Are you religious even if you aren't religious?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This quote from a Good & Evil debate :

Quote:

As long as we have politics and religion, this world will never have peace.

People are political creatures. That goes without saying. But it was the second part that got me thinking - about religion.

Religion is based on an organisation which has a set of 'moral' beliefs (usually surrounding the existence of a higher being, but it doesn't have to be - druids were part of a religion). It is self re-inforcing as people within the religion censor those within the organisation that step out of bounds, among other methods (I'm sure there's other facets to religion)

People are also religious creatures, whether or not they believe in a stated religion, they believe in 'something' in order to identify who they are.

...and like organised religions, they often try to force those beliefs on others.

Very simplified examples include :
1. People participate in the religion of Nationalism :
Ie The belief in the morality of ones own country :
- eg. going to war for ones country
And it's forms of self censorship
- patriots shouting down anti-war protestors
- shouting down opponents to your chosen political parties

2. The religion of culture (closely linked to nationalism)
- Ie. the belief that ones culture is superior to anothers
(or more moral than anothers)
-eg. the making of films depicting their own culture as good,
vs another culture that's evil, and people enjoying watching it

3. The religion of economics :
-Ie. Capitalism is superior to Communism
- Or, Capitalism is superior to Socialism
- Or, the belief that economics comes before the environment
- etc

4. The religion of sports
-I think soccer says it all without the need for further explanation

5. People participate in moral religion :
-Ie the belief that ones 'morals' are right, and others are wrong
-eg The death penalty is wrong/right
-eg Euthanasia is wrong/right
-eg Abortion is right/wrong

There are others, but the point being that all people feel the need to believe in 'something' that gives identity to who they are. These beliefs are often shared by many other people, and sometimes is loosely organised, almost like a religion.

And also, often, in order to fulfill a need to feel that their beliefs are righteousness, people then try to force those beliefs on others.

What do you think ?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,876 • Replies: 26

No top replies

Is it useful to define religion this loosely? A definition that includes everything isn't much of a definition anymore, especially if it can be stretched to include things that are its opposite. What insights do we gain by using "religion" in this manner? If being a soccer fan counts as belonging to a religion, then sure, I'm "religious"... but I don't see what we've proven by making this semantic argument.

0 Replies

It's not all that loose :

This is from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

and from Oxford Online Dictionary

religion

noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

and from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I can see, what I have said follows closely to those definitions.

If you disagree, perhaps you would like to post your view of what religion is, rather than dismissing something without actually stating anything of what you believe on the subject.

0 Replies

I'm not sure why you think I'm "dismissing" anything yet; I'm merely asking you to clarify your point.

The title of this thread implies that you are proposing a definition of "religious" that can include "not religious." I'd say that's pretty loose. Again, I would ask what the advantages are of calling soccer a religion, other than that it gives us a florid way of saying lots of people like soccer. Do we gain any special insights about anything by applying the word "religion" to anything that involves belief and/or devotion?

0 Replies

Hello Shapeless

As you can see by the dictionary definitions, what I was saying meets the dictionary definition of 'religion', therefore people who do not follow a religion like Christianity, Islam etc, can still be religious....which is what the title is saying.

Perhaps you would actually like to debate the topic on accepted dictionary definitions (or provide your own definition, and debate the topic on that).

As for insight. Many people who dismiss religion as the cause of wars etc, have their own religious beliefs - they just don't know it. And those religious beliefs can cause wars of their own.

0 Replies

It is true that "soccer" meets the criteria outlined by the impressive array of dictionary definitions you've reprinted here. Pragmatically speaking, however, soccer is not usually described as a religion, except metaphorically. Do you really think a devotion to soccer is in any meaningful way comparable to the kind of religious fanaticism that causes wars?

0 Replies

Perhaps I misunderstand the place this post was made in which is under the forum heading of 'Philosophy'

There are many people who are anti-religion, who themselves practice a form of religion. Understanding this leads to tolerance.

Further as per my previous post (in an edit) Many people who dismiss religion as the cause of wars etc, have their own religious beliefs - they just don't know it. And those religious beliefs can cause wars of their own.

You call soccer a metaphorical religion, yet once more, their dedication to soccer has all the hallmarks of religion. The 'definition' I wrote, was before I looked up the dictionary definition - for your benefit. It corroborates what I was saying. Soccer was only one of the examples I gave.

Also, the point I made in my first post, perhaps every person has beliefs that could well be argued to be religious beliefs, because we need beliefs to define who we are.

Does there need to be any more reason to pose the question? And I see nothing wrong with asking the question.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Many people who dismiss religion as the cause of wars etc, have their own religious beliefs - they just don't know it.

Perhaps, but if the extent of these "religious beliefs" is that--for example--they like soccer, then I don't think we've proven much. If you're saying that people who call themselves non-religious still have beliefs about other things, then hey, no arguments from me. But the move from "beliefs" to "religion" is a tricky one:

vikorr wrote:

You call soccer a metaphorical religion, yet once more, their dedication to soccer has all the hallmarks of religion.

Until entire nations go to war with each other over soccer, I don't think there is much insight to be gained by making this comparison. (i.e. It is here that I would dismiss the argument.) My objection is not that the analogy inflates the importance of soccer; my objection is that it trivializes the meaning of "religion."

I suppose I should add that I don't consider myself religious, and I do believe that religion has been at the core of many a war (that much is pretty indisputable), but I don't think those are grounds for "dismissing" religion. There are fruitful ways of talking about the role of religion in war, or about the merits of religion more generally, but I don't think classifying any kind of "devotion" as a religion so as to trick the non-religious into being religious is one of them.

0 Replies

If you play the dictionary game, you will find that "religion" meets the qualifications to be considered DELUSION - the only thing that keeps religion from generally being considered delusion is its pervasive presence throughout society and long history as humankind's chief institutiionalized madness.

0 Replies

Quote:

Until entire nations go to war with each other over soccer, I don't think there is much insight to be gained by making this comparison. (i.e. It is here that I would dismiss the argument.) My objection is not that the analogy inflates the importance of soccer; my objection is that it trivializes the meaning of "religion."

Soccer was just ONE example that I gave of what I have been talking about, and you have been ignoring all the others, and the general gist of what I have been saying. So, using your method of picking on a specific example, Christianity is not a religion either, for it says 'love they neighbour as thyself' - which can never start a war....which by your logic means it's not a religion (as in your soccer never starting a ware example)....which is patently ridiculous.

And so what if it trivialises the meaning of 'religion'?

Does religion have to be serious? Does it have to be what you define it as? It's quite obvious if you try any definition of religion, that what I am talking about is pretty much the same. If you don't think so, please describe the hall marks of religion.

PS. for the comment about playing the dictionary game - as we are talking about a specific word, and Shapeless was objecting that what I was talking about didn't relate to the specific word (religion), it is quite legitimate to quote dictionary definitions.

Once more, even those who think of religion as the cause of so much evil...they have beliefs with all the hallmarks of religion.

0 Replies

Yes, I acknowledged that soccer was just one of your examples. This is what I meant when I wrote "for example" in the part of my response that you chose not to quote. As it is the most frivolous example from your list, I don't think you should be surprised that it would be singled out for comment. That was the whole point of my response: what do you gain by including soccer on a list that includes nationalism and Cold War rhetoric? If all you're trying to say is that non-religious soccer fans practice devotion and belief (to sports), that's all well and fine; but you can say that without having to pretend, just for the sake of rhetorical flair, that the devotion to soccer is in any meaningful way comparable to the kind of religious fanaticism whose bloodshed we get to read about in the newspapers day after day. (It does not surprise me that the soccer example is the one you avoided explaining in any real detail and let "speak for itself"... I wouldn't want to get stuck with that ludicrous task either.)

But I'll gladly to turn to one of your other major examples, like nationalism, which has indisputably been and continues to be a major impetus to war, just like religion. It seems to me that conflating religion and nationalism has one major drawback: it obscures the distinction between Milosevic's Kosovar genocide, on one hand, and the current Isreali-Palestinian crisis, on the other. Nationalism is a common theme among both conflicts, but the latter has a religious overtone that the former does not, and you lose that distinction--and with it, a nuanced understanding of history--by dissolving nationalism into a sub-category of religion. I'm not sure what the gains are by calling both events "religious wars," except to dilute the meaning of "religious war." This is what I meant about "trivializing" the definition of religion: I was not expressing concern about how seriously we should take religion (which is something I don't care much about), I was expressing concern about the practical necessity of using stable vocabulary. If all wars have been religious, as you are claiming, then there is no difference between the Catholic-Protestant conflict in 16th-century England and the North-South conflict in 19th-century America. Both were wars, no doubt about it. But if you want a more detailed understanding than that of what actually happened in history, it might be worth using the words "religion" and "nationalism" with a little more nuance.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Once more, even those who think of religion as the cause of so much evil...they have beliefs with all the hallmarks of religion.

Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence. It is unwarranted, unconscionable, arrogant conceit on the part of religion to attempt to equate itself with legitimate philosophy.

0 Replies

Quote:

that the devotion to soccer is in any meaningful way comparable to the kind of religious fanaticism whose bloodshed we get to read about in the newspapers day after day

Well, I'm glad you are now acknowledging other things I posted, butyou're kidding about the soccer aren't you? When soccer matches become mini wars between fanatical fans? Of course I shouldn't have needed to say any more on this subject. Are you not familiar with people who spend more time watching Soccer, reading soccer, living soccer than most Christians spend practicing their faith? Are you not familiar with soccer Hooliganism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/hooligans/60146.stm
Or just recently the deadly riot that occurred between two soccer clubs in Sicily (like a few days ago). People die in these soccer riots. http://www.theage.com.au/news/soccer/riot-death-forces-italy-to-suspend-all-its-matches/2007/02/03/1169919583284.html
And the Sicilian death is not an isolated case. These soccer riots have been occurring over decades between fanatical fans. So, if I said I didn't need to say any more about soccer, that's because I thought it so obvious that I shouldn't have needed to say any more.

Quote:

It seems to me that conflating religion and nationalism has one major drawback: it obscures the distinction between Milosevic's Kosovar genocide, on one hand, and the current Isreali-Palestinian crisis, on the other. Nationalism is a common theme among both conflicts, but the latter has a religious overtone that the former does not, and you lose that distinction

You seem to be stuck on the ?'drawbacks'. The ?'drawbacks' aren't particularly relevant when you are simply talking about recognition that many beliefs bear the hallmarks of religion - which is shown in ?'all' the examples (and I'm sure I didn't think of them all). And many of these dearly held beliefs, cause wars etc.

Recognition of beliefs which bear the hall marks of religion does not lessen religion, and does not obscure debate on causes of wars, Organised religion will always be recognised for what it is.

If you want to debate wars, as you say, I presume you want to do so in order to avoid future wars. It would be helpful to realise that the vast majority of wars are actually started over particular/different ideoligies/beliefs, and these beliefs are often common to a group/country/etc, and is often self reinforcing, and is often viewed moralistically as right (ie righteous)...which are the hallmarks of religious beliefs.

The point is, recognition that people need to believe in something, whether it's religion, or something else. And that these dearly ideas/beliefs can lead to wars. Understanding this may actually help lessen wars.

Quote:

If all wars have been religious, as you are claiming, then there is no difference between the Catholic-Protestant conflict in 16th-century England and the North-South conflict in 19th-century America.

Ah, now you finally understand what I'm saying - though you didn't mean to do so literally.... Both groups of people had a set of beliefs (or single belief) that they believed so strongly in that they went to war over them

One war involved organised/recognised religion, and the other war involved two groups of people with opposing beliefs, and each of their belief had the hallmarks of religion (belief in a superior morality, self censorship, belonging to a group that believes the same and self reinforces those beliefs)...so their beliefs bore the hallmarks of religious beliefs

As a side note, you'll find in intra-religious wars that poverty/oppression on one side and wealth/power on the other often plays a part - though I don't know if that was the case with the catholic-protestant conflict you are talking about.

Quote:

Quote:
Once more, even those who think of religion as the cause of so much evil...they have beliefs with all the hallmarks of religion.

Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Uh yeah, alright. And nationalism has empirical data does it? It doesn't have agenda, claim, or self reference? If we look at the Iraq war, you'll see that nationalism/patriotism was invoked, and there was also a denial of evidence...so it has the hallmarks of everything you said about religion.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

If you want to debate wars, as you say, I presume you want to do so in order to avoid future wars.

You presume incorrectly. I don't pretend that I have much say in the fate of future wars. Rather, I debate wars because I want to understand history, as I noted, and that is why your model isn't of much use. Knowing that the British and American Civil Wars both involved people who believed things is about as useful as knowing that two competing designs of suspension bridges both involve matter in its solid state. You stated it pretty succinctly, actually, when you wrote:

vikorr wrote:

The ?'drawbacks' aren't particularly relevant when you are simply talking about recognition that many beliefs bear the hallmarks of religion

This is a very good point: those drawbacks are pretty insignificant when one is "simply" acknowledging that many beliefs bear the hallmarks of religion. I guess the source of our disagreement is that what I'm after goes a bit beyond that simple acknowledgment. Since an understanding of historical events is achieved by getting closer to the details rather than abstracting generalizations from them, the recognition that many things involve beliefs becomes a terribly trivial task compared to an understanding of what those beliefs are beliefs in. You may not be interested in details like that, which is of course your right, but for those of us who actually see a difference in kind between the deaths caused at soccer riots (which I've been unfortunate enough to witness firsthand) and the deaths caused by jihad crusaders, your model doesn't have much to offer.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Once more, even those who think of religion as the cause of so much evil...they have beliefs with all the hallmarks of religion.

Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Uh yeah, alright. And nationalism has empirical data does it? It doesn't have agenda, claim, or self reference? If we look at the Iraq war, you'll see that nationalism/patriotism was invoked, and there was also a denial of evidence...so it has the hallmarks of everything you said about religion.

More straw man - I said only that critics of religion have hard evidence whereas religion has nothing of the sort. Your specious objection just adds to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't pretend that I have much say in the fate of future wars

Well, is there any point in understanding anything if you have no intention of ever doing anything with that understanding? Isn't that is why we are allowed to write to newspapers, and to our elected member etc. The quote sounds like you are intimating that ?'I'm just one voice' - which if so, is a copout - as it's every single ?'one' voice is that makes a multitude of voices.

Quote:

the recognition that many things involve beliefs becomes a terribly trivial task compared to an understanding of what those beliefs are beliefs in.

You are misrepresenting what I've been saying all along. Properly worded, your sentence should read "The recognition that many things involve beliefs that bear the hallmarks of religion becomes terribly trivial task compared to an understanding of what those beliefs are in."

Now, to your argument - you are quite right that the concept has little use as an historical tool - it is rather, a tool for current personal understanding. I would suggest recognition that many beliefs bear the hallmarks of religion can contribute to the following current benefits :

1. Greater tolerance by Anti-Religious people towards Religious people when said Anti-religious people understand they have religious like beliefs themselves (I see a lot of intolerance by many people out their towards people who hold religious beliefs)

2. Greater tolerance by everyday people towards people of different cultural beliefs when people understand that beliefs of a different cultural will possess religious like hallmarks, and that many of their own cultural beliefs will possess similar hallmarks.

3. It is an idea that can cause people to reflect on their own personal beliefs, and help them understand how and why they believe what they do
3.1 A clearer understanding of why and how a persons beliefs have been obtained means they are less likely to be manipulated. When people can see that religious beliefs can be used to control people (Islam is the easiest current form of religion to see this in), a clearer understanding of the grounding of ones own personal beliefs leads to less likelihood that said personal beliefs can be used against you (in propaganda campaigns etc)

0 Replies

Quote:

More straw man - I said only that critics of religion have hard evidence whereas religion has nothing of the sort.

If you are going to complain of straw men, please refrain from making comments, which in context, are extremely misleading. You in fact said :

Quote:

Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Using your definition of religion, I then provided an example of a 'non religious' belief :

Nationalism/Patriotism :
- lacks evidence,
- has an agenda,
- has claim,
- has self reference (I presume you mean is self reinforcing),
- denies evidence

Perfectly fitting your definition of religion, and thereby backing up what I was saying.

In your last post (which is the first quote) You have not offered a single counter argument, but just resorted to name calling...can I then consider that your straw man comment is a straw man?

Considering that you have resorted to name calling in both your posts, and not bothered with even a flimsy justification for namecalling in your second post, I can only presume you really don't have much of substance to backup your view.

If you want specific examples of each re your definition, I'm happy to provide them (to my mind they should be quite obvious).

Quote:

Your specious objection just adds to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion

- Calling something Specious, without any justification, would be rather specious, don't you think.
- Would you care to name what objection of mine you are refering to? Or do you prefer the objection you call specious to remain a mystery?
- Would you care to explain how my theory on 'beliefs' has any bearing on religion itself? ...
- Aparanently you claim to disagree with what I am saying, yet at the same time claim it adds to the body of evidence against religion...can you actually explain how this can be?

All up, a series of claims with barely the mildest attempt to justify them, with only the first post making any attempt at all. If you are going to contribute your viewpoint, please provide something with substance.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

If you are going to complain of straw men

No complaining, just pointing out.

Quote:

please refrain from making comments, which in context, are extremely misleading

My comment was direct and explicit, not misleading. That which apparently you infer was neither implied nor explicit, but rather your objection stems from miscoonstrual, likely proceeding from your own agenda.

Quote:

. You in fact said :

Quote:
Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Using your definition of religion, I then provided an example of a 'non religious' belief :

Nationalism/Patriotism :
- lacks evidence,
- has an agenda,
- has claim,
- has self reference (I presume you mean is self reinforcing),
- denies evidence

Perfectly fitting your definition of religion, and thereby backing up what I was saying.

Straw man - I did not define religion, I remarked only that critics of religion have hard evidence, whereas religion has none, no matter what you think you may say of what I said. Your claim in regard to the particular here at discussion is without foundation.

Quote:

In your last post (which is the first quote) You have not offered a single counter argument, but just resorted to name calling...can I then consider that your straw man comment is a straw man?

Straw man and outright falsehood - there was no "name calling", nor beyond calling attention to the error presented via your comment is any counterargument necessary. Of course, though,you're always welcome to consider anything to be however/whater you wish. By the same token, anyone may note and call to attention error and/or falsehood on your part should you voice same.

Quote:

Considering that you have resorted to name calling in both your posts, and not bothered with even a flimsy justification for namecalling in your second post, I can only presume you really don't have much of substance to backup your view.

Your objections, without exception, are straw men, with no foundation, proceeding from untruth allegations of that not in evidence. "Name calling" is not to be found in what I posted, and allegation that other be so is false.

Quote:

If you want specific examples of each re your definition, I'm happy to provide them (to my mind they should be quite obvious).

Quote:
Your specious objection just adds to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion

- Calling something Specious, without any justification, would be rather specious, don't you think.[/.quote]
Straw man and falsehood - perhaps predicate to a deficiency of reading comprehensoion on your part, perhaps stemming from overarchhing agenda on your part, but no matter, straw man none the less; that which you allege and to which you object is not in evidence Your allegation is false therefore your objection is specious.

Quote:
- Would you care to name what objection of mine you are refering to? Or do you prefer the objection you call specious to remain a mystery?
- Would you care to explain how my theory on 'beliefs' has any bearing on religion itself? ...

No, that's irrelevant.

Quote:
- Aparanently you claim to disagree with what I am saying, yet at the same time claim it adds to the body of evidence against religion...can you actually explain how this can be?

No point belaboring the obvious; you're doing a fine job of adding to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion.

Quote:
All up, a series of claims with barely the mildest attempt to justify them, with only the first post making any attempt at all. If you are going to contribute your viewpoint, please provide something with substance.

Straw man - unarguable is that, apart from any other consideration of any other institution or social construct, history provides to critics of religion volumes of evidence pointing to the invalidity, arrogance and hypocricy of religion, while proponents of religion possess no such archive, but rather religion must resort solely to self-referential claim, claim with no basis in factual evidence. The "viewpoint" I "contribute" is that your argument is faulty, and that your objections to my criticisms of your argument are specious, counter to fact, without substance.

0 Replies

Quote:

No complaining, just pointing out.

Multiple times without explanation or justification, amounts to the same thing

Quote:

Straw man - I did not define religion.... no matter what you think you may say of what I said.

Unless you don't understand what a ?'definition' is, that's a plain lie. Oxford Online Dictionary of ?'definition' noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word or the nature or scope of something. Your definition is in the quote below. Please understand words before you object to them.

Quote:

Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Quote:

Straw man and outright falsehood - there was no "name calling",

?'straw man' is a label (a label is a name attached to something, or in other words calling something a name - ie namecalling) with no attempt to justify on your part, which is only namecalling. Please have some idea of what you are talking about before making such claims.

Quote:

nor beyond calling attention to the error presented via your comment is any counterargument necessary

Point being, you have provided only one counter argument - to which I pointed out the error of your error. But but you have not attempted any counter for to my reply, so it appears you are resorting to misdirection, pointless namecalling, and any trick you can to avoid any actual debate. Once more, nothing of substance.

Quote:

By the same token, anyone may note and call to attention error and/or falsehood on your part should you voice same

Absolutely, I agree, and the disagreement should be justified, whic is something you are closely avoiding.

Of course, had you attempted to justify any of your 'straw men' (barring the first, which you did attempt to), then your justifications would be open to the same scrutiny as you attempt to promote.

Quote:

Quote:
- Would you care to name what objection of mine you are refering to? Or do you prefer the objection you call specious to remain a mystery?
- Would you care to explain how my theory on 'beliefs' has any bearing on religion itself? ...

No, that's irrelevant.

I almost fell to the ground laughing at this one. You make multiple accusations, but can't back this up with an iota of further argument. Or perhaps you are saying your claims are irrelevant? As I said, incredibly humorous (and again, no substance)

Quote:

Quote:
Calling something Specious, without any justification, would be rather specious, don't you think.

Straw man and falsehood

Please understand the actual meaning of words before posting. Oxford Online Dictionary : Specious
adjective 1 superficially plausible, but actually wrong. 2 misleading in appearance

Quote:

-
Quote:
Aparanently you claim to disagree with what I am saying, yet at the same time claim it adds to the body of evidence against religion...can you actually explain how this can be?

No point belaboring the obvious; you're doing a fine job of adding to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion.

Which says nothing (again no substance). So far you haven't been actually able to justify even one iota of any of your claims. Continual baseless accusations with no willingness to back them up pointless. Do you have any reason for posting, beyond substanceless arguments?

Quote:

Your objections, without exception, are straw men, with no foundation, proceeding from untruth allegations of that not in evidence.

This one made me laugh even harder. I've been asking you for evidence all along to back up your multiple claims, some of which are so unprovable as to be ?'untruths' to use your words. So far you have made only one attempt at ?'evidence', which I debunked immediately (for which no attempt by you has been made at counteringand for your benefit, as you don't quite understand yet, calling something a ?'straw man' is not a counter, as it explains nothing of any perceived wrongness - ?'straw man' is simply a label - without justification it is only name calling)

Quote:

Quote:
All up, a series of claims with barely the mildest attempt to justify them, with only the first post making any attempt at all. If you are going to contribute your viewpoint, please provide something with substance.

Straw man...

Well, as you continue to contribute virtually nothing of substance, you can keep believing what you like. By now it is fact.

Quote:

....-unarguable is that, apart from any other consideration of any other institution or social construct, history provides to critics of religion volumes of evidence pointing to the invalidity, arrogance and hypocricy of religion, while proponents of religion possess no such archive, but rather religion must resort solely to self-referential claim, claim with no basis in factual evidence.

This has little to do with my original post. That aside, I agree with most of this. Just a few nitpicks - the only major religion, who's foundings are historically recorded is Islam. Much of History (Archives) was written by the learned, and between the dark ages and up to perhaps the 1300's (that's a guess), most of the learned were religious scholars. A few other nitpicks, but they would be for a different thread.

Quote:

The "viewpoint" I "contribute" is that your argument is faulty, and that your objections to my criticisms of your argument are specious, counter to fact, without substance.

Amusing. When asked which objections you refer to, you refuse to name them. When asked what is specious about said refused to be talked about objections, you refuse to answer. I think I can safely presume you will also refuse to answer if I ask you what is counter to fact and substance (or at the very least provide a ?'straw man' answer, once more without elaborating on any claim of yours).

However, as you've given away what objections you were talking about, in your last paragraph :

Quote:

your objections to my criticisms

I am not surprised you didn't want to elaborate on the 'objections' :

In context of your first post, which is the only one (until the last paragraph of your last post) that contains any attempted explanation (other than ?'straw man', or ?'specious' etc), I did reply, not as an objection (unless you don't know what that word means either). What I did, in relation to each point you made, was show you how what I was saying matched what you were saying.

An amusing post, if it wasn't for the fact that it has very little to do with the actual thread I posted, and very little substance. Perhaps you would care to contribute your views, with some explanation (justification/substance)

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
No complaining, just pointing out.

Multiple times without explanation or justification, amounts to the same thing

No it doesn't; it is what it is, in and of itself, regardless what you or anyone else might care to add to or take from it.

Quote:

Quote:
Straw man - I did not define religion.... no matter what you think you may say of what I said.

Unless you don't understand what a ?'definition' is, that's a plain lie. Oxford Online Dictionary of ?'definition' noun 1 a statement of the exact meaning of a word or the nature or scope of something. Your definition is in the quote below. Please understand words before you object to them.

You're doing it again, there, partner; I did not define anything, I pointed to religion's lack of evidence. That lack of evidence is an attribute of religion, it is not a definition of religion.

Quote:

Quote:
Poppycock - straw man. Structurally operative is that critics of religion have something religion lacks in total: EVIDENCE - empirical, documented, verifiable, hard-data evidence, whereas religion has naught but agenda, claim, self reference, and denial of evidence.

Quote:
Straw man and outright falsehood - there was no "name calling",

?'straw man' is a label (a label is a name attached to something, or in other words calling something a name - ie namecalling) with no attempt to justify on your part, which is only namecalling. Please have some idea of what you are talking about before making such claims.

Nonsense and further straw man. Now if I were to say someone pressing a claim such as that you've just presented was silly, that would be name calling. Pointing out that within an argument or other statement which renders said argument or other statement silly is no such thing, it is simply bringing to attention the silliness of said argument or other statement. Your argument in the present instance is silly in that you are adressing only your own overlay onto what I said, not that which in fact I said. I'm not the one apparently ignorant of what is being talked about here.

Quote:

Quote:
nor beyond calling attention to the error presented via your comment is any counterargument necessary

Point being, you have provided only one counter argument - to which I pointed out the error of your error. But but you have not attempted any counter for to my reply, so it appears you are resorting to misdirection, pointless namecalling, and any trick you can to avoid any actual debate. Once more, nothing of substance.

Straw man yet again; I've presented no counter aregument, I've merely remained on point, that point being the error of your argument and the speciousness of your silly objections in context of this silly digression. I submit further that your allegation I have engaged in name calling is a falsehood.

Quote:

Quote:
By the same token, anyone may note and call to attention error and/or falsehood on your part should you voice same

Absolutely, I agree, and the disagreement should be justified, whic is something you are closely avoiding.

Of course, had you attempted to justify any of your 'straw men' (barring the first, which you did attempt to), then your justifications would be open to the same scrutiny as you attempt to promote.

Nonsense; I've presented no straw men, but rather have taken you to task for persisting in the practice - which you continue to do. I have avoided nothing, I have brought nothing irrelevant to the discussion, and I submit the same cannot be said of your practice in such regard.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
- Would you care to name what objection of mine you are refering to? Or do you prefer the objection you call specious to remain a mystery?
- Would you care to explain how my theory on 'beliefs' has any bearing on religion itself? ...

No, that's irrelevant.

I almost fell to the ground laughing at this one. You make multiple accusations, but can't back this up with an iota of further argument. Or perhaps you are saying your claims are irrelevant? As I said, incredibly humorous (and again, no substance)

Apparently, you either do not understand what is going on here, or you choose to present yourself as not understanding same - not my problem.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Calling something Specious, without any justification, would be rather specious, don't you think.

Certainly, however, in that your objections have been specious, your comment here is irrelevant other than that it too is specious.

Quote:
Straw man and falsehood

Please understand the actual meaning of words before posting. Oxford Online Dictionary : Specious
adjective 1 superficially plausible, but actually wrong. 2 misleading in appearance

Quote:
Quote:
Aparanently you claim to disagree with what I am saying, yet at the same time claim it adds to the body of evidence against religion...can you actually explain how this can be?

No point belaboring the obvious; you're doing a fine job of adding to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion.

Which says nothing (again no substance). So far you haven't been actually able to justify even one iota of any of your claims. Continual baseless accusations with no willingness to back them up pointless. Do you have any reason for posting, beyond substanceless arguments?

You're consistent, I'll give you that. The only claims I have made are tha religion is without evidence, and that your objections to my comments have been and continue to be specious.

Quote:

Quote:
Your objections, without exception, are straw men, with no foundation, proceeding from untruth allegations of that not in evidence.

This one made me laugh even harder. I've been asking you for evidence all along to back up your multiple claims, some of which are so unprovable as to be ?'untruths' to use your words. So far you have made only one attempt at ?'evidence', which I debunked immediately (for which no attempt by you has been made at counteringand for your benefit, as you don't quite understand yet, calling something a ?'straw man' is not a counter, as it explains nothing of any perceived wrongness - ?'straw man' is simply a label - without justification it is only name calling)

No, no, no, Grasshopper. You've debunked nothing, you've merely further validated the criticisms I've laid against your commentary. You persist in false allegations, and you persist in straw man arguments.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
All up, a series of claims with barely the mildest attempt to justify them, with only the first post making any attempt at all. If you are going to contribute your viewpoint, please provide something with substance.

Straw man...

Well, as you continue to contribute virtually nothing of substance, you can keep believing what you like. By now it is fact.

Not my problem if, by bringing your preconceptions to the fore, you fail to grasp the substance of that which has been presented.

Quote:

Quote:
....-unarguable is that, apart from any other consideration of any other institution or social construct, history provides to critics of religion volumes of evidence pointing to the invalidity, arrogance and hypocricy of religion, while proponents of religion possess no such archive, but rather religion must resort solely to self-referential claim, claim with no basis in factual evidence.

This has little to do with my original post. That aside, I agree with most of this. Just a few nitpicks - the only major religion, who's foundings are historically recorded is Islam. Much of History (Archives) was written by the learned, and between the dark ages and up to perhaps the 1300's (that's a guess), most of the learned were religious scholars. A few other nitpicks, but they would be for a different thread.

Nitpick away, partner - history and philosophy are particular personal fascinations.

A point of curiosity, if you'll humor me - just what do you contend is the point of your observation pertaining to "religious scholars"?

Quote:

Quote:
The "viewpoint" I "contribute" is that your argument is faulty, and that your objections to my criticisms of your argument are specious, counter to fact, without substance.

Amusing. When asked which objections you refer to, you refuse to name them. When asked what is specious about said refused to be talked about objections, you refuse to answer. I think I can safely presume you will also refuse to answer if I ask you what is counter to fact and substance (or at the very least provide a ?'straw man' answer, once more without elaborating on any claim of yours).

Nonsense; my reference is to the specious objections you've presented to that of my commentary as has been critical of yours pertinent thereunto.

Quote:

However, as you've given away what objections you were talking about, in your last paragraph :

Quote:
your objections to my criticisms

I am not surprised you didn't want to elaborate on the 'objections' :

In context of your first post, which is the only one (until the last paragraph of your last post) that contains any attempted explanation (other than ?'straw man', or ?'specious' etc), I did reply, not as an objection (unless you don't know what that word means either). What I did, in relation to each point you made, was show you how what I was saying matched what you were saying.

An amusing post, if it wasn't for the fact that it has very little to do with the actual thread I posted, and very little substance. Perhaps you would care to contribute your views, with some explanation (justification/substance)

Hey! Almost looked, for a little while there, that you almost had it - at least that it was beginning to dawn on you - then your commentary blew it. As has been said, not my problem you're apparently having trouble, or at least choose to present yourself as having trouble, figuring out what's been going on here. That you present as failing to grasp what is going on at any rate, whichever circumstance is operative, is what your interaction throughout this digression has evidenced.

Whether or not you're any good at this sort of thing, your practice throughout your participation in this digression indicates you're not doing very well at it.

Lets take this a step at a time.

You opened this discussion declaring as your thesis " ... People are also religious creatures, whether or not they believe in a stated religion, they believe in 'something' in order to identify who they are ... ".
You then presented a litany of dictionary definitions of religion,
on which you expanded in This Post, declaring " ... As you can see by the dictionary definitions, what I was saying meets the dictionary definition of 'religion', therefore people who do not follow a religion like Christianity, Islam etc, can still be religious....which is what the title is saying ... " (itself a untrue statement, as the topic title - YOUR topic title - is "Are you religious even if you aren't religious?"; the title does not "say" that " ... people who do not follow a religion like Christianity, Islam etc, can still be religious ... ", it ASKS "Are you religious even if you aren't religious?").

"Religion/Religious" entail, definitionally, functionally, and inescapably, a spiritual/metaphysical origin and mindset; without the spiritual/metaphysical, there is not religion. That is not to say some other proposition might not be endorsed with religious fervor, that is merely to say that without spirituality/metaphysics, you ain't got "Religion", regardless what wordgames you play.
I jumped into this discussion Here, observing that "religion" but for its popularity and history would meet the definition of "Delusion".
You then declared: " ... PS. for the comment about playing the dictionary game - as we are talking about a specific word, and Shapeless was objecting that what I was talking about didn't relate to the specific word (religion), it is quite legitimate to quote dictionary definitions ... Once more, even those who think of religion as the cause of so much evil...they have beliefs with all the hallmarks of religion ... "]

Your "all the hallmarks" allegation - foundationally central to your ongoing specious, straw man objections to my commentary - fails in that missing from propositions other than religious is spirituality/metaphysics, while at the same time missing from religious propositions is hard, independent evidence.
I opined that, by the evidence, " ... It is unwarranted, unconscionable, arrogant conceit on the part of religion to attempt to equate itself with legitimate philosophy."
You responded to that with the assertion: " ...Uh yeah, alright. And nationalism has empirical data does it? It doesn't have agenda, claim, or self reference? If we look at the Iraq war, you'll see that nationalism/patriotism was invoked, and there was also a denial of evidence...so it has the hallmarks of everything you said about religion."
To which I responded "More straw man - I said only that critics of religion have hard evidence whereas religion has nothing of the sort. Your specious objection just adds to the body of evidence available to those critical of religion."

I submit again, your "all the hallmarks" allegation fails in that missing from propositions other than religious is spirituality/metaphysics, while at the same time missing from religious propositions is hard, independent evidence; your objection is specious.
You then, among other errors of assumption or projection, asserted " ...Using your definition of religion, I then provided an example of a 'non religious' belief :

Nationalism/Patriotism :
- lacks evidence,
- has an agenda,
- has claim,
- has self reference (I presume you mean is self reinforcing), (Note - editorial insert - You mispresume; had I meant "self-reinforcing", I would not have said "self reference")
- denies evidence

Perfectly fitting your definition of religion, and thereby backing up what I was saying ... "

I submit yet again I offered no definition of religion, I mentioned attributes of religion. While a horse has both mane and tail, neither attribute defines the the beast.
In the same post, you said, refering to me, " ... you have resorted to name calling in both your posts ... "

I submit no such occurrence took place; I pointed to errors and fallacies evidenced in your arguments, exposing same for what they were. That is not "name calling", that is point-by-point rebuttal to and refutation of your fallacious arguments. I have no clue who you are (though I suspect, perhaps wrongly so, that you well may be a religionist of one stripe or another, but that's neither here nor there), and I have not "called" you any "name", I have demonstrated your arguments to be straw men and your objections to be specious, founded on that which is not there to which to object, and I have done so through clear, unambiguous example. Absent the central, structural, foundational component of spiritual/metaphysical foundation and focus, a propostion does not meet the requirements necessary to be considered/termed "religion" - whether or not that proposition is endorsed and prosecuted in manner described as "with religious zeal and fervor".

Now, we could go on and on, around and around on this, but you've really got nowhere to go with it, so there is no point pursuing it further - if indeed there was any point pursuing it this far - something I doubt. In discussions of this sort, on web forums, there is rarely any win/lose based on converting an adversary to one's own position. The point, if there is one, is to express one's own ideas, to present one's own thoughts, to provide such evidence as one may have available in support of any proposition one might forward, and to validate and justify one's proposition(s) in the face of such contrary propositions or counter arguments as may be presented by others in the discussion. I submit I have done precisely that, and I leave it to each reader to evaluate what has been said, and the manner in which it has been said, and draw their own conclusions.

However, if somebody wants to insist on a tail-chasing party, I'm usually happy to cheer on the entertainment 'til the chaser drops.

0 Replies

Are you religious even if you aren't religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know