I read is wrong. Yet it was in the Bible, which is always right? :confused:

The Bible is what convinced me that 'religion' is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to confuse and control people who either can not or do not wish to decide about the world around them for themselves. I came to that conclusion at the age of 10 based solely upon having read the Bible twice. I then took a great deal of berating from most of my family and many others who all agreed that they had not read the Bible cover to cover as I did, yet professed to know more about it than I did. If you claim to be Christian, but have not read the Bible cover to cover, then I suggest you do so. It's a real eye opener. And don't have someone else (i.e. priest, pastor, etc.) tell you what it means. Judge for yourself.

To be fair, I've done a bit of reading of other 'holy texts' and found equally bad at dealing with the real world. I do feel that I would need to learn Hebrew and Arabic to make proper judgement of the most commonly discussed non-Christian religions, but given the translations I've seen, they have no more relevancy to reality than Christianity.

After all this religion and Bible-bashing, I would agree that the Bible has some excellent basic rules for living in a primate society without bashing your neighbor's head in on a regular basis. And Jesus, assuming he existed, was a wise fellow with more patience and tolerance than I have. I have a lot of respect for the man, but little for the religion that sprang from his wise words. Still, I have yet to see an idea so wise that no fools will believe it. (Not mine, paraphrased, and I seem to have forgotten the original source, but still quite true)

[Sylvia727]

Actually, the logical conclusion is that science and religion are not explaining the same thing.

Poor phrasing on my part, perhaps. Science and religion both look at the world around us. Science looks a bit closer, and religion looks a bit further. They do not explain the same things.

Religion attempts to explain why we exist and does so based upon belief in a god or gods that created everything. Religions usually go further and say that the how of 'this' or 'that' cannot be explained and must be evidence of the god or gods in question. Religion further demands that adherents follow a basic set of tenets to belong, must believe in A, B, and C, and must condemn those who believe differently. And all of this must be accepted on blind faith and is not to be questioned or <insert bad thing(s)> will happen.

Many religions do not believe in deities, or creators. Many religions do not condemn those of other beliefs. Many religions do not demand blind faith, (some encourage their followers to question), and many religions do not use fear. Off the top of my head and from my cursory understandings, Shinto, from Japan, does not preach the existence of gods or creators. Many many denominations of Christianity, particularly those that follow the New Testament (love thy neighbor, and do good to those who hate you) more closely than the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, and homosexuality is an Abomination Unto the Lord), do not condemn those of other beliefs. Buddhism springs to mind about a lack of blind faith (open-eyed faith?) but there's some discussion about whether or not it is a religion. Organized religion does usually have a set of tenets that their followers believe, but if someone doesn't believe this, why would they want to follow that organization anyway?

It seems to me that your troubles were with organized religion, and a denomination of Christianity in particular. One can have religion without belonging to an organized religion. Not attending church (or temple, or mosque, or mass) and not following a holy book does not mean that one is not religious. One can still have a set of beliefs about the supernatural without deriving them from another source or attending meetings on the subject.

If my explanation sounds bitter, but you can blame my church and family for letting me read the Bible. Then I asked questions and was told that what I read is wrong. Yet it was in the Bible, which is always right? :confused:

I also read the Bible, and some of the adults in my life were astonished when I asked them about some of the great family values in there, like incest, murder, and a vengeful, jealous god. So no, not all Christians understand just what all is in there. Most of the nice Christians I've met preach that the Old Testament is a collection of stories, myths, and legends meant to guide our understanding without being taken at face value, and must be filtered through the cultural expectations of the time. Any man with a clean-shaved face or a woman in public on her period, for starters.

The Bible is what convinced me that 'religion' is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to confuse and control people who either can not or do not wish to decide about the world around them for themselves. I came to that conclusion at the age of 10 based solely upon having read the Bible twice.

But the Bible is not the entirety of Christian teachings, and Christianity is not the only organized religion. Nor is all religion organized.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly, Gerrinson.. nice post (even with the debatable bit :D)

Secondly, it does raise the question of 'religion' versus 'beliefs'. I've noticed on various dating sites (umm... just passing through, that's all....:p), that they will, under 'religion' have the category of 'spiritual, but not religious' (and I think to myself..what the..???).

Now, take the Old Age, where one's beliefs were instilled in the clan, and sometimes, they'll be the only ones to actually believe those things. It wasn't really 'organised' at all.. it's just what you did or believed. When the thunder crackled, dad told you it was the spirits.

I've defined it in my reality as a religion, but given the way some things have panned out here... is it?

Also - Christian Science... what's that???

[Gerrinson]

I left out a quote of the bit about religions that don't believe in specific deities, but here we go: I understand the belief in spirits, and I can easily see how in the past people could believe in spirits/gods/etc., I mean 10,000 years ago who could test that lightning is just really big static electricity, right? But now, we know better.

So called 'psychic' powers to a point, actually, I can believe. Particulary precognition due to the fact that there is no scientific evidence currently to prove that time must flow in only one direction. Perhaps we're finally evolving to the point where we can begin to perceive more than before. Still, 99.99% can be proven to be deluded, scammers, or giving such generic info that you might as well have opened a fortune cookie (at least you get cookie!).

But the Bible is not the entirety of Christian teachings, and Christianity is not the only organized religion. Nor is all religion organized.

Okay. I don't know of any other primary sources of the teachings of Jesus Christ from that time period. If you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but you don't draw from his teachings in the Bible (or some other primary souce), then you're not following him, you're following someone else. At best, someone else's interpretation of his original lessons. At worst, you're following the teaching of somebody who has his own opinion and point of view and has falsely dressed it up as a teaching of Jesus Christ. If you believe that is what entails being a Christian, then I'm afraid you've been hoodwinked.

If you know of some non-Biblical primary source that has the teachings of Jesus Christ I'd be very interested to know what it is so I can research it for myself. The more you know and all that.

[Sylvia727]

I've heard of a number of non-Biblical gospels, some about Jesus and some about his disciples after his death. I haven't read any of them. I also know Christians who follow a "living Gospel", or a "verbal tradition", in which the customs and teachings of prominant Christians is added to Christian traditions. Catholicism's Pope comes to mind, as he is considered the heir of St. Peter and his words are sacred truth (in certain circumstances). Followers of these traditions are still Christians.

[anriana]

If you know of some non-Biblical primary source that has the teachings of Jesus Christ I'd be very interested to know what it is so I can research it for myself. The more you know and all that.

That would depend on how you define the Bible. Are you including the Catholic Apocrypha?

There's also the book of Mary and the book of Thomas and a few others I don't remember. Some are Gnostic and some are books that the political committee of men who chose the official Biblical books just didn't like.

[Flyndaran]

That would depend on how you define the Bible. Are you including the Catholic Apocrypha?

There's also the book of Mary and the book of Thomas and a few others I don't remember. Some are Gnostic and some are books that the political committee of men who chose the official Biblical books just didn't like.

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

[Gerrinson]

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

Exactly. And this why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Bible. You can pick and choose your holy texts? Is it still truly a holy text, or more a case of 'Choose-Your-Own-Messiah'? (Turn to page 87 to continue!)

And other ancient texts based on previously oral traditions are just as suspect. The more I that read about religions, the more it became clear that people were just fooling themselves. Personally, I require evidence beyond things seen by people in times when it was common for hallucinogenic fungi to wind up in the food, by accident of course, but still.

[AFPheonix]

I think of it less as people fooling themselves than as people in power using sacred texts that were supposedly inspired by God to control their populace. I am most familiar with the Bible, and it's pretty evident how that works in the Pentateuch and books of I II Kings and I II Chronicles. The difference in narratives are pretty interesting.

[Evandril]

Exactly. And this why I have no faith in the accuracy of the Bible. You can pick and choose your holy texts? Is it still truly a holy text, or more a case of 'Choose-Your-Own-Messiah'? (Turn to page 87 to continue!)

And other ancient texts based on previously oral traditions are just as suspect. The more I that read about religions, the more it became clear that people were just fooling themselves. Personally, I require evidence beyond things seen by people in times when it was common for hallucinogenic fungi to wind up in the food, by accident of course, but still.

I still enjoy the idea of a diety watching all this, with his hand on his forehead, muttering 'Where did they get THAT from?!? I never said that! Why did I ever let them have free will??' :D

[anriana]

If you include everything anyone ever claimed was a part of, or addition to, the bible, then you would rival many libraries.

The poster asked for primary sources of Jesus' words that weren't included in the Bible, so I listed some that claim to be that.

[Slytovhand]

I took this line of thought up with a very ardent Christian many years ago (and she was a good'un... believed and had faith because of personal experience, not just indoctrination...). Her thought on the matter was that God directed those who decided what went into the Bible, and what didn't.

Fair enough, I spose... it requires faith to believe that, but nothing too absurd!

As for 'evidence', that would require testing, Gerrinson. And as you've just brought up the subject of mushrooms, I hope you are aware that there are beliefs out there that incoroprate the use of psychoactive substances to aid in achieving experiences... to connect with 'divinity' and to find 'the truth'... I presume you're going to get back to us shortly with your conclusions :D :D :D

[Gerrinson]

Well, Slyt, I'll make this one brief: If you have to take hallucinogens to find your god/spirit/etc. then I have no reason to take you seriously. Sorry, but the fact that you have to be drugged partially or completely out of your mind says it all.

[Slytovhand]

Well, it's on topic, so I'll stay with it...
Sorry, but the fact that you have to be drugged partially or completely out of your mind says it all.

Says what?

No, seriously...

After all, I don't see too many humans seeing a divine being in the normal run of life (yeah, sure, I do get the whole 'the divine is in everything'... I'd be hypocritical not to).

But, what real rational reason is there to say that in order to free oneself of social constructs and actually be able to perceive alternate levels of reality, some sort of psychotropic isn't out of the question? (obviously, there are other means, but since this is following on...)

I'd say the presumption that the only way to contact god/spirit etc ist to be in a logical, rational frame of mind is biased.

[Evandril]

I'd say the presumption that the only way to contact god/spirit etc ist to be in a logical, rational frame of mind is biased.

Since it's been proven that even different people don't 'think' the same way, I'd find it reasonable to believe a diety or some other form of life/spirit/ect would think in ways different enough to need serious mind-bending of one form or another to communicate. From the stories I've heard of various drugs, they *do* alter your perceptions...'Tasting' color, 'hearing' texture, and the like...So it seems like a way to do it, in theory :)

[Gerrinson]

In my opinion, if you have to be drugged partially or completely out of your mind to interact with your god/spirit/etc. then you're a drugged out whacko. Go drink the 'special' Kool Aid and good riddance.

To provide an actual counterpoint: Any such being that cannot communicate with us in the normal day to day manner with which we perceive the universe obviously had no part in 'creating' us or that being would know the best way in which to communicate with our species. Thus, if you have to be drugged out of your mind, what you're seeing is not <insert deity/spirit/divine being of choice>.

Some of our ancestors based entire religions on the experience of getting high. That in no way suggests that I should believe they are true, given all of the evidence that hallucinations are not real and exist solely in mind of the person having said hallucination.

-------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and having received a reminder that I haven't touched upon other primary sources from Biblical times - there were some primary sources mentioned, and thanks for pointing out my own ignorance on the issue. That being said, has anyone here been able to read any of those sources for themselves and in them found the teachings that convince you that your religion is absolutely true and the only and correct religion?

I haven't had access to any of those, so I can't speak for their content. And while I've often been told that the Bible/Koran/Torah is correct 'because the <insert book of your choice> says that it's true.' I fail to believe them. I can write "There is no God. This is true." on a cocktail napkin and prove just as much because the napkin says it's true. And don't forget that the high muckity mucks of each religion who tell they are right have a vested interest in making sure you believe them.

Spin it any way you want, I've reached the conclusion that all religions seem to be nothing more than the successful application of the Wizard's First Rule:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool." —Chapter 36, p.397, U.S. hardcover edition, Wizard's First Rule

Props to Terry Goodkind for putting it so clearly and succintly.

[Flyndaran]

...
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool." —Chapter 36, p.397, U.S. hardcover edition, Wizard's First Rule

Props to Terry Goodkind for putting it so clearly and succintly.

Rude, but pretty darn true and kind of the basis for scienctific methods. I have no reason to believe X unless, and until, your experiments make sense and are rigorously reproduceable.

I would love to believe in afterlives, unicorns, souls, etc., but there are no rigorously reproduceable experiments that validate them. I can't just rely on my or anyone else's "common sense" as basis for belief.

[Slytovhand]

Out of curiosity , Gerrinson, have you actually tried to get involved with any of those religious activities getting discussed? Or have you rationaled it to the point that you aleady 'know'? (Flyn's already mentioned his background in that area...)

[Gerrinson]

I've been part of many religious services in my life, the ones I've been exposed to in any sort of quantity are: Christian (Episcopalian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentacostal, Methodist, and Congregationalist), Jewish, Muslim, and Native American. I've found them all lacking in any real value beyond playing along and being 'accepted' and praised by others for playing along. Empty praise, really, since it was merely play acting sans stage.

I hope you aren't suggesting that I should be purposely ingesting toxic substances in an effort to 'find' religion. Given that all hallucinogens are, in fact, illegal and could cause permanent lasting harm up to and including death, I believe it would be foolish to do so. And that's not even mentioning the kind of idiotic behavior that occurs while under the influence of hallucinogens. Not for me, thanks.

[Slytovhand]

Not specifically - just wondering about your background, and if it incorporated such things. No, I'm not one to go advocating such things.

A discussion on such things just came up on another forum I'm on, and I was reminded that the use of psychotropics were used in rituals and ceremonies for at least a few thousand years. Also in the discussion, most were inclined to say that meditation and the like are just as likely to get you in contact with 'alternate realities' - and safer and more controlled.

But, in looking at your answer, I do need to ask... when you went to those services, were you open minded, or had you already made up your mind? Or, were you seeking 'proof'? (it's the sort of question I'd ask anyone in that situation... you just happen to be here :p)

(nitpick - no, not all are illegal! Though, given the way humans come into this world, pretty much anything can cause permanent lasting harm.. and death. Even air!)

[Gerrinson]

But, in looking at your answer, I do need to ask... when you went to those services, were you open minded, or had you already made up your mind? Or, were you seeking 'proof'?

Most of those were as a kid, when I was open minded about it and trying to 'believe' as I was told that was the only right choice. Unfortunately for most of the ardent believers, I kept questioning inconsistencies in the 'factual' stories as presented. Mostly in Christianity, as mentioned before I don't speak Hebrew or Arabic, so most of those services were really lost on me. A friend of mine liked the synagogue so much he studied Hebrew and converted.

Native American stories just seem to anthropomorphize the world, which makes sense given their hunter/gatherer culture, but didn't really jive well with my upbringing outside the tribe.

By the time I was in my teens, I really had more questions than anyone was willing to answer with non-circular argument (i.e. the Bible is true because the Bible says so. :rolleyes:) so I gave up and walked away. Ironically, the two people who have never forced the issue are my dad and stepmom, both of whom are ordained Methodist ministers.

In the end, I'm atheist because that is who I have always been. I've long since stopped questioning why I don't believe and now question the fact that so many people do believe.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, Ok...

Yeah, I've never had it ok with 'organised' religion either. Same sort of reason - logical questions :D That, and those same inconsistencies...

I spose that's why some religions/beliefs say you've got to let go of the rational mind to be able to experience.

I also have the take that - science says we can only detect about 5% of what's going on around us in the universe with our 5 sense. With technological advancement, that pushes it to max of 18-20%.

So, the universe is 80% unknown to us... leaves a hell of a lot of places for 'divine beings' to put their nose in :p

[Rapscallion]

Bit of a 'leap of faith' there. Science saying it can only detect 5% of what goes on with our current senses - I'd like to see some sort of citation there. However, you go from saying you think that we could get that to 20% or so with technology, resulting in - from what you think - that we don't know of 80% of what's going on, so it's fine to assume that there's room for gods.

Not sure if it's your wording, but you're effectively saying you suspect = certainty that there could be gods.

Mind clarifying?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Well, yes, I would mind actually :D :D :D

No - not a leap of faith as such... I heard it on the radio some time back. And thus, there's room for the 'possibility' of some thing that may be defined as 'god' (for any given definition... Including, I suppose, some scientist in a lab who manages to create an artificial Black Hole, which in turn, creates a new universe...).

But my idea is more that there's a stack of things we don't know about this place, that some form of deity type being/entity (perhaps stars are actually the bodies of some lifeform??) is within the realms of possibility.

FTR - I don't believe in a Christo-Judaic 'God'.

[Flyndaran]

God is still a nonsense idea. Nothing in human discovery suggests that any type of infinity exists. Every time someone suggests one it has been proven to be just really really big.
I just can't believe in an impossibility such as a prime mover, infinite in thought and action.
It's just nonsense.
It will always freak me out till the day I die and sadly cease to exist that so many of my supposed sapient species actually believe in one.

[PepperElf]

I'm curious to read others' definition of religion.
I always felt that the difference between a religion and a cult was simply the numbers.

A faith with several thousands of believers = religion
A faith with just a few = cult.
(also a cult, if your entire religion kills itself off)


I remember having an argument with a guy in high school... He kept trying to call other religions "Cults" to emphasize that they weren't worthy of being called religions. Basically everything non-christian was a cult. (I can't remember if he called the Jewish faith a cult or not tho, but everyone else was a cult).

He didn't like talking to me after I corrected him on that.

I mean I'm all for discussion on religion. But not for bashing.