What is religion.

[NiKeFiDO]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
I hereby begin the "i hat happypuppy" religion. although there's only one of me. If I have a split personality, have I created a religion? Can I go around creating my own religions as I please?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Not a legally recognized one, unless you can get your other personalities their own legal identities and SSNs. And that's just a tax nightmare.
Not that I've looked into it or anything.

I assume you have some sort of newsletter which I can sign up for?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: OCguy
If this is your atheism = religion troll, I really hope no one takes the bait.

I almost forgot about you. It seems you have opinions on just about everything, but I have seldom, if ever, seen you back them up with facts. It doesn't take much intelligence to deride others, it does, however, require a bit of acquimen to substantiate your blathering.

The question is simple, but cannot be answered by attacking the questioner. Do you have anything of substance to add to this conversation?

 

[Crusty]

Troll troll troll your boat!

 

[natto fire]

There's a good book about this by Christopher Hitchens. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

Religion is something that can be used to make blanket statements about people that someone hates. It's like saying homosexuals are child molesters, but it's acceptable.

Apparently there is a deep need to look down on people so as to elevate ones self, and for many here religion is it.

It's also always true that those making such claims aren't intellectually all that.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

Isaac Newton--what a dunce! :laugh:

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

Originally posted by: CRXican
religion is a crutch for the weak

LOL, oh that post is so full of the loose.

If he said religion were the best thing since slice bread, would you consider his post more tight?

Nothing beats the eraser on the end of a pencil... NOTHING.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

Religion is something that can be used to make blanket statements about people that someone hates. It's like saying homosexuals are child molesters, but it's acceptable.

Apparently there is a deep need to look down on people so as to elevate ones self, and for many here religion is it.

It's also always true that those making such claims aren't intellectually all that.

This can, of course, go both ways. Those who believe calling down the Appocolypse on those who don't, or those who believe and pleading for science to validate their beliefs.

Viscious circle does not readily explain this phenomena, but human nature does.

Everyone is a believer, even those who believe they don't believe.

 

[IronWing]

The smile on a dog.

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

Religion is something that can be used to make blanket statements about people that someone hates. It's like saying homosexuals are child molesters, but it's acceptable.

Apparently there is a deep need to look down on people so as to elevate ones self, and for many here religion is it.

It's also always true that those making such claims aren't intellectually all that.

This can, of course, go both ways. Those who believe calling down the Appocolypse on those who don't, or those who believe and pleading for science to validate their beliefs.

Viscious circle does not readily explain this phenomena, but human nature does.

Everyone is a believer, even those who believe they don't believe.

But does everyone have faith, even those who believe they don't believe?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

Religion is something that can be used to make blanket statements about people that someone hates. It's like saying homosexuals are child molesters, but it's acceptable.

Apparently there is a deep need to look down on people so as to elevate ones self, and for many here religion is it.

It's also always true that those making such claims aren't intellectually all that.

This can, of course, go both ways. Those who believe calling down the Appocolypse on those who don't, or those who believe and pleading for science to validate their beliefs.

Viscious circle does not readily explain this phenomena, but human nature does.

Everyone is a believer, even those who believe they don't believe.

But does everyone have faith, even those who believe they don't believe?

Of course not, that is why they continue to attack from both fronts, both the believers and the believers. There are some in both camps who spout off more from fear than conviction.

 

[Howard]

Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I am curious. I have my beliefs and disbeliefs, but I can't find a definition of religion that is satisfying.

Why do you feel an urge to define religion? To what use would you apply such a definition? I submit that a definition of religion is not really needed for those who really care about a religion, but is important for all others, and even for religions to use as weapons against other religions and more borderline organizations, as well as for self-justification.

The context is important, in that if for example we wish to consider whether or not a particular organization is a religion for its federal tax exempt status, then that carries with it a particular set of public concerns, none of which ultimately concern the actual divinity or not of the subject. However, from the point of view of the would-be believer, divinity of the content could be the single most important factor, and even tax-exempt status could be done without.

So: Why do you care to "define" religion. To what use would you put this definition of yours? And how would this definition be more than a negative weapon?

I counter that the only worthwhile definition of religion has to do with spirituality and divinity, and that these are such matters that there is no valid external judge until there is a direct experience of divinity, and then, whether or not the definition applies to another organization is moot. Leave claims of religion to the believers for themselves, because you don't have the means to judge better. As to what you believe in for yourself, that's really your own business.

 

[IGBT]

now a days it's eco-theism.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I am curious. I have my beliefs and disbeliefs, but I can't find a definition of religion that is satisfying.

Why do you feel an urge to define religion? To what use would you apply such a definition? I submit that a definition of religion is not really needed for those who really care about a religion, but is important for all others, and even for religions to use as weapons against other religions and more borderline organizations, as well as for self-justification.

The context is important, in that if for example we wish to consider whether or not a particular organization is a religion for its federal tax exempt status, then that carries with it a particular set of public concerns, none of which ultimately concern the actual divinity or not of the subject. However, from the point of view of the would-be believer, divinity of the content could be the single most important factor, and even tax-exempt status could be done without.

So: Why do you care to "define" religion. To what use would you put this definition of yours? And how would this definition be more than a negative weapon?

I counter that the only worthwhile definition of religion has to do with spirituality and divinity, and that these are such matters that there is no valid external judge until there is a direct experience of divinity, and then, whether or not the definition applies to another organization is moot. Leave claims of religion to the believers for themselves, because you don't have the means to judge better. As to what you believe in for yourself, that's really your own business.

Your obfuscation is tantamount to a volcanic eruption in Tulsa Oklahoma or a tornado in Anchorage.

The question is obviously without an answer, but don't make pretense with no substance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: amdhunter
Religion is something for the weak-minded and ignorant to believe in.

So, just for an example, all of the Nobel prize winners throughout history who have been 'believers' or 'religious' were weak-minded and ignorant? Please provide your proof of this hypothesis.

Religion is something that can be used to make blanket statements about people that someone hates. It's like saying homosexuals are child molesters, but it's acceptable.

Apparently there is a deep need to look down on people so as to elevate ones self, and for many here religion is it.

It's also always true that those making such claims aren't intellectually all that.

This can, of course, go both ways. Those who believe calling down the Appocolypse on those who don't, or those who believe and pleading for science to validate their beliefs.

Viscious circle does not readily explain this phenomena, but human nature does.

Everyone is a believer, even those who believe they don't believe.

But does everyone have faith, even those who believe they don't believe?

Of course not, that is why they continue to attack from both fronts, both the believers and the believers. There are some in both camps who spout off more from fear than conviction.

It's hard to explain when seemingly intelligent people go off and claim their superiority with no basis other than the belief that they are. If that isn't faith, what is?

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Your obfuscation is tantamount to a volcanic eruption in Tulsa Oklahoma or a tornado in Anchorage.

The question is obviously without an answer, but don't make pretense with no substance.

Your answer is without substance or merit. What pretense do you accuse me of specifically?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's hard to explain when seemingly intelligent people go off and claim their superiority with no basis other than the belief that they are. If that isn't faith, what is?

You make a very excellent point.
Some people (see previous religion threads) believe that there is some correlation between intelligence and belief in a religion. That is not true. There is, however, a correlation between intelligence or education and the type of belief(s) that appeals to a particular person.

Everyone has supreme faith in something or someone. It's inevitable. Everyone either puts their faith in:
(1) A god or gods (2) Other people (3) Other living things (4) Inanimate objects or processes (5) Himself or Herself

Of course, everyone believes that his or her faith is better (that's why it is that person's faith). People with naturalistic world views (atheists and others) think everyone else is wrong. Theists do, too. So do all the people who put faith solely in themselves.

I think highly intelligent and educated people are more likely to put their faith in 4 and 5, though there are exceptions. I think less intelligent people are likely to pick from any of the 5. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are correct on something that is a matter of faith.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I am curious. I have my beliefs and disbeliefs, but I can't find a definition of religion that is satisfying.

Why do you feel an urge to define religion? To what use would you apply such a definition? I submit that a definition of religion is not really needed for those who really care about a religion, but is important for all others, and even for religions to use as weapons against other religions and more borderline organizations, as well as for self-justification.

The context is important, in that if for example we wish to consider whether or not a particular organization is a religion for its federal tax exempt status, then that carries with it a particular set of public concerns, none of which ultimately concern the actual divinity or not of the subject. However, from the point of view of the would-be believer, divinity of the content could be the single most important factor, and even tax-exempt status could be done without.

So: Why do you care to "define" religion. To what use would you put this definition of yours? And how would this definition be more than a negative weapon?

I counter that the only worthwhile definition of religion has to do with spirituality and divinity, and that these are such matters that there is no valid external judge until there is a direct experience of divinity, and then, whether or not the definition applies to another organization is moot. Leave claims of religion to the believers for themselves, because you don't have the means to judge better. As to what you believe in for yourself, that's really your own business.

Yikes. You are good - and dangerous. What I got from this is that all opinions about religion are invalid unless they come from someone who is religious (has felt the divinity). Nice attempt to shutdown any discussion.

 

[BoomerD]

Mind control for the (uneducated) masses. "Back in the day," what better way to control a people than to convince them of a superior being who had a defined set of laws for living one's life?
"Live your life as I say, worship this omnipotent all-seeing being as I tell you to, and when you die, you will go to a happy place. If you do NOT live and worship as I tell you, you are doomed to an afterlife of eternal pain and suffering."

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I am curious. I have my beliefs and disbeliefs, but I can't find a definition of religion that is satisfying.

Why do you feel an urge to define religion? To what use would you apply such a definition? I submit that a definition of religion is not really needed for those who really care about a religion, but is important for all others, and even for religions to use as weapons against other religions and more borderline organizations, as well as for self-justification.

The context is important, in that if for example we wish to consider whether or not a particular organization is a religion for its federal tax exempt status, then that carries with it a particular set of public concerns, none of which ultimately concern the actual divinity or not of the subject. However, from the point of view of the would-be believer, divinity of the content could be the single most important factor, and even tax-exempt status could be done without.

So: Why do you care to "define" religion. To what use would you put this definition of yours? And how would this definition be more than a negative weapon?

I counter that the only worthwhile definition of religion has to do with spirituality and divinity, and that these are such matters that there is no valid external judge until there is a direct experience of divinity, and then, whether or not the definition applies to another organization is moot. Leave claims of religion to the believers for themselves, because you don't have the means to judge better. As to what you believe in for yourself, that's really your own business.

Your obfuscation is tantamount to a volcanic eruption in Tulsa Oklahoma or a tornado in Anchorage.

The question is obviously without an answer, but don't make pretense with no substance.

nevermind,

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
What I got from this is that all opinions about religion are invalid unless they come from someone who is religious (has felt the divinity). Nice attempt to shutdown any discussion.

That's not really what I meant. I even gave the tax-exempt status as a specific example which could concern everyone as such. That application of a definition of religion is really fair game and a matter of public concern.

But should Muslims for example gain the right to define what is religion for Buddhists as well? And what would be the point of doing that? It is in this context that I say leave the Buddhists and Muslims, etc., to find and define their own religion for themselves, and even then, I'd say let the mullahs for example be humble enough to know that they cannot define what is Islam for another.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's hard to explain when seemingly intelligent people go off and claim their superiority with no basis other than the belief that they are. If that isn't faith, what is?

You make a very excellent point.
Some people (see previous religion threads) believe that there is some correlation between intelligence and belief in a religion. That is not true. There is, however, a correlation between intelligence or education and the type of belief(s) that appeals to a particular person.

Everyone has supreme faith in something or someone. It's inevitable. Everyone either puts their faith in:
(1) A god or gods (2) Other people (3) Other living things (4) Inanimate objects or processes (5) Himself or Herself

Of course, everyone believes that his or her faith is better (that's why it is that person's faith). People with naturalistic world views (atheists and others) think everyone else is wrong. Theists do, too. So do all the people who put faith solely in themselves.

I think highly intelligent and educated people are more likely to put their faith in 4 and 5, though there are exceptions. I think less intelligent people are likely to pick from any of the 5. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are correct on something that is a matter of faith.

I agree with most of this. The thing I disagree with is the supreme faith concept. I think religious people are scared more by a person who doesn't believe in any supreme being than someone who has different religious beliefs and yet still believes in something supernatural. I think it shakes them to their very foundations and will try to combat it with everything they've got.

Religion can be just as irrational a person's love for another person who is bad for them. They'll go to great lengths to defend an indefensible situation.

 

[RESmonkey]

This