Religon Influence Fading

[luns101]

How can you argue over a definition?

I'm not so much as StiffMittens is...I was actually trying to go by the definition which you've given time and time again about religion = belief in God or gods. So what happens when I go by your definition -

I responded by suggesting that distinguishing between god and religion is actually relevant and enumerated several reasons why I think this is so.

then

And religion may very well bear no relationship to any deity whatsoever (regardless of what the religious doctrine purports). So distinguishing between the two is not "splitting hairs." It is simply being accurate.

which flies directly in the face of what you've been saying

It's very simple actually. If the definition doesn't fit, you aren't an atheist. Much like you would say someone who doesn't believe that Jesus Christ existed isn't a christian. You could try to "argue" about it all you want but it's pretty cut & dried.

I agree...which is why it's so silly (according to you) to try to claim that belief in no deity or non-belief in a deity isn't religious. Yet, Stiffy is telling me that religion may very well bear no relationship to any deity whatsoever. So which is right?

I don't understand why this is so hard for you.

It's not Glass...go back and read the thread again. Stiffy is saying that religion doesn't have to be linked to a deity and you've told me in the past that it is. It's not my problem...you guys need to define what is religion and what is not.

You believe that there is ONE god and all the others are false. I believe they ALL are false. We are not so different actually.

This shows a basic misunderstanding of what we believe. We do not believe in one god. We also believe that there is a god of this world - the devil, who has blinded the minds and hearts of people from the truth of Jesus Christ. We put our trust in the God who exists in 3 persons, and became incarnate through the 2nd person to pay the penalty for our sins in order to redeem us.

Not that you agree with me on any of that, but to say we believe in the existence of one god is untrue. We put our trust in one and abhor the other.

This is as silly as me saying that "You christians need to hash out amongst yourselves whether Jesus was real" because some "christian" said he didn't exist.

Bingo...you're getting it finally!

When I agree with you and finally give in on this definition I'm told that now religion doesn't have to bear any relationship to a deity whatsoever. It's you guys that are confusing the issue. Our side is in agreement on God's existence.

The definition is easy to find...just look in the dictionary.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
: one who believes that there is no deity

Yet when I tell you the same thing you argue with me and revert back to redefining it as a "lack of belief". At some point in your life you pondered the existence of God and proactively decided that it was not true. You didn't suffer from a "lack of belief" on the subject.

...and I have never screamed "BLOODY MURDER!" :LOL:

You know what I mean

Look, when I quoted you it was to show Stiffy that you, as CC's most vocal atheist, have defined religion as being associated with the belief in God. He's saying religion may very well bear no relationship to a deity whatsoever. I didn't force him to write that.

[StiffMittens]

First of all, I am not an atheist, so what I say and what Backglass says do not necessarily have to coincide. Second, I am not talking about the definition of religion or the existence of a god. I am simply pointing out that religion is not god. The two ideas are separate. Most religions propose the existence of god and endeavor to live in accordance with the will of that god, but religion is a human institution. It was not organized by god but rather by people trying to work out what the will of god is.

So there may be no god, and if there isn't then religion obviously =/= god. On the other hand there may be a god, but no humanly devised religious doctrine accurately describes the will of that god, and so in that case religion =/= god either. The only circumstances under which you could reasonably argue that god = religion is if there is a god and a religious doctrine accurately relays the will of that god to the followers of that doctrine. So far, I have seen no evidence that this is the actual case, so I'm going to have to go with religion =/= god.

Does that make sense?

[StiffMittens]

you tried to suggest that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant to the topic.

I certainly didn't...what I actually said was:

"most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort." (You can go back and check it for yourself).

Yes, but you also "splitting hairs here" in response to MPJH's comment that the poll is about the influence of religion, not god. That is the statement from you that I think suggests that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant.

[luns101]

First of all, I am not an atheist, so what I say and what Backglass says do not necessarily have to coincide. Second, I am not talking about the definition of religion or the existence of a god. I am simply pointing out that religion is not god. The two ideas are separate. Most religions propose the existence of god and endeavor to live in accordance with the will of that god, but religion is a human institution. It was not organized by god but rather by people trying to work out what the will of god is.

So there may be no god, and if there isn't then religion obviously =/= god. On the other hand there may be a god, but no humanly devised religious doctrine accurately describes the will of that god, and so in that case religion =/= god either. The only circumstances under which you could reasonably argue that god = religion is if there is a god and a religious doctrine accurately relays the will of that god to the followers of that doctrine. So far, I have seen no evidence that this is the actual case, so I'm going to have to go with religion =/= god.

Does that make sense?

Sort of...in the first paragraph you state that religion is a human institution as an absolute. That would automatically rule out the possibility that it was the deity laying out those rules & principles in the first place.

That being said, you've done your best to lay out your views in as an articulate manner as you can. That's all that anyone can ask of someone else on here. I'm guessing you're an agnostic then.

[luns101]

you tried to suggest that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant to the topic.

I certainly didn't...what I actually said was:

"most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort." (You can go back and check it for yourself).

Yes, but you also "splitting hairs here" in response to MPJH's comment that the poll is about the influence of religion, not god. That is the statement from you that I think suggests that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant.

Well, you're inserting that motivation into my post. The poll never declared which religion or the object of the religion's fading influence.

[StiffMittens]

you tried to suggest that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant to the topic.

I certainly didn't...what I actually said was:

"most religions purport the existence of God or a god of some sort." (You can go back and check it for yourself).

Yes, but you also "splitting hairs here" in response to MPJH's comment that the poll is about the influence of religion, not god. That is the statement from you that I think suggests that distinguishing between god and religion is irrelevant.

Well, you're inserting that motivation into my post. The poll never declared which religion or the object of the religion's fading influence.

I'm not inserting anything into any where, thank you. That is simply how I interpreted your comment, and I responded based on that interpretation.

As for the specifics of the poll, I think it means religion in general, not any specific religion, is having less influence over American lifestyle. And I agree that it seems overly vague (how are they measuring this influence?), but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not it is useful to distinguish between god and religion in any conversation. To my thinking there is never a time when it is useful to use the two ideas interchangeably.

[jonesthecurl]

Sort of...in the first paragraph you state that religion is a human institution as an absolute. That would automatically rule out the possibility that it was the deity laying out those rules & principles in the first place.

Well, I think that even if you believe in a god, the religion is human, else there would never be any disagreements with how to interprete the divine word, surely?

We have recently been knowledgeably been informed that the there is no commandment not to kill, for example. That would surprise most English-speaking christians of the last 400 years at the very least, and shows that even the most fundamental of holy works are subject to some serious ambiguities of interpretation.

[luns101]

We have recently been knowledgeably been informed that the there is no commandment not to kill, for example. That would surprise most English-speaking christians of the last 400 years at the very least, and shows that even the most fundamental of holy works are subject to some serious ambiguities of interpretation.

Perhaps you should start a thread on that with your source

[mpjh]

You just need to read the posts to know what he is talking about.

[luns101]

You just need to read the posts to know what he is talking about.

Nope, I did the research for myself when I was about 20 years old. He needs to post his source for that.

[mpjh]

He is taking his argument from the posts made here, there is no other source.

[Artimis]

Yeah the next "bounce" of the universe will be a bitch to life on earth.

Our sun expanding into a red giant as it runs out of hydrogen to fuse will incinerate all life on Earth long before the universe even begins to collapse in on itself.

Anyway, back on topic, religion is losing its influence. I personally think this is a good thing, we're finally growing up and taking responsibility for our own actions. Rather than committing ethically questionable acts in the name of <insert applicable deity/deities here> because that's what the <insert applicable spiritual leader here> said so. We don't need religious doctrine or divine decree to show compassion and generosity to others, we have that capability within ourselves. Also the capability to determine right from wrong.

[jonesthecurl]

We have been told here several times that the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder".
But the King James vesion says "Thous shalt not kill".
It's just the example which sprang to mind of differing versions.
The question of "what the bible says" is a big one.

[Backglass]

First of all, I am not an atheist, so what I say and what Backglass says do not necessarily have to coincide. Second, I am not talking about the definition of religion or the existence of a god. I am simply pointing out that religion is not god. The two ideas are separate. Most religions propose the existence of god and endeavor to live in accordance with the will of that god, but religion is a human institution. It was not organized by god but rather by people trying to work out what the will of god is.

So there may be no god, and if there isn't then religion obviously =/= god. On the other hand there may be a god, but no humanly devised religious doctrine accurately describes the will of that god, and so in that case religion =/= god either. The only circumstances under which you could reasonably argue that god = religion is if there is a god and a religious doctrine accurately relays the will of that god to the followers of that doctrine. So far, I have seen no evidence that this is the actual case, so I'm going to have to go with religion =/= god.

I believe that what my dear friend Luns is driving at, is a way to somehow say AHA! "The Atheists are religious!", even though they don't believe in gods. Am I right Luns?

This is constantly being brought up by the religious as they tend to superimpose their way of thinking onto others. In their minds, the "absence of belief" is an entire belief system and therefor a religion of sorts. I don't see how you can make that jump personally...I truly believe the Coke Machine down the hall is full, but that does not make it a belief system or religion.

[brooksieb]

Actually religion is alive, it's what our laws originated out of, so unless you replace our laws religion will never fade away, what comes up must come down, every religion and belief WILL get replaced, yes, Atheism too, just like alot of Pagan religions did, but all beliefs and faith leave their stain/mark so just take the best out of everything.

No our laws are based on common sense not religion, thats why secular countries retain them, have a look at Shariah law and see what happens when only religious law is enforced.
God did not invent the 10 commandments, he was simply used to make them palatable to the unsophisticated, today it is no longer neccessary to use such sleight of hand .

I can assure you i HAVE lived under Shariah law, atleast for a few months. But going back to your' original answer that the 10 commandments were the start of western law, sure the punishments were harsh but it did pave the way for the laws we have today, at the most it made a contribution, god as you just said did not invent the 10 commandments but he/she/it gave us free thought and expression.

[StiffMittens]

First of all, I am not an atheist, so what I say and what Backglass says do not necessarily have to coincide. Second, I am not talking about the definition of religion or the existence of a god. I am simply pointing out that religion is not god. The two ideas are separate. Most religions propose the existence of god and endeavor to live in accordance with the will of that god, but religion is a human institution. It was not organized by god but rather by people trying to work out what the will of god is.

So there may be no god, and if there isn't then religion obviously =/= god. On the other hand there may be a god, but no humanly devised religious doctrine accurately describes the will of that god, and so in that case religion =/= god either. The only circumstances under which you could reasonably argue that god = religion is if there is a god and a religious doctrine accurately relays the will of that god to the followers of that doctrine. So far, I have seen no evidence that this is the actual case, so I'm going to have to go with religion =/= god.

I believe that what my dear friend Luns is driving at, is a way to somehow say AHA! "The Atheists are religious!", even though they don't believe in gods. Am I right Luns?

This is constantly being brought up by the religious as they tend to superimpose their way of thinking onto others. In their minds, the "absence of belief" is an entire belief system and therefor a religion of sorts. I don't see how you can make that jump personally...I truly believe the Coke Machine down the hall is full, but that does not make it a belief system or religion.

In a certain way I agree with Luns' position. But it depends on how you define atheism (is it specifically a belief that there is no god, or is it a lack of belief in any known definition of god - which I would think of more as agnosticism), and how the atheists in question approach their cosmic viewpoint (do they hold to that belief with faith and ardor or do they just not care).

In any event, so what? I mean it's simply a word describing a manner of behavior. Why would Luns be so gung ho on defining atheism as a religious mode of thought? It's kind of a semantic non-issue. As for the coke machine, a single belief doesn't really qualify as a belief system. If, however, the idea that the coke machine down the hall is full becomes a guiding principle in how you plan to lead the rest of your life, then I would say that it is a religion.

[Backglass]

In a certain way I agree with Luns' position. But it depends on how you define atheism (is it specifically a belief that there is no god, or is it a lack of belief in any known definition of god - which I would think of more as agnosticism), and how the atheists in question approach their cosmic viewpoint (do they hold to that belief with faith and ardor or do they just not care).

Honestly? I think most don't care. I don't walk around thinking about my "absence of religion" or my "disbelief in gods". The only time I really think about it is here.

In any event, so what? I mean it's simply a word describing a manner of behavior. Why would Luns be so gung ho on defining atheism as a religious mode of thought? It's kind of a semantic non-issue.

Agree 100%.

As for the coke machine, a single belief doesn't really qualify as a belief system. If, however, the idea that the coke machine down the hall is full becomes a guiding principle in how you plan to lead the rest of your life, then I would say that it is a religion.

Then is my plan to hit the treadmill daily a religion? Or my sincere attempt to lower my cholesterol? After all these are now guiding principles of my life that I "religiously" adhere to.

[luns101]

We have been told here several times that the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder".
But the King James vesion says "Thous shalt not kill".
It's just the example which sprang to mind of differing versions.
The question of "what the bible says" is a big one.

OK, gotcha

All one would have to do though is look at the Hebrew word that is used in that verse and see what it's actual meaning is. There's online sources which would show that. Here is just one example.

The KJV contains the word "kill", which was used synonymously with murder in that day as you can see from the root word.

If the KJV is incorrect in its translation of "raw-tsakh" as "kill" and the NIV has corrected it as "murder" in Exodus 20:13, then we would expect this same Hebrew word that the KJV "mistranslates" to be "corrected" in Deuteronomy 4:42 as well. However, the NIV reads in this passage, "to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life." So do the NKJV, RSV, ESV.

If translating "raw-tsakh" in the future tense as "kill" is wrong in Exodus 20:13, then it is also wrong in Deuteronomy 4:42, but their modern versions translate it as "kill." Why? Because the word can be translated either way; either one is therefore a correct translation.

Second, the same is true of the New Testament. In Matthew 5:21, the KJV states, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." Clearly the Lord is quoting from the Ten Commandments. Here the Greek word used is "phoneuseis" a form of the word "phoneuw" and again means "to kill, slay, murder" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This Greek word appears several times in the New Testament and is translated as "kill" (Matt. 5:21; 23:31; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 13:9; James 2:11; 4:2; and 5:6). However, it is also translated as "murder" in Matthew 19:18 and as "slew" in Matthew 23:35.

If the KJV was incorrect with the Hebrew by translating it as "kill" in Exodus 20:13, we must say that it is also incorrect when translating the Greek word in Matthew 5:21 as "kill." However, as with the Old Testament Hebrew word, modern versions translate the Greek "phoneuw" as both "murder" and "kill." Yet in James 4:2 the NIV translates this Greek word as "kill." Again, this demonstrates that it means either.

The two words are used interchangeably.

[mpjh]

How is that a "gotcha?" Seems like you just danced around several different interpretations.

[luns101]

I believe that what my dear friend Luns is driving at, is a way to somehow say AHA! "The Atheists are religious!", even though they don't believe in gods. Am I right Luns?

No, I'm not trying to play gotcha! I already believe that atheists are religious. They deny this so that they will have the upper hand when it comes to removing religiously traditional symbols from public places. After all, if atheism was defined as religious then it could be said that the state is favoring one religious view over another. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has already defined atheism as a religion so the law actually supports this view despite your denial. Unless it was to be overturned by the Supreme Court, the standard that I gave is correct. Secular Humanism, which contains atheism as one of its core beliefs, has also been defined as a religion.

But when arguing these things on CC, atheists here obviously won't own up the fact they are religious so I dropped it and adopted your own definition, Backglass. Atheism is non-religious, no gods, blah blah blah. When I did that in this thread I was told that a religion may very well not bear a relationship to a deity whatsoever. So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

Just make sure you stick to it and stop changing it mid-way through a discussion.

This is constantly being brought up by the religious as they tend to superimpose their way of thinking onto others.

Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

In their minds, the "absence of belief" is an entire belief system and therefor a religion of sorts. I don't see how you can make that jump personally...I truly believe the Coke Machine down the hall is full, but that does not make it a belief system or religion.

Well then let me explain it again, if not for your benefit, then for others who are not of the atheistic persuasion who read these posts of ours and then later pm me with more questions:

You are presented with information on whatever subject. You ponder it for awhile. You either accept it, reject it, or put it off until later in the hopes of finding more information that will help you make up your mind on it. There are no intellectual victims. Everyone makes a conscious decision on whether to accept something as true or to reject it as false.

To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

[luns101]

How is that a "gotcha?" Seems like you just danced around several different interpretations.

"Goggle" it

[luns101]

In a certain way I agree with Luns' position. But it depends on how you define atheism (is it specifically a belief that there is no god, or is it a lack of belief in any known definition of god - which I would think of more as agnosticism), and how the atheists in question approach their cosmic viewpoint (do they hold to that belief with faith and ardor or do they just not care).

...and I would agree with yours. But since my experience on the website has been that atheists try to reject that definition of themselves, I decided that in this particular thread I would agree that religion is synonymous with the concept of God or gods.

In any event, so what? I mean it's simply a word describing a manner of behavior. Why would Luns be so gung ho on defining atheism as a religious mode of thought?

It's not just me, but I am one of the people who believe atheists are religious. This is validated by the courts' decisions concerning secular humanism and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision concerning atheism itself. I believe that atheists here on CC attempt to deny that definition so they can
(1) claim some sort of intellectual superiority...usually on the basis that they only adhere to science & empiricism, and (2) exempt themselves from taking responsibility for their own religious intolerance of others, which they constantly accuse other religious people of engaging in.

[StiffMittens]

So you can see how frustrating it is when no matter what we're discussing, non-believers (or whatever you guys are calling yourselves) keep changing the definition. The problem lies on your side. You guys come up with whether religion needs to include God or not.

Just make sure you stick to it and stop changing it mid-way through a discussion.

Yeah, life is tough in an ever changing universe. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some absolute truth that would answer all these pesky questions for us...

Wow, we must have incredible powers to "superimpose" our ways onto others. Give me a break, Glass. Nobody has the ability to force someone else what to believe. You present your own views and that's about all one can do.

That's not what he means. He means you view things through the prism of your own belief system and define others by those terms.

To say that someone "lacks belief" is to try and pretend that one takes no intellectual action. That's absurd...people don't just do nothing with information.

You're paraphrasing Neil Peart here: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". However, you yourself stated that one can put off deciding until further evidence comes along.

[StiffMittens]

It's not just me, but I am one of the people who believe atheists are religious. This is validated by the courts' decisions concerning secular humanism and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision concerning atheism itself. I believe that atheists here on CC attempt to deny that definition so they can
(1) claim some sort of intellectual superiority...usually on the basis that they only adhere to science & empiricism, and (2) exempt themselves from taking responsibility for their own religious intolerance of others, which they constantly accuse other religious people of engaging in.

Well, I think the problem with this is that atheists reject a "faith-based" cosmic viewpoint in favor of a evidence-based cosmic viewpoint, and that is the basis upon which they eschew the label of religion. In some ways I agree with both sides of this issue. Atheists and agnostics are, in some ways, not very well represented in public institutions. This is impetus behind the Darwin fish on the backs of cars. Atheists just need better art direction and marketing - an area where religion has been succeeding for millenia. On the other hand, I do think that atheist tend to be intolerant of religious thinkers (I'm talking about "people of faith" here despite what the definition of religious is asserted to be by anyone in this thread).

[luns101]

That's not what he means. He means you view things through the prism of your own belief system and define others by those terms.

...sort of like atheists who equate Christians' beliefs to that of fairy tale adherents, eh? He knows we believe no such thing but constantly makes the assertion that it is the case. How is that kind or fair?

You're paraphrasing Neil Peart here: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". However, you yourself stated that one can put off deciding until further evidence comes along.

Don't know of Mr. Peart, but there is no such thing as "deciding not to decide". Yes, you put some things off until you retrieve more information but you do eventually make a decision. Nobody "thinks not to think", "ponders not to ponder", or "analyzes not to analyze".