Define:Religion
SJAB1958
definitions that came up.
And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
'Darwinism') are religions?"
Steven J.
> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> definitions that came up.
>
> And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
> a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>
a belief in such beings, but does not strictly speaking require such a
belief, and yet is usually counted as a religion. It's worse than
that, actually: when I googled "define: religion," I came up with the
definition that held that religion is "belief concerning the
supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and
institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some
have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain
humankind's relationship with the universe.
I think, under that broad definition literally read, atheism qualifies
as a religion. Indeed, under that definition, any possible set of
answers the question "what is our relationship to the
universe" (including "we can never know the answer for sure") probably
counts as a religion. Okay, perhaps we ought to define "religion" in
a somewhat narrower sense. But I suspect that, just as the
"demarcation problem" of what separates science from nonscience or
pseudoscience is still keeping philosophers busy, the demarcation
between religious and nonreligious thought has similar problems.
I don't mean to suggest that anything can be reasonably called
"religion:" Edmund Burke's famous aphorism that, even though no one
can tell the exact moment when day gives way to night, day and night
are tolerably distinct, doubtless applies. But it might be wise to
adopt the viewpoint of Pascal Boyer that religion is a fuzzy set, with
no single trait that is shared by all religions and no non-religious
systems of thought.
>
> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
> 'Darwinism') are religions?"
>
At least one (no longer active) poster to this newsgroup, IIRC,
suggested that any system of ideas that answers a question that is
dealt with by religion is, itself, necessarily a religious belief. If
a religion makes a claim, and science says that something else,
incompatible with this claim, is the fact, then science is commenting
on religious claims, and therefore making religious claims of its own.
Yes, I've noticed that there are some logical problems with this point
of view (e.g. it makes heliocentrism, or even the idea that the Earth
is a globe, "religious claims;" indeed, it implies that anyone can
turn any scientific statement into a religious claim simply by
proposing a religious creed that contradicts that statement). I
almost, in the paragraph above, wrote "then science is commenting on a
*specifically* religious claim," but there seems no reason to assume
that there are specifically religious claims. However, it is not
uncommon for creationists to argue that all claims about certain
subjects are specifically religious, and "origins" is a favorite
subject for such a position.
-- Steven J.
Radix2
It is just a rhetorical trick that attempts to put science and
religion on equal footing. The funny thing about it is the person who
tries this also denigrates their own beliefs as something less that
rational: "Oh yeah, well science/evolution/whatever is *just* another
religion too so it is worthy of no more respect than my beliefs".
The Last Conformist
> On Apr 21, 11:37 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> > definitions that came up.
>
> > And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
> > a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>
> The classic counterexample is Buddhism, which is often accompanied by
> a belief in such beings, but does not strictly speaking require such a
> belief, and yet is usually counted as a religion.
If we were to amend the definition to speak of supernatural things
instead of beings, I悲 think reincarnation qualifies.
Alexander
For my money I think Radix2 comes closest about it being a semantic
trick. If you put religion and science on an 'equal' footing then any
claims to empirical validity become 'just another opinion'. In the
school of democratic thinking this seems quite reasonable, but of
course science simply doesn't work that way in the real world. It's
supported in certain quarters mainly because that's what the
creationists _want_ to hear, so the logic of the reasoning rarely gets
challenged by those with a vested interest in maintaining their
preconceptions about their Biblical interpretations.
Also, if you spend any amount of time claiming that creationism has
scientific validity you have to find a way of making it appear valid
on its own terms. There is no way you can use the terminology of
science itself so instead you attack its supposed ideological roots of
'materialism' and 'atheism' and the rest. By making science appear
like another ideology you can then claim what science tells us is no
more valid than religion.
I find it fascinating from a psychological and sociological point of
view but then I have always had a morbid curiousity.
jensp...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 21, 11:37 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> > definitions that came up.
>
> > And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
> > a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>
> The classic counterexample is Buddhism, which is often accompanied by
> a belief in such beings, but does not strictly speaking require such a
> belief, and yet is usually counted as a religion.
You just have to change "requires a belief in spiritual or
supernatural beings" to "requires a belief in the spiritual or
supernatural" and then Buddhism fits in fine with the rest of the
religions.
In my eyes however it is a more sane religion, as the exclusion of a
devine being at last means that its followers don't worship a fantasy
figure.
J.O.
Frank J
It's part of the scam. Part B in particular. Part A is to pretend that
ID or creationism are purely scientific, and alternatives to
evolution. When the scammer realizes that he is not getting away with
that one, he tries part B. If part B doesn't work, he pitches part A
to another audience. He knows both are nonsense, but in the absence of
a competing theory, what else can he do? Besides, most people are
convinced that atheism is a religion (as in dogmatic belief,
supernatural beings or not) and no "official definition" will change
that. And they are unlikely to check to see how the words "Darwinism"
and "evolutionism" are misused by the scammers.
In this age of publishing articles and editorials on the web that can
conceivably be read by anyone, "targeting the audience" is not as
easy, but still possible by selecting an outlet and tailoring the
language so that the audience of interest is most likely to notice and
pay attention.
Bobby Bryant
SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> writes:
> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> definitions that came up.
>
> And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion
> requires a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
Makes sense to me, but I'm not sure everyone agrees.
> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a
> given minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
> 'Darwinism') are religions?"
They're not constrained by reality. They just say whatever they
think the argument calls for.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Alexander <alexand...@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Apr 22, 6:37 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
>> definitions that came up.
>>
>> And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
>> a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>>
>> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a
>> given minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
>> 'Darwinism') are religions?"
>
> For my money I think Radix2 comes closest about it being a semantic
> trick. If you put religion and science on an 'equal' footing then
> any claims to empirical validity become 'just another opinion'.
And since they can't bring creationism up to the standards of
science, they try to bring science down to the low standards of
creationism.
991...@gmail.com
> On 22 Apr, 07:48, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:37 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:> I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
> > > definitions that came up.
>
> > > And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
> > > a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
>
> > The classic counterexample is Buddhism, which is often accompanied by
> > a belief in such beings, but does not strictly speaking require such a
> > belief, and yet is usually counted as a religion. It's worse than
> > that, actually: when I googled "define: religion," I came up with the
> > definition that held that religion is "belief concerning the
> > supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and
> > institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some
> > have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain
> > humankind's relationship with the universe.
>
> called just as often a philosophy, or even a religious philosophy.
>
> I also found that definition of religion that you found, but I think
> you will agree that the majority of the definitions clearly show that
> the essential basis of a religion is a belief in spiritual or
> supernatural beings.
>
>
>
> > I think, under that broad definition literally read, atheism qualifies
> > as a religion. Indeed, under that definition, any possible set of
> > answers the question "what is our relationship to the
> > universe" (including "we can never know the answer for sure") probably
> > counts as a religion. Okay, perhaps we ought to define "religion" in
> > a somewhat narrower sense. But I suspect that, just as the
> > "demarcation problem" of what separates science from nonscience or
> > pseudoscience is still keeping philosophers busy, the demarcation
> > between religious and nonreligious thought has similar problems.
>
> science is narrowly defined as a study of that which is observable,
> measureable and testable.
>
>
>
> > I don't mean to suggest that anything can be reasonably called
> > "religion:" Edmund Burke's famous aphorism that, even though no one
> > can tell the exact moment when day gives way to night, day and night
> > are tolerably distinct, doubtless applies. But it might be wise to
> > adopt the viewpoint of Pascal Boyer that religion is a fuzzy set, with
> > no single trait that is shared by all religions and no non-religious
> > systems of thought.
>
> a Cold Prickley?
>
>
>
> > > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka
> > > 'Darwinism') are religions?"
>
> > At least one (no longer active) poster to this newsgroup, IIRC,
> > suggested that any system of ideas that answers a question that is
> > dealt with by religion is, itself, necessarily a religious belief. If
> > a religion makes a claim, and science says that something else,
> > incompatible with this claim, is the fact, then science is commenting
> > on religious claims, and therefore making religious claims of its own.
>
> evolutionary theory in their attempts to discredit it.
>
>
>
> > Yes, I've noticed that there are some logical problems with this point
> > of view (e.g. it makes heliocentrism, or even the idea that the Earth
> > is a globe, "religious claims;" indeed, it implies that anyone can
> > turn any scientific statement into a religious claim simply by
> > proposing a religious creed that contradicts that statement). I
> > almost, in the paragraph above, wrote "then science is commenting on a
> > *specifically* religious claim," but there seems no reason to assume
> > that there are specifically religious claims. However, it is not
> > uncommon for creationists to argue that all claims about certain
> > subjects are specifically religious, and "origins" is a favorite
> > subject for such a position.
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> long will it be though until we get someone posting who has no Warm
> Fuzzies and just a bag full of Cold Pricklies?
hi thanks for the ?
well i beleive that 1st we should come and converse on some basic
queries before we go into bigger ones like religion ... interested
well mail me at 991...@gmail.com
CreateThis
>I Googled this "define: religion" and took a good look at all the
>definitions that came up.
>
>And one can conclude that at the most basic level a religion requires
>a belief in spiritual or supernatural beings.
One of the essential elements of religion is belief in the
supernatural, but such belief by itself isn't religion. Religion must
also include worship of a supernatural deity and communal sharing and
reinforcement of beliefs through ritual practice. Without these what
we have is more general notions like spirituality, faith and belief.
Atheism is a belief, but not a faith, because it's founded in reason
and (at least profound lack of) evidence.
Acceptance of scientific facts like evolution is belief in the
strictest sense, but so well founded in evidence that it's a
perversion of language to call it mere belief and an outright lie to
call it religion.
In other words, there is a continuum or spectrum of "belief" with
inescapable conclusion from objective evidence (objective fact) on one
end and wishful death defying supernatural fantasy (religious faith)
on the other, separated by a great and very real distance.
Creationists disingenuously deny the distance between, hoping their
wishful fantasy can enjoy the same popular legitimacy (and, most
importantly, government sponsorship) as science.
CT
Libertarius
===>They do that because secretly they are embarrassed by being
religious and wish to claim that everyone else is. -- L.
Dale Kelly
> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> are religions?"--
because they deify Darwin
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
snex
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
> because they deify Darwin
name anybody who does this. i expect you to produce evidence to back
it up as well.
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
jensp...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
> because they deify Darwin
Why do you say this, when it's obvious for anyone to see that it's not
true. Don't you care that it makes you look really stupid?
Biologist don't really care who came up with the theory that the
observed evolution happens by survival of the fittest. All they care
about is that the theory perfectly explains all observed facts.
Do you have an unhealthy fixation on Darwin?
J.O.
SJAB1958
What evidence do you have that Darwin has been as you put it
'deified'? Perhaps you could expand on your statement.
Timberwoof
Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
>
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
>
> because they deify Darwin
In another post I listed various things you have not read. I will add to
that The Apostle of the FSM:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
You know nothing. Darwinsts worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
wf3h
Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
>
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
>
> because they deify Darwin
religion isn't noted for breeding broad understanding or intellectual
inquiry.
dale's comment is proof of that.
CreateThis
<dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
>
>> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
>> minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
>> are religions?"--
>
>
>because they deify Darwin
Ironic, isn't it, that the only people who ever claim Darwin is a
deity are creationist morons? You deify Darwin, not "evolutionists".
When will you start worshipping him?
CT
Timberwoof
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Unfair generalization! Judaism and Buddhism and even certain sects of
Christianity and Islam most certainly do! Yes, yes, they seem to mostly
hinder intellectual inquiry, but as an advocate for fair intellectual
inquiry and scientific thought, you should present cases evenhandedly.
> dale's comment is proof of that.
--
Earle Jones
Define "religion":
Religion (noun) -- a cult that has received its IRS tax exemption.
(For example see "Scientology".)
earle
*
Cemtech
virt.nntp.sonic.net>, timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com says...
> In article <pan.2007.04...@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
> >
> > > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > > are religions?"--
> >
> >
> > because they deify Darwin
>
> In another post I listed various things you have not read. I will add to
> that The Apostle of the FSM:
> http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
>
> You know nothing. Darwinsts worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Arrr! RAmen!
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Cemtech
says...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
>
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
>
> because they deify Darwin
You must mean literally.
----------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
de·i·fy /'di??fa?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
[dee-uh-fahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing. 1. to make a god of; exalt to
the rank of a deity; personify as a deity: to deify a beloved king.
2. to adore or regard as a deity: to deify wealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1300?50; ME deifien < OF deifier < LL deificare. See
deification, -ify]
?Related forms
de·i·fi·er, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de·i·fy (de'?-fi',
da'-) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. dei·fied, dei·fy·ing, dei·fies
To make a god of; raise to the condition of a god.
To worship or revere as a god: deify a leader.
To idealize; exalt: deifying success.
[Middle English deifien, from Old French deifier, from Late Latin
deificare, from deificus, deific; see deific.]
de'i·fi'er n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
deify
c.1340, from O.Fr. deifier, from L.L. deificare, from deificus "making
godlike," from L. deus "god" + facere "to make, do" (see factitious).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source deify
verb
1. consider as a god or godlike; "These young men deify financial
success"
2. exalt to the position of a God; "the people deified their King"
--------------------------
Now many of the examples are not literal means of deifications.
So I'll state now that Darwin was not a god, ergo, I do not deify him
literally.
Now you de-deify your god.
--
=========================================
"Hell even my spellchecker knows. Everytime it finds
'creationism' it recommends 'cretinism'! - Steve Price
Nick Keighley
I don't think most genuinely religious people (and probably most
peer-pressure religious people) are embarrrassed by their religion.
I think it's more a failure of imagination, or empathy, a lot
religious
people really cannot conceive that someone really doesn't, deep down
inside, actually believe in God, spirit, higher power etc. An atheist
is just being awkward and doesn't genuinely hold the beliefs he
professes to.
--
Nick Keighley
Libertarius
===>"Religion" is based on FAITH and BELIEF.
Faith is the exact opposite of knowledge.
Believing is the exact opposite of understanding.
SO, DARE TO DOUBT, DARE TO QUESTION.
DARE TO THINK!
But beware:
THINKING CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR FAITH. -- L.
Libertarius
RELIGION is the result of FAITH and BELIEF.
Steve Marshall
"Dale Kelly" <dale....@comcast.net> wrote
>> So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
>> minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
>> are religions?"--
>
>
> because they deify Darwin
Actually it seems to me that Creationists are the ones that put him on a
pedestal - (and then they try and knock him off it) - claiming that anyone
believing evolution is one of his followers. It's nonsense really.
Darwin has the same sort of acclaim that originators get. Sir Alexander
Fleming, John Logie Baird and such people are recognised for significant
steps in our development. Darwin is no different to them, but the theory of
evolution is a grand unifying theory that explains biology. Science
struggles to come up with a similar unifying theory to account for physics,
for example.
Steve M