this is an attempt to remove a series of discussions between me and Indi (which is already off-topic) from the other thread concerning the book The God Dellusion[sic] - Richard Dawkins
Let me start with a simple question:
I believe in a supreme deity I created personally which allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable. But i do not worship it nor do I regularly practice anything to commune with it.
what do you call my religion?
I call it wishful thinking...
I think you have your own religion. Like me 
As a child I believed in the God, the christians believe in. That was what my parents tought me.
When I grew older I started to doubt the stories they told me and finally ended up with thinking I was an atheist. I thought science is the non-plus-ultra But then my interest in the christian religion grew again (I think this happended because of the more sophisticated religion lessons in the higher classes).
Now I think the religions are just stories that try to depict, what people believe, is God.
In my opinion every religion has the same roots. The same morals, the same ethics. They mixed up with the cultural party of the tribes and people.
Your religion is the redhakaw-religion. But I guess if you have to write a dossier, about your religion, many parts would be identical with an essey some christian guy wrote, or someone with any other religion. These are the core values of being human. I agree with TomS, if you come and think of it, there is no way to explain everything without using some sort of deity ( you can differ in what the deity is like, or if he is omniscient or not )
the problem is, since you can't have something out of anything, you can't explain the creation of the universe without looking for something mythical, something above our understanding...
that's how god and religion existed, people wanted an answer so they got one with god...
I don't believe however, that god is omniscient or even alive for that matter, I believe like the nature philosophers in ancient Greece that god is in fact a substance, Core substance, something so pure that it is in everything.
and must be able to generate mass and energy, because both of those have a law that they can't be created or destroyed only reformed.
There is a lot of muddy thinking going on here.
a) Religions most certainly do NOT have the same roots, morality and ethics.
If you compare (say) Christianity with the religion of the Incas or the aboriginal Australians, you will see completely different creation myths, completely different moral systems and completely different 'world-views'.
b) The notion that a deity offers an explanation is nonsensical. All religion does is parcel up the small uncertainties of life into one big uncertainty and call it 'God'.
>>different creation myths,
The greek gods and the babylonian god e.g. were like humans. They argued with each other, fell in love and tried to kill each other. There are always gods for certain "unexplainable" things. Why is there sometimes a big yellow golden thing up there, and why does it rain? Why does food not grow everytime? Let's pray and sacrifice for rain, food etc...
>>completely different moral systems
Example? I think they all know that killing another human being is evil. In every religion, people who have other beliefs are less worth than the believers.
>>and completely different 'world-views'.
This depends on what they see as their world.
People who lived in the middle of a huge continent may have had the opinion, the earth is a neverending plain.
People who lived at the coast may have thought, out there in the blue water begins a new world.
People who lived on an island (that seperated from the mainland many hundred years ago), probably thought the world is not bigger than this island and surrounded by a lethal liquid.
I also wouldn't compare christianity with the religion of aboriginees or the incas. They are many thounsands year apart and thinking has changed since then. People know more about the world. They suffered from war, so being tolerant is now part of the religion.
b) maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. This is what humanity does. Give the unkown a name.
How would you solve a math problem 7+=10 without using a name for the unkown, e.g. "x"?
We must asume there's something we can't explain, until we can explain it. Whether you call it God or the unkown doesn't matter.
| TomS wrote: |
>>different creation myths,
The greek gods and the babylonian god e.g. were like humans. They argued with each other, fell in love and tried to kill each other. There are always gods for certain "unexplainable" things. Why is there sometimes a big yellow golden thing up there, and why does it rain? Why does food not grow everytime? Let's pray and sacrifice for rain, food etc... |
In other words you agree? I wasn't actually talking about the type of Gods, I was talking about the creation myths - how the universe came to be and what 'caused' it. Each religion has its own different version.
| Quote: |
>>completely different moral systems
Example? I think they all know that killing another human being is evil. In every religion, people who have other beliefs are less worth than the believers. |
Example? - the Inca religion contained the belief that human sacrifice was both 'moral' and actually 'required' during times of trouble or during the anointing of a new 'king' - nothing 'evil' about it.
| Quote: |
| I also wouldn't compare christianity with the religion of aboriginees or the incas. They are many thounsands year apart and thinking has changed since then. People know more about the world. They suffered from war, so being tolerant is now part of the religion. |
I think you need to study some history. Christianity can be nominally dated to 1st century. The Inca civilisation can be dated back to around 1200CE - hardly 'many thousands of years apart'. The Incas were much more recent than Christianity and yet their beliefs and morals were entirely different (and one could say more 'savage').
As for the aboriginal Australians - they certainly were around for many thousands of years before Christianity but they didn't suffer 'war' in the sense we use the word today. Their religion is (in my opinion) more poetic and imaginative than Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I particularly like the 'dream-time' mythology.
You cannot, on the one hand, maintain that religions have a common root and, on the other, say the religions are a product of their time...
| Quote: |
b) maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. This is what humanity does. Give the unkown a name.
How would you solve a math problem 7+=10 without using a name for the unkown, e.g. "x"?
We must asume there's something we can't explain, until we can explain it. Whether you call it God or the unkown doesn't matter. |
Circular reasoning and logical fallacy. If you assume there is something you cannot explain then there is little point trying to explain it, is there? The assumption of science is that we can explain. Now, of course, you may say that 'we can't explain YET', but that doesn't apply when you invoke God. As soon as you invoke a deity then you stop TRYING to explain - who can know the mind of God ? That is fundamentally different from saying - we don't know, but we will work it out.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:56 am; edited 1 time in totalI wouldn't say religions defines the unknown with an 'x'. It adds an additional variable to the equation, making it more complex.
| TomS wrote: |
b) maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. This is what humanity does. Give the unkown a name.
How would you solve a math problem 7+=10 without using a name for the unkown, e.g. "x"?
We must asume there's something we can't explain, until we can explain it. Whether you call it God or the unkown doesn't matter. |
The only big difference is that while X stands for the unknown and in this case can be determined by a using LOGIC.
Gods and things directly associated with them is used to answer something, however there is no logic behind it and they all look like they have been MADE UP by people | Bikerman wrote: |
| I call it wishful thinking... |
so your answer for the thread title is false. In the example, I believed in a supreme being, which makes me a theist, but you say that I am just thinking wishfully, not necessarily having a religion.
Is tha what you mean?
| TomS wrote: |
| Now I think the religions are just stories that try to depict, what people believe, is God..... Your religion is the redhakaw-religion. But I guess if you have to write a dossier, about your religion, many parts would be identical with an essey some christian guy wrote, or someone with any other religion. These are the core values of being human. |
but then how can my belief become a religion if I am not even practicing any rites, or any service, or worship.
religion is defined set of tenets and practices, so can we say that I merely have a belief and not exactly a religion?
how about you, do you worship this god of yours?
| Poetsunited wrote: |
I don't believe however, that god is omniscient or even alive for that matter, I believe like the nature philosophers in ancient Greece that god is in fact a substance, Core substance, something so pure that it is in everything.
and must be able to generate mass and energy, because both of those have a law that they can't be created or destroyed only reformed. |
this is called pantheism. Would you agree that you are a theist, or an atheist?
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
The only big difference is that while X stands for the unknown and in this case can be determined by a using LOGIC.
Gods and things directly associated with them is used to answer something, however there is no logic behind it and they all look like they have been MADE UP by people |
like in my example, i made my own god that suit me. but the point of this thread is to find out whether I have a religion, is it not?From the thread's title: "All theists have religion, true or false?"
True.
| redhakaw wrote: |
I believe in a supreme deity I created personally which allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable. But i do not worship it nor do I regularly practice anything to commune with it.
what do you call my religion? |
"redhakaw's religion".
Why, what did you think i was going to call it? | redhakaw wrote: |
this is an attempt to remove a series of discussions between me and Indi (which is already off-topic) from the other thread concerning the book The God Dellusion[sic] - Richard Dawkins
Let me start with a simple question:
I believe in a supreme deity I created personally which allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable. But i do not worship it nor do I regularly practice anything to commune with it.
what do you call my religion? |
I would call your religion "personal". What else could it be?why not redhakaw's belief or redhakaw's theism
both statement satisfies the description right.
religion, would be erroneous if my belief do not include a some form of worship or practice and labor.
Like when you are a christian, you believe in Jesus and worship Jehovah
or if you are a buddhist, you believe in the state of nirvana, so you laboriously follow the steps to attain it.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| why not redhakaw's belief or redhakaw's theism |
Because:
- redhakaw's belief is far too vague. Every person has millions of beliefs, shifting and changing every day, about millions of different things. "redhakaw's belief" about what? i'd have to answer with a whole sentence to just give a useful answer: "redhakaw's belief about a god and what he has to do to please that god, and what he thinks that belief says about the nature of the universe, etc. etc. etc."
- redhakaw's theism is nonsense. Theism is a category, like "gaseous". You can't have "a gaseous". You can have a substance that is gaseous, but you can't have "a gaseous". Similarly, you can't have "a theism". You can have a belief that is theistic, but you can't have "a theism".
Now i know what you're going to suggest next - redhakaw's theistic belief. This is more precise than the first, and less grammatically and logically painful than the second... but it is still incorrect. Why? The answer is the same as the answer to your next question.
| redhakaw wrote: |
religion, would be erroneous if my belief do not include a some form of worship or practice and labor.
Like when you are a christian, you believe in Jesus and worship Jehovah
or if you are a buddhist, you believe in the state of nirvana, so you laboriously follow the steps to attain it. |
That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious.
Traditional religions generally have the notion of requiring some kind of sacrifice (but not all traditional religions, of course). Someone like Dawkins or Dennett would argue that that is a key part of the religious "virus" that makes successful religions successful - by making incredible demands on the believers, the religion forces them to invest heavily in the religion, making them less inclined to leave it because they've paid so much into it already. Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that doesn't mean your belief system is not a religion, it just means it will never be as successful as the existing ones that have all the demands and sacrifices in them.
Now, you believe that unless a religion says that "you must (not) do X, Y, and Z" it is not a religion. Poppycock. Many religions say "you can do X, Y or X (or not do them) as you please, but you don't have to". "Do as thou wilt", as the saying goes. Your religion (apparently) says "do as thou wilt". It also says "it is ok to not go to church" (apparently) and "it is ok to eat whatever you want" (also apparently). That doesn't mean your religion is not a religion. It just means it's more Wicca and less Judaism. | Indi wrote: |
Because:
- redhakaw's belief is far too vague. Every person has millions of beliefs, shifting and changing every day, about millions of different things. "redhakaw's belief" about what? i'd have to answer with a whole sentence to just give a useful answer: "redhakaw's belief about a god and what he has to do to please that god, and what he thinks that belief says about the nature of the universe, etc. etc. etc."
|
you misquoted me, the example i gave do not require the believer to please the god.
let's take for example creationists or to be precise, those who believe in an uncaused being, they believe that this uncaused being is infinite and great, but they dont please it, even less worship it
| Quote: |
redhakaw's theism is nonsense. Theism is a category, like "gaseous". You can't have "a gaseous". You can have a substance that is gaseous, but you can't have "a gaseous". Similarly, you can't have "a theism". You can have a belief that is theistic, but you can't have "a theism".Now i know what you're going to suggest next - redhakaw's theistic belief. This is more precise than the first, and less grammatically and logically painful than the second... but it is still incorrect. Why? The answer is the same as the answer to your next question.
|
theism is a noun, gaseous is an adjective
theism is a belief in the existence of gods
redhakaw's theism is a belief in the existence of a particular god (whether he worships/pleases it or not).
theistic is an adjective. theistic in the the phrase "redhakaw's theistic belief" describes the belief that agrees with theism.
lets give another example: sarcasm
redhakaw's sarcasm is evident in his article
"<put a sarcasm here>" is a sarcastic statement.
| Quote: |
That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious.
|
bold-underlined mine
you specifically said belief, and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty.
hehe, you are like saying that bumming is a job.
or like atheism involves a god, and this god exists because of its inexistence.
| Quote: |
Traditional religions generally have the notion of requiring some kind of sacrifice (but not all traditional religions, of course). Someone like Dawkins or Dennett would argue that that is a key part of the religious "virus" that makes successful religions successful - by making incredible demands on the believers, the religion forces them to invest heavily in the religion, making them less inclined to leave it because they've paid so much into it already. Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that doesn't mean your belief system is not a religion, it just means it will never be as successful as the existing ones that have all the demands and sacrifices in them.
|
thank you for supporting my point, a thing that failed to become something is not that something.
it simply means that the faith or belief I propsed, failed to be a religion.
what were you thinking?
| Quote: |
Now, you believe that unless a religion says that "you must (not) do X, Y, and Z" it is not a religion. Poppycock. Many religions say "you can do X, Y or X (or not do them) as you please, but you don't have to". "Do as thou wilt", as the saying goes. Your religion (apparently) says "do as thou wilt". It also says "it is ok to not go to church" (apparently) and "it is ok to eat whatever you want" (also apparently). That doesn't mean your religion is not a religion. It just means it's more Wicca and less Judaism. |
that's true, and I agree with you, but I dont see why it relates to my example. Both your examples have practices and rites, which makes them religions. | redhakaw wrote: |
| redhakaw's theism is a belief in the existence of a particular god (whether he worships/pleases it or not). |
Redhakaw's posting has stayed with me for the last couple of days. I was wondering that since our beliefs are always personal, belonging to ourselves, that perhaps all of us who are theists, perhaps worship our "own gods"? Our perception of a religion, whether it is already in existence and labelled, or one that is in our own imagination, is uniquely personal. Worshipping can take many forms and I do not think it has to be publicly visible in order to define the reality of a religion. | redhakaw wrote: |
you misquoted me, the example i gave do not require the believer to please the god.
let's take for example creationists or to be precise, those who believe in an uncaused being, they believe that this uncaused being is infinite and great, but they dont please it, even less worship it |
No, i did not misquote you, you did not read what i wrote. i said, "That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious."
In other words, you are trying to tell me that you've dreamed up a god and nothing else, and i am trying to point out to you that you have not. You have dreamed up a god that doesn't require service, sure... but that's another way of saying that you have dreamed up a god that allows non-service. So you have more than just a god-concept, you have a god-concept and a belief about what will please that god. That is a religion.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: |
[*]redhakaw's theism is nonsense. Theism is a category, like "gaseous". You can't have "a gaseous". You can have a substance that is gaseous, but you can't have "a gaseous". Similarly, you can't have "a theism". You can have a belief that is theistic, but you can't have "a theism".[/list]Now i know what you're going to suggest next - redhakaw's theistic belief. This is more precise than the first, and less grammatically and logically painful than the second... but it is still incorrect. Why? The answer is the same as the answer to your next question.
|
theism is a noun, gaseous is an adjective
theism is a belief in the existence of gods |
i was using "gaseous" as a short hand for "a gaseous state". i did not think it would be necessary to point that out because it is rather obvious. You can't have an object of "a gaseous state". "A gaseous state" is a quality, not a specific thing - it describes a category of substances that share that quality.
The same is true for "theism". You can't have "a theism". That's just ridiculous. You can only have a belief that has the quality of theism. In other words, "redhakaw's theism" is just bad English - meaningless nonsense. "redhakaw's belief which has the quality of theism" is the proper English. But that's a little long-winded.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| redhakaw's theism is a belief in the existence of a particular god (whether he worships/pleases it or not). |
No, "redhakaw's theism" is a grammatical atrocity. If you want to use it as a short-hand for "redhakaw's specific version of theism", fine... but it still doesn't get around the fact that the belief is a religion.
| redhakaw wrote: |
theistic is an adjective. theistic in the the phrase "redhakaw's theistic belief" describes the belief that agrees with theism.
lets give another example: sarcasm
redhakaw's sarcasm is evident in his article
"<put a sarcasm here>" is a sarcastic statement. |
*cringes* "A SARCASM!?!?!" My god that is horrible! Did you even do basic English grammar? Do you know the difference between abstract and concrete nouns?
You can't have "a sarcasm" any more than you can have "a theism" - or "a wisdom". All of those are grammatical disasters.
You can have "a tone of sarcasm" or "a type of theism" or "a pearl of wisdom". You can have "a sarcastic tone", "a theistic belief" or "a wise word"... but you can't have "a sarcasm", "a theism" or "a wisdom".
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: |
That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious.
|
bold-underlined mine
you specifically said belief, and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty.
hehe, you are like saying that bumming is a job.
or like atheism involves a god, and this god exists because of its inexistence. |
Uh... no? O.o
i specifically say that religion is a set of faith-based beliefs with certain specific properties (including gods and how to go about pleasing those gods) - and your belief fits that criteria. i never said religion involves some form of work or duty, you did - don't put your words in my mouth.
In fact, i specifically said it does not have to include any form of work or duty (i wrote two paragraphs about that!!!) - so not only did you put your words in my mouth, you did it in a way to make me say the opposite of what i specifically said.
So... uh... everything you just said is not only nonsense... it's lies.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: |
Traditional religions generally have the notion of requiring some kind of sacrifice (but not all traditional religions, of course). Someone like Dawkins or Dennett would argue that that is a key part of the religious "virus" that makes successful religions successful - by making incredible demands on the believers, the religion forces them to invest heavily in the religion, making them less inclined to leave it because they've paid so much into it already. Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that doesn't mean your belief system is not a religion, it just means it will never be as successful as the existing ones that have all the demands and sacrifices in them.
|
thank you for supporting my point, a thing that failed to become something is not that something.
it simply means that the faith or belief I propsed, failed to be a religion.
what were you thinking? |
Clearly not what you think i was?
You're seriously not making any sense - and i don't know if this is because you're putting your words in my mouth again or not... because you're not even making enough sense for me to tell. Don't try and be clever... you're not doing a very good job at it. Try to be clear instead.
Nothing i wrote says anything like what you say it does ("a thing that failed to become something is not that something"). Nothing i wrote is even remotely related to that. i didn't mention a single word about a thing failing to become something. All i said is:
- Most religions require sacrifice (or work/duty, to use your word).
- But religions do not have to require these things.
- Some thinkers think that this is because religions that include sacrifice are better survivors than religions that don't.
- Which is why most religions you know require it (they survived better than all the other religions that don't).
- Therefore, your religion may never become a dominant religion, but it is still a religion
That is nothing like what you said i said. i can't even see how you managed to get from that to the nonsense you wrote.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| that's true, and I agree with you, but I dont see why it relates to my example... |
Because you clearly did not understand anything of what i wrote, and possibly did not even bother to read it properly. You were so intent on trying to sound clever, that - frankly - you came off as a fool.
Before you even attempt to reply to anyone, you should make sure you understand clearly what they say. What you did was ramble off a string of near-incoherent responses... and then at the end you say "oh, but i don't understand how what you are saying relates." How about next time saying that at the beginning... before firing off a string of senseless replies. If you didn't understand what i said, then say so and i will try and say it in a clearer way. | Indi wrote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | you misquoted me, the example i gave do not require the believer to please the god.
let's take for example creationists or to be precise, those who believe in an uncaused being, they believe that this uncaused being is infinite and great, but they dont please it, even less worship it |
No, i did not misquote you, you did not read what i wrote. i said, "That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious."
|
you said I believed in a god who is pleased(?) when not worshipped.
this is the misquotation i am referring to because I stated earlier that there were no practices or pleasing involved.
The keyword here is "need", you are trying to give me a "need" for an inaction. You misinterpreted my belief that it needs to do nothing, and by not doing anything; pleases the deity.
My example in my first post CLEARLY, does not give any hints whether or not it needs to be worshipped; whether or not it needs to be pleased.
Even if posited that the said being needs to be worshipped. if I dont worship it, still I am exempted from any form of religion specifically the dubbed "redhakaw's religion", it is simply a faith. It is unconventional, true, but then I believe you are familiar with misnomers.
and you didnt even bothered noticing the example i gave,
may I ask: where would you put believers of an uncaused being? and would you say that these believers pleases or worships the said being? If they have a religion, what do you call their religion.
| Quote: |
In other words, you are trying to tell me that you've dreamed up a god and nothing else, and i am trying to point out to you that you have not. You have dreamed up a god that doesn't require service, sure... but that's another way of saying that you have dreamed up a god that allows non-service. So you have more than just a god-concept, you have a god-concept and a belief about what will please that god. That is a religion.
|
no, that is not a religion.
It is just a set of beliefs:
-belief in a god concept
-belief about what pleases this concept
There were no practices or worship involved.
you can call it my religion if i start pleasing (by not doing anything) or worshipping that god.
Do you understand my point?
| Quote: |
i was using "gaseous" as a short hand for "a gaseous state". i did not think it would be necessary to point that out because it is rather obvious. You can't have an object of "a gaseous state". "A gaseous state" is a quality, not a specific thing - it describes a category of substances that share that quality.
|
"Air's gaseous state"
Air is a substance that has a quality that is gaseous, or that is of gaseous state.
[url=http://http://www.marvel.com/universe/Nitro_(Robert_Hunter)]Nitro's[/url] gaseous state
| Quote: |
The same is true for "theism". You can't have "a theism". That's just ridiculous. You can only have a belief that has the quality of theism. In other words, "redhakaw's theism" is just bad English - meaningless nonsense. "redhakaw's belief which has the quality of theism" is the proper English. But that's a little long-winded.
No, "redhakaw's theism" is a grammatical atrocity.
If you want to use it as a short-hand for "redhakaw's specific version of theism", fine... but it still doesn't get around the fact that the belief is a religion.
|
which begs the question if you are able to distinguish the difference between theism and religion.
| Quote: |
*cringes* "A SARCASM!?!?!" My god that is horrible! Did you even do basic English grammar? Do you know the difference between abstract and concrete nouns?
You can't have "a sarcasm" any more than you can have "a theism" - or "a wisdom". All of those are grammatical disasters.
You can have "a tone of sarcasm" or "a type of theism" or "a pearl of wisdom". You can have "a sarcastic tone", "a theistic belief" or "a wise word"... but you can't have "a sarcasm", "a theism" or "a wisdom".
|
"Love" is an abstract noun
"Send them My Love."
"Teach them redhakaw's theism"
the way I see it, there's not an inch of a mistake in there.
Have you heard of cuteism? its a clever way to disarm a person's sarcasm
I wonder what level of English grammar are you using. Please try again.
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: |
That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious.
|
bold-underlined mine
you specifically said belief, and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty.
hehe, you are like saying that bumming is a job.
or like atheism involves a god, and this god exists because of its inexistence. |
Uh... no? O.o
i specifically say that religion is a set of faith-based beliefs with certain specific properties (including gods and how to go about pleasing those gods) - and your belief fits that criteria. i never said religion involves some form of work or duty, you did - don't put your words in my mouth.
|
hold!
now where did that come from?
I said:
"you specifically said belief....
I was making it clear that what you said is BELIEF:
| Indi wrote: |
| Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship |
and I agreed that a BELIEF does not necessarily involve work:
"....and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty."
so how in the world am I putting my words in your mouth?
now, everything you pertained to were beliefs:
- belief in a deity
- belief that you dont have to worship (see quoted with belief bold underlined)
which in simple terms, "a set of beliefs"
that is why, to you, a religion is merely a set of beliefs.
And that is lacking, A religion is a set of beliefs and practices.
| Quote: |
In fact, i specifically said it does not have to include any form of work or duty (i wrote two paragraphs about that!!!) - so not only did you put your words in my mouth, you did it in a way to make me say the opposite of what i specifically said.
So... uh... everything you just said is not only nonsense... it's lies.
|
I am well aware that you do not believe religion requires practices.
it is high time you differentiate belief/faith and religion. There are numerous beliefs that do not involve practices and i have yet to see a known religion that is absent of laws that are being practiced by adherents.
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: |
Traditional religions generally have the notion of requiring some kind of sacrifice (but not all traditional religions, of course). Someone like Dawkins or Dennett would argue that that is a key part of the religious "virus" that makes successful religions successful - by making incredible demands on the believers, the religion forces them to invest heavily in the religion, making them less inclined to leave it because they've paid so much into it already. Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that doesn't mean your belief system is not a religion, it just means it will never be as successful as the existing ones that have all the demands and sacrifices in them.
|
thank you for supporting my point, a thing that failed to become something is not that something.
it simply means that the faith or belief I propsed, failed to be a religion.
what were you thinking? |
Clearly not what you think i was?
You're seriously not making any sense - and i don't know if this is because you're putting your words in my mouth again or not... because you're not even making enough sense for me to tell. Don't try and be clever... you're not doing a very good job at it. Try to be clear instead.
|
I dont understand why you dont get it.
To make it simple for you, my belief is like a contestant in a race, and being a religion is the prize money for that race. If my belief wins the race, then my belief is a winner, which makes it a religion. If my belief did not win the race, I cannot call my belief a winner, I cannot call it a religion.
similiraly, Dawkins and Dennet's proposed religions were successful when it demanded some form of sacrifice. Apparently, my so called belief does not include sacrifices, which simply means that - it failed, it was not successful. Now if my belief failed as a religion because of the lack of demands and sacrifcies, why should we call it a religion?
I also dont understand why you even considered posting this idea when in fact, it supports my point.
So, what exactly were you thinking?
| Quote: |
Nothing i wrote says anything like what you say it does ("a thing that failed to become something is not that something"). Nothing i wrote is even remotely related to that. i didn't mention a single word about a thing failing to become something. All i said is:
- Most religions require sacrifice (or work/duty, to use your word).
- But religions do not have to require these things.
- Some thinkers think that this is because religions that include sacrifice are better survivors than religions that don't.
- Which is why most religions you know require it (they survived better than all the other religions that don't).
- Therefore, your religion may never become a dominant religion, but it is still a religion
That is nothing like what you said i said. i can't even see how you managed to get from that to the nonsense you wrote.
|
What exaclty is your point? What were you at? this area of your post is nothing more than pointless because either way it does not give concrete proof or critical reason that my said belief is a religion or not.
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | that's true, and I agree with you, but I dont see why it relates to my example... |
Because you clearly did not understand anything of what i wrote, and possibly did not even bother to read it properly. You were so intent on trying to sound clever, that - frankly - you came off as a fool.
Before you even attempt to reply to anyone, you should make sure you understand clearly what they say. What you did was ramble off a string of near-incoherent responses... and then at the end you say "oh, but i don't understand how what you are saying relates." How about next time saying that at the beginning... before firing off a string of senseless replies. If you didn't understand what i said, then say so and i will try and say it in a clearer way. |
[list]
No i was not trying to sound clever, I honestly am flabbergasted why your post is related at all.
you said:
"Now, you believe that unless a religion says that "you must (not) do X, Y, and Z" it is not a religion."
"Many religions say "you can do X, Y or X (or not do them) as you please, but you don't have to". "
In my belief, I on the other hand did not see it coming whether there is an X, Y or Z to do.
Wicca, although considered a less demanding religion, still have major rites and/or practices such as Wiccaning.
Judaism, as a religion is popular about their traditional practices
How dio they relate to my belief?
Anyways, with this series of exchange, I came to wonder: Are you trying to stand as a pastor of my belief? I have recognized my GOD and you continously placed extra rules, orders, practices that you claim the GOD I've introduced gave.
I simply told you that my GOD is an explanation to all the gaps in the universe, and i do not worship it or please it because i didnt know i had to. Is that hard to accept?
The way I see it, you are forming a religion out of redhakaw's beliefs. :lol | redhakaw wrote: |
you said I believed in a god who is pleased(?) when not worshipped.
this is the misquotation i am referring to because I stated earlier that there were no practices or pleasing involved.
The keyword here is "need", you are trying to give me a "need" for an inaction. You misinterpreted my belief that it needs to do nothing, and by not doing anything; pleases the deity.
My example in my first post CLEARLY, does not give any hints whether or not it needs to be worshipped; whether or not it needs to be pleased. |
No, i specifically said that you believe do not need to take any action. i most certainly did not say you needed to take no action - i said the exact opposite.
i also did not say that you believed in a god who is pleased when not worshipped - you are misquoting me again. i said you believe in a god, and you believe that you don't have to worship it. That is something entirely different. Your version - the one where you misquote me - is making a specific claim about the nature of the god. My version - the actual thing i said - is saying nothing about the god, it is speaking only of your beliefs. Maybe you do believe that your god wants to be worshipped and is displeased by not being worshipped, but you think you can get away with it? i don't know, i don't care. i only know two things about your beliefs (technically i know more, but these are the only two things relevant here) - and both of those things you told me specifically: a god exists, and you don't do anything to worship it. That tells me the following about your beliefs: you believe the god exists, and you believe you don't have to worship it. Nothing more.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Even if posited that the said being needs to be worshipped. if I dont worship it, still I am exempted from any form of religion specifically the dubbed "redhakaw's religion", it is simply a faith. It is unconventional, true, but then I believe you are familiar with misnomers. |
It is not simply "a faith", it is specifically a faith about a god and the way you think you should act. It is not - and stop putting these words in my mouth - that you believe the god wants you to act a certain way (though it could be, it does not have to be). It is a way you think you can behave around the god. For the record, many of the older religions did not really believe in behaving the way the gods wanted them to behave, and believed they could outsmart the gods and do what they wanted. Just because your (in)actions are not specifically prescribed by the god does not mean they are not religious in nature, because they are certainly related to the god. Your religion is: "God exists, but i don't need to worship him." (i am not saying it is "God exists and is ok with my not worshipping him" or "God exists and he wants me to not worship him". Stop saying that is what i am saying.)
| redhakaw wrote: |
and you didnt even bothered noticing the example i gave,
may I ask: where would you put believers of an uncaused being? and would you say that these believers pleases or worships the said being? If they have a religion, what do you call their religion. |
Because your question makes no sense. What is an uncaused being? An uncaused being does not necessarily have to be a god, nor does it have to have anything to do with religion or even faith. A person can (theoretically) pop into being out of nowhere, uncaused, but be just a regular person in every other respect. No faith is required to believe in that person, nor in his uncaused appearance, because it could have been directly observed. No god, no faith, no religion. i don't even see why you brought it up.
If there were people that wanted to please and worship that uncaused person... so what? Just because you want to please or worship something does not make it a god, or a faith-based belief, or a religion. You can want to please and worship your boyfriend... that doesn't make you one his religious congregation.
And if they have a religion - which they would if the uncaused being were believed in by faith and related to a network of beliefs about the nature of the universe that are all believed in by faith - then i would call it a religion. Otherwise, if it is not a religion, i would not call it a religion.
Is there anything surprising about any of this?
| redhakaw wrote: |
no, that is not a religion.
It is just a set of beliefs:
-belief in a god concept
-belief about what pleases this concept
There were no practices or worship involved.
you can call it my religion if i start pleasing (by not doing anything) or worshipping that god.
Do you understand my point? |
i do, and your point is wrong.
A religion does not require you to do anything to please or worship a deity. Some religions don't even have deities.
A religion is a set of beliefs... about the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it... that is primarily held to by faith.
Now.
Your "thing" is:
set of beliefs... (by your own description)
about the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it... (this comes from the "... allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable...")
that is primarily held to by faith... (i am assuming you do not have any scientific evidence for your god)
Therefore... it is a religion.
It's as simple as that.
| redhakaw wrote: |
"Air's gaseous state"
Air is a substance that has a quality that is gaseous, or that is of gaseous state.
[url=http://http://www.marvel.com/universe/Nitro_(Robert_Hunter)]Nitro's[/url] gaseous state |
Uh... the science here is not the problem, your command of the English language is. That sentence is grammatically wrong. Air is not a gaseous state. Air is in a gaseous state. You can't have "a gaseous state". You can't say "this is a gaseous state", you can only say "this is something that is in a gaseous state".
As for the second use case, when you say something "has" a gaseous state, surely you realize that is not literal, or concrete. Water has a gaseous state (steam), but you can't take that gaseous state away from from water and give it to something else. The gaseous state does not actually exist. Similarly, if you were to say "redhakaw's theism" or "redhakaw's sarcasm" or anything else like that, you are not talking about a thing that actually exists. It's like saying "redhakaw's habits". That is not a specific thing, and it does not actually exist - it is just the name of a category of things, not a specific thing.
Your belief system is a specific thing, it actually exists. i can take your belief system, record it, and share it with others. i can theoretically make it so a million people all have "redhakaw's belief system". i cannot take your sarcasm and record it and pass it along - the best i can do is record some examples of your sarcasm, but not your sarcasm itself. i cannot give another person "redhakaw's sarcasm" (or "water's gaseous state" or "redhakaw's theism")... the best i can do is hope they develop their own sense of sarcasm similar to yours (or give another set of water an identical state by heating it up, etc.).
"redhakaw's religion" is a concrete thing, "redhakaw's theism" is not.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| which begs the question if you are able to distinguish the difference between theism and religion. |
And the answer is yes, i can.
Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist.
A religion is usually (but not always) a specific, concrete instance of theism, that includes supporting belief structures.
Note the grammar gives away the game right there. You say "theism", not "a theism", but you can say "a religion".
| redhakaw wrote: |
"Love" is an abstract noun
"Send them My Love." |
Oh my goodness. ^_^; Please don't tell me i have to explain metaphor now.
| redhakaw wrote: |
"Teach them redhakaw's theism"
the way I see it, there's not an inch of a mistake in there. |
The way you see it is wrong. You can't teach someone "redhakaw's theism", because there is no such thing as "redhakaw's theism". What do you think it would be? Seriously, you're throwing around sentences that have no meaning, because you're just saying them without thinking about how they would actually get put into practise. What... exactly... is "redhakaw's theism"? What parts of redhakaw's beliefs are not "redhakaw's theism"? What are the boundaries of "redhakaw's theism"?
Theism itself is just the belief in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, "redhakaw's theism" (if such a thing could exist) would just be the belief in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. But... wait a minute... that means that there really is no such thing as "redhakaw's theism"... it's just theism! "redhakaw's theism" just doesn't exist.
Ah! But then you say, "But my 'theism' is the belief in a god... and more (it is also the belief that the god helps answer questions about the universe)." That is what makes "redhakaw's theism" something different from theism. No, not so - because every part of it that is not a belief in a god or gods... is not theism at all. In that case, "redhakaw's theism" isn't really theism, and the name is just plain wrong.
So any way you go about it, "redhakaw's theism" is nonsensical.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| Quote: |
| redhakaw wrote: | | Quote: |
That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious.
|
bold-underlined mine
you specifically said belief, and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty.
hehe, you are like saying that bumming is a job.
or like atheism involves a god, and this god exists because of its inexistence. |
Uh... no? O.o
i specifically say that religion is a set of faith-based beliefs with certain specific properties (including gods and how to go about pleasing those gods) - and your belief fits that criteria. i never said religion involves some form of work or duty, you did - don't put your words in my mouth.
|
hold!
now where did that come from?
I said:
"you specifically said belief....
I was making it clear that what you said is BELIEF:
| Indi wrote: | | Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship |
and I agreed that a BELIEF does not necessarily involve work:
"....and AFAIK a belief does not necessarily involve some form of work or duty."
so how in the world am I putting my words in your mouth? |
? What the hell now? O.o What the hell do you mean where does that come from? It's what you've been saying all along, right from the start. You have been saying that your belief system is not a religion because it does not include duties (like worship and various practises). i never said that you said that belief requires duties, i said you said a religion requires duties.
Are you being sloppy? i do not mix up "belief" and "religion", but it sounds like you are trying to. i have been crystal clear from post 1, and have never changed any of my definitions. i have also never accused you of saying a belief involves work - despite your claim above. i have accused you of saying a religion involves work.
So to answer your question, that is how you are putting words in my mouth - by not reading what i say clearly. You are swapping words (belief for religion in this case, "must" for "may" in the case of whether or not you do not practise in others, and so on) that change the meaning of what i am saying. If you cannot manage to paraphrase me without doing that, stop paraphrasing me and copy my exact words.
| redhakaw wrote: |
now, everything you pertained to were beliefs:
- belief in a deity
- belief that you dont have to worship (see quoted with belief bold underlined)
which in simple terms, "a set of beliefs"
that is why, to you, a religion is merely a set of beliefs.
And that is lacking, A religion is a set of beliefs and practices. |
It is not lacking, any way you look at it.
First of all, most definitions of religion do not require practises. Just because you say they do, does not mean they do. Go and google "definition of religion" and see. Most definitions of religion either don't mention practises, or mention them as an option.
Secondly, despite your claims to the contrary, you do have a set of practises associated with your religion. Doing what you want to do is a practise. Freedom from rote and ceremony is also a practical belief (a belief about practise). You believe that you do not have to go to a church and pray to your god, which is as much of a belief as believing that you have to.
Here is the problem. You are saying a speeding train exists, but not saying whether it is coming toward you or not. Fine and good, but you are not moving out of the way. That tells me that either you believe it is not really coming at you, or you are crazy. i've done you the courtesy of ruling out crazy. That means what i am left with is that you believe a speeding train exists, and that it is not coming at you.
Now, how does this connect to your specific belief? Well, you believe that a god exists, and you are not saying whether that god is an egotistical jerk like the Judaistic god or not. Fine and good, but you are not trying to appease it. That tells me that either you believe that the god is ok with your not worshipping it, or that you are crazy and risking pissing off a god. Again, i assume you're sane. That means i am left with: you believe a god exists, and that you can not worship it and do what you want and that will be ok.
Or to put it another way, even if a religion must include a set of practises, there are three types of practises: practises are forbidden, practises that are required and practises that are tolerated (neither forbidden nor required, like building a lego castle in Judaism). You haven't listed any practises that are forbidden or required, and you think this means you're off the hook. Not so. Your religion also includes a set of practises that are allowed - such as not worshipping. Therefore, you do have a set of a practises - it's just a very liberal set.
| redhakaw wrote: |
I am well aware that you do not believe religion requires practices.
it is high time you differentiate belief/faith and religion. There are numerous beliefs that do not involve practices and i have yet to see a known religion that is absent of laws that are being practiced by adherents. |
High time?!?! i've been differentiating it non-stop from the start.
First off, belief and faith is not the same thing. There is "belief/faith". There is belief, and there is faith, which is a type of belief held to without reason or evidence.
Clear enough?
i believe i am hungry. That is a belief, but not a faith-based belief, because it is based on evidence (my stomach's evidence).
i believe in angels. That is a belief that is a faith-based belief, because it is not based on evidence or reason.
Clear now?
Once again:
Belief: A fact thought to be true.
Faith: Belief without evidence or reason (logical argument).
Got it now?
Ok, now, once again, the definition of religion:
Religion: A set of beliefs about the nature of the cosmos and/or man's place in it held to primarily by faith.
This is not the first time i have said any of this. You are just not reading what i write properly, and coming off with all kind of ridiculous misunderstandings because of it. i specifically said that religion is "a set of faith-based beliefs with certain specific properties (including gods and how to go about pleasing those gods)". i have not once mixed up "belief", "faith" or "religion"... you have, for example, above, when you confused religion and belief.
| redhakaw wrote: |
I dont understand why you dont get it.
To make it simple for you, my belief is like a contestant in a race, and being a religion is the prize money for that race. If my belief wins the race, then my belief is a winner, which makes it a religion. If my belief did not win the race, I cannot call my belief a winner, I cannot call it a religion.
similiraly, Dawkins and Dennet's proposed religions were successful when it demanded some form of sacrifice. Apparently, my so called belief does not include sacrifices, which simply means that - it failed, it was not successful. Now if my belief failed as a religion because of the lack of demands and sacrifcies, why should we call it a religion?
I also dont understand why you even considered posting this idea when in fact, it supports my point.
So, what exactly were you thinking? |
You do not understand why i "do not get it", because you do not understand half of what i write... because you are not reading!!!
i did not say that your beliefs would "fail to be a religion" or "lose the race to be called a religion". i said they were a religion, and in a race between religions OF WHICH YOUR BELIEF IS OBVIOUSLY ONE, BY VIRTUE OF BEING IN A RACE BETWEEN RELIGIONS it would lose (if Dennett is correct). Get it now? If a bunch of people race, the person that loses the race is still a person!!! So if your belief "failed as a religion because of the lack of demands and sacrifcies" we should still call it a religion because it is a religion... just not as successful a religion as the others. This was never about attempting to become a religion, it was about a bunch of religions attempting to become the most successful religion. The losers are still religions. Not successful religions, but still religions.
Get it now?
| redhakaw wrote: |
| What exaclty is your point? What were you at? this area of your post is nothing more than pointless because either way it does not give concrete proof or critical reason that my said belief is a religion or not. |
Because i had to spend all my time in this area of my post correcting your mistakes. You are not reading what i write properly, and it is just confusing the hell out of you. Stop. Read. Carefully try to understand the flow of my argument and my points (and by the way, not that i have understood your points from the beginning - the only times i have gotten confused is when you took one of my points wrong and went off on some bizarre tangent because of it). Then respond. Don't just hack off a response to the first thing you think it means... because so far you've been wrong more often than right.
| redhakaw wrote: |
| No i was not trying to sound clever, I honestly am flabbergasted why your post is related at all. |
Do you seriously expect me to believe "thanking me" for "proving your point" (while i was actually making the opposite point) was not an attempt to sound clever?
| redhakaw wrote: |
you said:
"Now, you believe that unless a religion says that "you must (not) do X, Y, and Z" it is not a religion."
"Many religions say "you can do X, Y or X (or not do them) as you please, but you don't have to". "
In my belief, I on the other hand did not see it coming whether there is an X, Y or Z to do. |
Did not see what coming? Your belief is that you do not have to worship or please the god. What part of that did you "not see coming"? It's there - it's not "coming", it's right there, right in the description of your beliefs.
If you mean there is something else coming that you expect to spring on me, whatever - i am not interested in information i do not have yet, i am working with what you gave me. What you gave me is that you believe in a god, and that you do not worship or please that god. You don't see it coming because it's already right there.
| redhakaw wrote: |
Wicca, although considered a less demanding religion, still have major rites and/or practices such as Wiccaning.
Judaism, as a religion is popular about their traditional practices
How dio they relate to my belief? |
All i said was that your religion was more like Wicca (less ritual and required practises) and less like Judaism (more ritual and required practise). That is all.
It is a simple comparison: a is to b as c is to d. How is this confusing you?
| redhakaw wrote: |
Anyways, with this series of exchange, I came to wonder: Are you trying to stand as a pastor of my belief? I have recognized my GOD and you continously placed extra rules, orders, practices that you claim the GOD I've introduced gave.
I simply told you that my GOD is an explanation to all the gaps in the universe, and i do not worship it or please it because i didnt know i had to. Is that hard to accept?
The way I see it, you are forming a religion out of redhakaw's beliefs. :lol |
i have no interest in shaping your beliefs, but i am not blind so i can see what they are - even if you deny it.
i have also not once claimed that the god you introduced "gave" you anything. This is another example of you putting words in my mouth. All i said was that these extra "rules, orders, practices" are there, whether you admit them or not (and of course, you do admit them because you included them right in the first post describing your religion). i said nothing about where they come from.
No, your description is not hard to accept, but is it so hard for you to accept that most beliefs do not exist in a vacuum? For example, if you believe your god "wants" you to do something, that automatically means that you believe your god has a will, and that your god has needs and desires, and that your god - for whatever reasons - prefers you to choose to do things instead of just giving you the urge to do them, etc. etc. If you tell me one thing about your god, i can deduce other things. Now, you tell me that you believe you don't need to worship? Fine... that's one thing... but it leads me to other things about your belief. And it is from that that i put together the evidence that this is not just an isolated theistic belief (just a belief that a god exists), but is rather a whole religion.
If you don't like the title of religion, tough. Don't use it. You can go around calling it "redhakaw's theism" all you like... just don't be surprised when people look at you like you're clueless. It won't change the fact of what it is, and what it is is a religion. | redhakaw wrote: |
this is an attempt to remove a series of discussions between me and Indi (which is already off-topic) from the other thread concerning the book The God Dellusion[sic] - Richard Dawkins
Let me start with a simple question:
I believe in a supreme deity I created personally which allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable. But i do not worship it nor do I regularly practice anything to commune with it.
what do you call my religion? |
I don't really know unless you give it a name.oh there's more:
-and you believe that it is also a religion.
I think this is where the difference was, I don't deem it as a religion, but you insist that it is a religion even if they were mere beliefs.
| Indi wrote: |
| you believe the god exists, and you believe you don't have to worship it. Nothing more. |
ok, I will take note of this part of your post and start with it because honestly, your posting is a bit misleading. You are now declaring that my not worshipping this GOD is a belief
(which is a misquotation, i never said anything about a belief of that kind)
here are some examples that appear to be misleading
previously you said:
"redhakaw's belief about a god and what he has to do to please that god, and what he thinks that belief says about the nature of the universe, etc. etc. etc."
that is why i responded that you misquoted me because i only said that I believe it says about the universe, I did not say that there is something that has to be done as opposed to a mere belief that something has to be done.
interestingly, both proposition were from you because in the ff. statement:
"That is incorrect - because your belief does include some form of worship, practise and labour. Specifically, it includes the belief that you don't have to worship, you don't have to do anything specific as part of the practise of the religion and you don't have to do anything laborious."
in red highlights
the former tells me that I have to do something
latter tells me that I dont have to do something.
in this statement also, the "has to be done" became a belief that it "has to be done" and that is not doing it.
that's not all, if I may re-post what I said:
"you said I believed in a god who is pleased(?) when not worshipped."
this is the misquotation i am referring to because I stated earlier that there were no practices or pleasing involved."
in other words, right from the very start: there were no practices involved, as much as there is a belief to do or not to do something.
I simply said "I dont worship or do any mojos to please it"
I did not say "I believe I dont have to worship it" which you endlessly shove into my proposed example.
That is why you misquoted me, you added elements in my example to suit your claim.
| Quote: |
| It is not simply "a faith", it is specifically a faith about a god and the way you think you should act. It is not - and stop putting these words in my mouth - that you believe the god wants you to act a certain way (though it could be, it does not have to be). |
what?
It is simply a faith that is specifically about a god.
NOW you are once again taking back what you said.
you are now saying that "I should act"
this is why I argued that you are giving me a need. I need to act because I should, this is what you are telling me, is it not?
if i may recall, my proposed god or even myself never gave a need, it was you all along.
| Quote: |
| It is a way you think you can behave around the god. For the record, many of the older religions did not really believe in behaving the way the gods wanted them to behave, and believed they could outsmart the gods and do what they wanted. Just because your (in)actions are not specifically prescribed by the god does not mean they are not religious in nature, because they are certainly related to the god. |
strawman!
who cares if a practice were done correctly or not; or if it came from a god or from adherents.
The gist of the argument we are involved in is whether there is a practice in my example or not; which could possibly identify what exactly a religion is.
now pay attention here (highlights):
| Quote: |
| Your religion is: "God exists, but i don't need to worship him." (i am not saying it is "God exists and is ok with my not worshipping him" or "God exists and he wants me to not worship him". Stop saying that is what i am saying.) |
really have you not said that?
trying to save your neck?
look see:
| Indi wrote: |
| Your religion (apparently) says "do as thou wilt". It also says "it is ok to not go to church" (apparently) and "it is ok to eat whatever you want" (also apparently). |
why does one go to church? to worship a god.
and why does one avoid eating something religiously? to please a god
you have to be specific because you are making too much contradictions that leads confusion.
and what's with the NEED (see above, cyan highlighted) again? I thought I misquoted that you are giving me a need, and now you are telling me that I said my religion is a NEED?
so are you saying that my religion involves a need not to perform worship?
to avoid confusion, be specific with what you want to say.
| Quote: |
| Because your question makes no sense. What is an uncaused being? An uncaused being does not necessarily have to be a god, nor does it have to have anything to do with religion or even faith. A person can (theoretically) pop into being out of nowhere, uncaused, but be just a regular person in every other respect. No faith is required to believe in that person, nor in his uncaused appearance, because it could have been directly observed. No god, no faith, no religion. i don't even see why you brought it up. |
sounds to me this is yet again another good topic to discuss, yes?
Do we consider people who believe in the cosmological argument, theists?
Normally, people believe that the first cause is GOD.
The argument goes like: "What else could that uncaused being, or the Prime Mover be if not a god?"
There is a problem in there, the first cause's identity doesnt have to be a GOD like you said, it can be the Big Bang for all we know which I think was discovered to be flawed.
And that leaves them prime mover believers believing through faith.
the question is, what qualifies a GOD, historically, culturally and philosphically?
That uncaused being is considered a god to me and i have a good reason why; not necessarily theistic in nature.
before I give my reason, tell me briefly, what qualifies a god in your perspective?
| Quote: |
| If there were people that wanted to please and worship that uncaused person... so what? Just because you want to please or worship something does not make it a god, or a faith-based belief, or a religion. You can want to please and worship your boyfriend... that doesn't make you one his religious congregation. |
is he not? hehehe
| Quote: |
And if they have a religion - which they would if the uncaused being were believed in by faith and related to a network of beliefs about the nature of the universe that are all believed in by faith - then i would call it a religion. Otherwise, if it is not a religion, i would not call it a religion.
Is there anything surprising about any of this? |
now you are saying that a religion requires a congregation or some kind of network, is that it?
I thought just by believing in a god is already a religion? So now I need to form some kind of group that believes in something to be called a religion?
| Quote: |
i do, and your point is wrong.
A religion does not require you to do anything to please or worship a deity. Some religions don't even have deities.
A religion is a set of beliefs... about the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it... that is primarily held to by faith.
Now.
Your "thing" is:
set of beliefs... (by your own description)
about the nature of the universe and/or humanity's place in it... (this comes from the "... allows me to fill in the gaps between mysteries and the unexplainable...")
that is primarily held to by faith... (i am assuming you do not have any scientific evidence for your god)
Therefore... it is a religion.
It's as simple as that. |
I'm glad that you understand my point.
This is how it should be done, simple and straight.
Now.
I think you are wrong about religion inclusive only of beliefs. It necessarily involves practices.
why?
1. Definition
Wiki: A religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power.
MW: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2. History - There are no known religion that does not involve practices.
3. Etymology - ...religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."
4. Some links that shares my thought:
http://www.helium.com/items/464006-the-differences-between-religion-and-faith
about faith:
source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Is-Religion-Built-Upon-Lies.aspx
I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science), while you do not. Perhaps I should acknowledge at the outset that people use the term "faith" in a variety of ways. My use of the word is meant to capture belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence-prayer can heal the sick, there is a supreme Being listening to our thoughts, we will be reunited with our loved ones after death, etc. I am not criticizing faith as a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty, of the sort indicated by phrases like, "have faith in yourself." There's nothing wrong with that type of "faith."
5. Convenience
We can attribute faith in many ways, and it is transparent that there are faith-heads who are not involved in religions or in any forms of rituals and/or practices. Differentiating Faith and Religion based on the need or involvement of practices is a good way to separate religious people from people who just believe in a god.
| Quote: |
And the answer is yes, i can.
Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist.
A religion is usually (but not always) a specific, concrete instance of theism, that includes supporting belief structures.
Note the grammar gives away the game right there. You say "theism", not "a theism", but you can say "a religion". |
so how do you support said belief structures?
| Quote: |
| Oh my goodness. ^_^; Please don't tell me i have to explain metaphor now. |
Yes you have to, tell me how the statement is a metaphor.
why does it make sense, and why can't "redhakaw's theism", or "my sarcasm" function like "My love" in giving sense.
is the statement involving the abstract word love: "Send them my love" concrete as a metaphor?
| Quote: |
Theism itself is just the belief in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, "redhakaw's theism" (if such a thing could exist) would just be the belief in a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. But... wait a minute... that means that there really is no such thing as "redhakaw's theism"... it's just theism! "redhakaw's theism" just doesn't exist.
Ah! But then you say, "But my 'theism' is the belief in a god... and more (it is also the belief that the god helps answer questions about the universe)." That is what makes "redhakaw's theism" something different from theism. No, not so - because every part of it that is not a belief in a god or gods... is not theism at all. In that case, "redhakaw's theism" isn't really theism, and the name is just plain wrong. |
you speak of a god or gods as something that cannot be defined, or just a word only.
"Theism is just the belief in a god or gods", of course, but how would you define that god of yours?
the "more" you are speaking of are descriptions of my god according to me, what this god is.
in my example, that god i referred to is an (1)uncaused being, and that (2)which explains all the gaps in the universe.
for pantheists, the god they are referring to is Nature that which binds everything and causes everything.
for christians, the god they refer to is omnipotent and jewish.
all of these descriptions are valid description for a common god(powerful, first, mover....except for the jewish part), and everything about it is part of theism, because it is simply about a god.
"redhakaw's theism" is simply a shorthand version of "redhakaw's theistic belief", that's all there is to it.
grammatically, i cannot agree that "redhakaw's theism" is wrong because it is an abstract noun.
It is played as a noun so much as how a concrete noun is played.
Here's another example:
Garfield's taste for lasagna is legendary.
| Quote: |
| So any way you go about it, "redhakaw's theism" is nonsensical. |
just because it sounds funny or uncommon doesn't mean that it doesnt make any sense.
I guess the term "redhakaw's theistic belief" is also nonsensical to you.
The "sense" there is that the term pertains to redhakaw's belief in a god.
But then I would agree that "redhakaw's theistic belief" instead of "redhakaw's thesim" is appropriate based on your explanation only if you will site your sources, show me why your point is grammatically conventional through evidence and I would gladly agree with you on this part.
| Quote: |
? What the hell now? O.o What the hell do you mean where does that come from? It's what you've been saying all along, right from the start. You have been saying that your belief system is not a religion because it does not include duties (like worship and various practises). i never said that you said that belief requires duties, i said you said a religion requires duties.
Are you being sloppy? i do not mix up "belief" and "religion", but it sounds like you are trying to. i have been crystal clear from post 1, and have never changed any of my definitions. i have also never accused you of saying a belief involves work - despite your claim above. i have accused you of saying a religion involves work.... So to answer your question, that is how you are putting words in my mouth - by not reading what i say clearly.
|
I'm not being sloppy, and I am not putting words into your mouth.
That is why I highlighted "BELIEF not to do work" (which you said), as opposed to what you claim that I placed the word "PRACTICE or DUTY of not doing any work" into your mouth.
is it clear now?
| Quote: |
You are swapping words (belief for religion in this case, "must" for "may" in the case of whether or not you do not practise in others, and so on) that change the meaning of what i am saying. If you cannot manage to paraphrase me without doing that, stop paraphrasing me and copy my exact words.
|
"must" and "may"? when? tell me how?
| Quote: |
It is not lacking, any way you look at it.
First of all, most definitions of religion do not require practises. Just because you say they do, does not mean they do. Go and google "definition of religion" and see. Most definitions of religion either don't mention practises, or mention them as an option. |
I did, and sadly, it is not like what you said. 
refer to the links I gave. And pls., I am not like anyone who would claim something without first having a basis and concrete sources to start a problem.
| Quote: |
Secondly, despite your claims to the contrary, you do have a set of practises associated with your religion. Doing what you want to do is a practise. Freedom from rote and ceremony is also a practical belief (a belief about practise). You believe that you do not have to go to a church and pray to your god, which is as much of a belief as believing that you have to.
|
OH NOS! HERE WE GO AGAIN.
I thought you said my religion(which is only a belief to me) according to you are plain beliefs?
and here's something new, now you are telling me that I WANT to not worship or practice.
also, you say that I believe that I do not have to go to church and all that jazz.
Now it is mere belief not a practice per se.
I never said anything like everything you said here
what precisely do you want to say?
1.) my belief is associated with practices, believing it makes me practice something already
2.) my belief is only a belief that there are practices involved, not necessarily doing said practice.
and pls dont let me repeat AGAIN just to explain to you HOW my belief is absent of practices.
and one more thing:
Doing what you want to do is a practise
what? are you crazy?
so if i want to eat ice cream, its a practise
if i want to sleep, its a practise
if i want to eat the french fries, but will not do it because it makes me fat, it is a practise.
you are confusing me again 
| Quote: |
Here is the problem. You are saying a speeding train exists, but not saying whether it is coming toward you or not. Fine and good, but you are not moving out of the way. That tells me that either you believe it is not really coming at you, or you are crazy. i've done you the courtesy of ruling out crazy. That means what i am left with is that you believe a speeding train exists, and that it is not coming at you. |
what if the speeding train is "gaseous" in nature?
or what if its a toy train?
| Quote: |
Now, how does this connect to your specific belief? Well, you believe that a god exists, and you are not saying whether that god is an egotistical jerk like the Judaistic god or not. Fine and good, but you are not trying to appease it. That tells me that either you believe that the god is ok with your not worshipping it, or that you are crazy and risking pissing off a god. Again, i assume you're sane. That means i am left with: you believe a god exists, and that you can not worship it and do what you want and that will be ok.
|
what if that god is just a force without emotions? how can this god be ok with me when i'm not appeasing it?
the god i was referring does not imply or assume that it is even worship-able much more it is capable of being pleased. My not worshipping it is not based on whether it is being pleased or not.
and I agree that the levantine god is in every way egotistical.
| Quote: |
Or to put it another way, even if a religion must include a set of practises, there are three types of practises: practises are forbidden, practises that are required and practises that are tolerated (neither forbidden nor required, like building a lego castle in Judaism). You haven't listed any practises that are forbidden or required, and you think this means you're off the hook. Not so. Your religion also includes a set of practises that are allowed - such as not worshipping. Therefore, you do have a set of a practises - it's just a very liberal set. |
I know what you mean, but as i have said, there is no notion that i am allowed to do something.
Let's take for example a jungle. There are 3 kinds of sign boards that have rules that you can find in it regarding guns.
"Guns are not allowed inside"
"Guns are allowed inside"
"Guns are required inside"
The third is unusual, yes, but sometimes rangers require you to bring weapons for protection.
Now where does my belief connect.
My belief simply has no sign boards. 
| Quote: |
High time?!?! i've been differentiating it non-stop from the start.
First off, belief and faith is not the same thing. There is "belief/faith". There is belief, and there is faith, which is a type of belief held to without reason or evidence.
Clear enough?
i believe i am hungry. That is a belief, but not a faith-based belief, because it is based on evidence (my stomach's evidence).
i believe in angels. That is a belief that is a faith-based belief, because it is not based on evidence or reason.
Clear now?
Once again:
Belief: A fact thought to be true.
Faith: Belief without evidence or reason (logical argument).
Got it now?
Ok, now, once again, the definition of religion:
Religion: A set of beliefs about the nature of the cosmos and/or man's place in it held to primarily by faith.
This is not the first time i have said any of this. You are just not reading what i write properly, and coming off with all kind of ridiculous misunderstandings because of it. i specifically said that religion is "a set of faith-based beliefs with certain specific properties (including gods and how to go about pleasing those gods)". i have not once mixed up "belief", "faith" or "religion"... you have, for example, above, when you confused religion and belief.
|
believe me, we both share the same descriptions about faith and belief.
however, you failed to give me the difference between faith in god and religion
(which actually is the question in my previous post)
| Quote: |
i did not say that your beliefs would "fail to be a religion" or "lose the race to be called a religion". i said they were a religion, and in a race between religions OF WHICH YOUR BELIEF IS OBVIOUSLY ONE, BY VIRTUE OF BEING IN A RACE BETWEEN RELIGIONS it would lose (if Dennett is correct). Get it now? If a bunch of people race, the person that loses the race is still a person!!! So if your belief "failed as a religion because of the lack of demands and sacrifcies" we should still call it a religion because it is a religion... just not as successful a religion as the others.
Get it now?
|
you are correct that the person is still a person when he loses the race
but wait a minute, the person who won the race, he is still a person. yes?
so what's the point of the race? = it is to determine who can become a winner.
dont tell me that the loser was just not successful a person as the others
that is just absurd, if not then your metaphor simply failed.
| Quote: |
| This was never about attempting to become a religion, it was about a bunch of religions attempting to become the most successful religion. The losers are still religions. Not successful religions, but still religions. |
not most successful per se,
but it is about not failing to be a religion.
| Quote: |
| Because i had to spend all my time in this area of my post correcting your mistakes. You are not reading what i write properly, and it is just confusing the hell out of you. Stop. Read. Carefully try to understand the flow of my argument and my points (and by the way, not that i have understood your points from the beginning - the only times i have gotten confused is when you took one of my points wrong and went off on some bizarre tangent because of it). Then respond. Don't just hack off a response to the first thing you think it means... because so far you've been wrong more often than right. |
I understand your position quite well
and it does not make up to support any of your claim, it however made my point stronger when held at a different angle.
you were taking Daniel Dennett's suggestion that:
A "successful religion" is one that holds people by means of a binding obligation. The stronger the obligation, the more successful.
and you ended that part with a:
"Maybe, maybe not. If it's true that doesn't mean your belief system is not a religion, it just means it will never be as successful as the existing ones that have all the demands and sacrifices in them."
so what's the point bringing up Dennett? Dennet only refers to how a religion is successful or not.
We are arguing whether my belief is a religion or not; successful or otherwise.
so, I gave you redhakaw's take on Dennett's idea.
If traditionally a successful religion lives long because of obligation (which I agree), how would you call a religion that has no obligation? a failure, a failed religion, a religion that failed to live up in its own right, ergo we can surmise that that failed religion, according to Dennett's proposition, is not a religion.
| Quote: |
| Do you seriously expect me to believe "thanking me" for "proving your point" (while i was actually making the opposite point) was not an attempt to sound clever? |
do you think that it sounds clever? i'm flattered.
| Quote: |
Did not see what coming? Your belief is that you do not have to worship or please the god. What part of that did you "not see coming"? It's there - it's not "coming", it's right there, right in the description of your beliefs.
If you mean there is something else coming that you expect to spring on me, whatever - i am not interested in information i do not have yet, i am working with what you gave me. What you gave me is that you believe in a god, and that you do not worship or please that god. You don't see it coming because it's already right there. |
what i did not see coming is whether i have to worship it or not. obviously, i am not worshipping it, but its not because i dont have to.
again, I didnt know that there was an X,Y,Z to do..
seriously, is it me that fails to read other's post carefully?
| Quote: |
All i said was that your religion was more like Wicca (less ritual and required practises) and less like Judaism (more ritual and required practise). That is all.
It is a simple comparison: a is to b as c is to d. How is this confusing you? |
you did not answer my question:
how does it relate to my belief? if it does not involve worship and practices.
and yes, you are confusing because you are not responding properly.
goodness.
| Quote: |
i have no interest in shaping your beliefs, but i am not blind so i can see what they are - even if you deny it.
i have also not once claimed that the god you introduced "gave" you anything. This is another example of you putting words in my mouth. |
unless you are attempting late disclaimers or you are lying.
you said earlier that:
"You have dreamed up a god that doesn't require service, sure... but that's another way of saying that you have dreamed up a god that allows non-service. So you have more than just a god-concept, you have a god-concept and a belief about what will please that god. That is a religion. "
you were telling me that my god gave me permission(allows) non-service...
| Quote: |
All i said was that these extra "rules, orders, practices" are there, whether you admit them or not (and of course, you do admit them because you included them right in the first post describing your religion). i said nothing about where they come from.
No, your description is not hard to accept, but is it so hard for you to accept that most beliefs do not exist in a vacuum? |
or do you mean that most beliefs do not end up not having a religion?
my belief exists to fill in the mysterious gaps of the universe. If there all the gaps have been answered then, my god no longer exist, my belief as well.
| Quote: |
If you tell me one thing about your god, i can deduce other things. Now, you tell me that you believe you don't need to worship? Fine... that's one thing... |
(removed irrelevant part)
sigh....
I did not say I believe I don't need to worship
here we go again....
tsk, I simply said:
"I do not worship it nor do I regularly practice anything to commune with it. "
it's not a belief, its just a fact that I am giving you to keep you informed and for you to deduce my belief properly.
| Quote: |
but it leads me to other things about your belief. And it is from that that i put together the evidence that this is not just an isolated theistic belief (just a belief that a god exists), but is rather a whole religion. |
now tell me what other things my belief led you and i will gladly tell you that you were led correctly or not.
and can you tell me if it is possible that an isolated theistic belief can exist?
| Quote: |
If you don't like the title of religion, tough. Don't use it. You can go around calling it "redhakaw's theism" all you like... just don't be surprised when people look at you like you're clueless. It won't change the fact of what it is, and what it is is a religion.
|
aawww....I don't usually bite such kind of tolerance. You think you're right, prove it. And maybe I would make use of it. 
Last edited by redhakaw on Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:34 am; edited 2 times in total I would call it as your inability to cope with the so called "mysteries". Unexplainable events and mysteries are true for a particular person for a particular time being only. You might be wondering at a particular phenomenon during one day and the next day when you got knowledge about it, its no more a mystery. It is personal also as there can be persons who knows that on the previous day itself...
| vineeth wrote: |
| I would call it as your inability to cope with the so called "mysteries". Unexplainable events and mysteries are true for a particular person for a particular time being only. You might be wondering at a particular phenomenon during one day and the next day when you got knowledge about it, its no more a mystery. It is personal also as there can be persons who knows that on the previous day itself... |
is this inability, a form of faith or something that I believe or based on a belief?
can you see a deity involved, specifically a god?
and finally, would you even consider it religion even if it doesnt involve practice or rituals? or is it just plain believing?
thank you for answering
