BF2S Forums We All Are Religious

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Well going by my definition of religious, and not the one on a website promoting religion, I am not religious.

re·li·gious     

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday. 
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man. 
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care. 
4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. 
5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances. 
–noun 6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun. 
7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.

Having a belief does not make you religious by any definition outside of Sergerivers source.

Yes it does.

Dictionary.com wrote:

6.    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Wikipedia wrote:

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

In reference to your Wiki statement; I'm neither a sociologist or and anthropologist.

And as far as...

Dictionary.com wrote:

6.    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

...goes, well you have to be devout to be religious.

Prove you aren't religious.

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Well going by my definition of religious, and not the one on a website promoting religion, I am not religious.

re·li·gious     

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday. 
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly: a religious man. 
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious: religious care. 
4. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order. 
5. appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances. 
–noun 6. a member of a religious order, congregation, etc.; a monk, friar, or nun. 
7. the religious, devout or religious persons: Each year, thousands of the religious make pilgrimages to the shrine.

Having a belief does not make you religious by any definition outside of Sergerivers source.

Yes it does.

Dictionary.com wrote:

6.    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

That is "religious" being used as a shade of meaning - that's semantics - and semantically speaking one shade of meaning is not equal to the other.

In the context used (as a shade of meaning), it indicates (denotes) a personal passion, that can be applied to anything you do.

Painting, sculpting, writing, logic, science, riding bikes in remote places, tending a garden, having an aquarium, pursuing your school studies, etc, etc, etc. (<--- None of that is a religion, defined as scripture and revelation of transcendence in antiquity to a supposed visionary; a prophet of God; who supposedly witnessed a deity).

At that point all things are the same - if you do it with passion & commitment. But hey all that does is render the whole of it; the point; ABSURD in the extreme. If everything is the same nothing is different. That is BS.

I know religious people who practice a religion (follow a religion), who well are not committed or really that passionate about it. Therefore they are religious and not really being religious about being religious.

It makes no sense to even think the shades of meaning are interchangeable as linguistic expressions of speech.

I completely and unequivocally disagree.

It could not be applied to anything you do. The important part of the definition is something one believes in. Do you believe in tending a garden? That's not a belief. Scripture and revelation have nothing to do with religion. It is perfectly possible to have religion with both or neither. Although scripture is often necessary for religions to spread on a large scale, hence the association.

Nor does your answer fit in with Lindbecks definition of religion.

It is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments

This definition of religion is not unusal. It is just that it differs from the commonly accepted norm and so is taken to be a wrong definition. There is nothing inherently spiritual about religion.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-27 06:47:27)

They are NOT the same meaning. One shade of meaning is not interchangeable with the other.

Absent the "leap of faith" in a myth originating in antiquity (or "leap of faith" in L.R. Hubbard, or something similar),being emotional is not evidence of a religion. Anyone can emotionally react when ANY type of belief is called into question (rather than reason; or think), but that is not proof of a religion or an institution that conforms to the standard type.

They are not equivalent.
One means,
a.) Being committed/passionate about any activity even a routine.
b.) The other meaning is that you are part of a religion and practice its' tenets.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:54:48)

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

They are NOT the same meaning. One shade of meaning is not interchangeable with the other.

Absent the "leap of faith" in a myth originating in antiquity (or "leap of faith" in L.R. Hubbard, or something similar),being emotional is not evidence of a religion. Anyone can emotionally react when ANY type of belief is called into question (rather than reason; or think), but that is not proof of a religion or an institution that conforms to the standard type.

Are you atheist?  By being atheist you acknowledge that God doesn't exist, thus God is involved in your beliefs system.

No.. I don't succumb to belief... God is or isn't, it hasn't been demonstrated to be something I can apprehend in any detail as to what that might be. I do not dismiss it - but I have no idea what it even would be - if such is.

But since we are talking about words and word meanings. These do not exist in a vacuum. They are used to express a meaning in the context they are used.

While I might not conform to what an atheist is labeled as being, I don't conform to what the agnostic label infers either.

And yet - I am an Atheist - to all mythology - that I've ever read (I do not believe in it, and yet I think it has value). In one context I am not atheist and in another context I am. The same can be said of Christians, not atheists to their beliefs-religion-myths, yet atheist to others belief-religion-myths.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:44:34)

sergeriver wrote:

Prove you aren't religious.

I'd love it if I'd raised similar arguments as this at the Oxford debating society. Laugh, Out and Building all come to mind.

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

In reference to your Wiki statement; I'm neither a sociologist or and anthropologist.

No, you are a person. Anthropologists study people. Religion is a characteristic of people. Therefore it is perfectly relevant.

That doesn't make any logical sense at all. Religion is a characteristic of religious people, the point I've been trying to make for a while. Not everyone is religious.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

In reference to your Wiki statement; I'm neither a sociologist or and anthropologist.

No, you are a person. Anthropologists study people. Religion is a characteristic of people. Therefore it is perfectly relevant.

That doesn't make any logical sense at all. Religion is a characteristic of religious people, the point I've been trying to make for a while. Not everyone is religious.

If you acknowledge the non existence of God, you are being religious.

sergeriver wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Prove you aren't religious.

I'd love it if I'd raised similar arguments as this at the Oxford debating society. Laugh, Out and Building all come to mind.

The Oxford debating society?  Oh, I see.  Since you are from Oxford you are beyond this ridiculous debate.  My apologies.

You're the one making it ridiculous.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I'd love it if I'd raised similar arguments as this at the Oxford debating society. Laugh, Out and Building all come to mind.

The Oxford debating society?  Oh, I see.  Since you are from Oxford you are beyond this ridiculous debate.  My apologies.

You're the one making it ridiculous.

I was being sarcastic.

CameronPoe wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yeah, of course we're all religious. What of it? Any form of belief (or disbelief), about anything, could be classed as a religion (although not in the commonly accepted meaning of the word).

So what?

Exactly - it's all just semantics. Mostly, in everyday usage, we generally regard someone described as being religious as one who believes in a higher being. We certainly don't normally equate it with disbelief in something (i.e., belief in the fact something doesn't exist).

Yet in the disbelief you include God.  It's more a matter of philosophy.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

You're the one making it ridiculous.

I was being sarcastic.

You're an odd little man Sergeriver...an odd little man!

Coming from you, that's a compliment.  Thanks.

[sarcasm]Btw, you are great debater./sarcasm

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

They are NOT the same meaning. One shade of meaning is not interchangeable with the other.

Absent the "leap of faith" in a myth originating in antiquity (or "leap of faith" in L.R. Hubbard, or something similar),being emotional is not evidence of a religion. Anyone can emotionally react when ANY type of belief is called into question (rather than reason; or think), but that is not proof of a religion or an institution that conforms to the standard type.

They most certainly are the same meaning.

You have yet to present any evidence to the contrary. In fact what you've just said has reinforced my point even further.

What is the standard type? It is what is typically accepted. Not what is right. There are lots of words that have meanings they are not typically used to represent, but that makes those definitions no less valid.

Religion is the beliefs of an individual or group. It makes no difference what those beliefs are or whether they are shared with others.

Your arguement is circular, you say it is so, becuase it has been redefined in a DICTIONARY, therefore it is so.

There is either a difference in word use and meaning or there isn't one. This idea is about as brilliant as saying we all have mind, human psychology and human emotions and that equals a religion. Whether or not you practice one. And further by not practicing one you are practicing one. Because we have re-defined all things as being religious based upon human motivation and by including ethical standards.


Hey Serge,
No.. I don't succumb to belief... God is or isn't, it hasn't been demonstrated to be something I can apprehend in any detail as to what that might be. I do not dismiss it - but I have no idea what it even would be - if such is.

But since we are talking about words and word meanings. These do not exist in a vacuum. The are used to express a meaning in the context they are used.

While I might not conform to what an atheist is labeled as being, I don't conform to what the agnostic label infers either.

And yet - I am an atheist - to all mythology - that I've ever read (I do not believe in it [myth], and yet I think it has value). In one context I am not atheist and in another context I am. The same can be said of Christians, not atheists to their beliefs-religion-myths, yet atheist to others belief-religion-myths.

Note: I am not rejecting the redefinition, I am just thinking about the problems associated with. It is feeling like a politically correct thing to want to redefine the word, to be all inclusive, but I am not sure if this is really all that valuable as an idea.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:57:14)