BF2S Forums We All Are Religious

sergeriver wrote:

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.

I thought it was a matter of religion?

RicardoBlanco wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

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.

I thought it was a matter of religion?

It's more a matter of philosophy than semantics.

Okay for anyone saying that not believing in God makes you religious because you are making a statement that denies his existence and therefore you have a religious belief are speaking bollox.  If you believe in faries then you are a little crazy right? You wouldn't call the rest of the population crazy for not believing in them.

Bertster7 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Okay for anyone saying that not believing in God makes you religious because you are making a statement that denies his existence and therefore you have a religious belief are speaking bollox.  If you believe in faries then you are a little crazy right? You wouldn't call the rest of the population crazy for not believing in them.

Of course not believing in a god makes you religious. Not believing in a god is a belief, and in any and every sense a religious belief. Therefore you hold a religious belief, therefore you are religious.

Not it does not make you religious.

I don't disbelive in God, I don't believe in God. It exist or doesn't exist, regardless of what I might conclude (in-mind).

I accept the possibility of it whatever that might be.

But, atheists don't have PROOF that God does not exists, they simply lack facts and reasons to consider the belief as being rational in the first place. The do not have to deny what they cannot affirm (find fact or reason to support the idea or claim).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:28:13)

Why is it so offensive or a point of disagreement to have one’s value system or philosophy characterized as religion?

sergeriver wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

How many times do I have to post this for Christ's Sake[/irony]?


ATHIESTS ARE THERFORE NOT RELIGIOUS! Close thread.....

A few words of wisdom

Besides yours, of course.

Of course

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

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

No. I say it is so because that is how it is defined by those who study it and its implications in great detail. It is how it has been defined throughout history.

The only reason I brought up a dictionary source is that RB asked for a definition outside of Serge's source. I provided that.

topal63 wrote:

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 defined all things as being religious based upon human motivation and by including ethics standards.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

People often speak of religion as a way of life, which is exactly what it is. Whether any type of communal or otherwise organised religion is a part of that or not.

I am not denying the shade of meaning exists - now am I. I am saying they are not interchangable or equal.

We all have some beliefs, a worldview, some motivation, emotional reactions, ethical standards. This is a shade of meaning and I have no problem with it.

Semantically this is un-important. Unless you are attempting to say they are the same thing.

Going to the Mosque and being a faithful Muslim, and being religious (the actual practicing of the tenets of a religion).

Is not the same meaning.

As enjoying mountain-bike riding one day, doing that with gusto, then doing something different on another day with gusto; and each time you do anything you do it with some degree of passion and devotion (thus the shade of meaning: religiously).

We are all emotional.
We are all passionate about something (well maybe)
We all have some beliefs (some more than others).
We all have personal interests.
We all have personal ethics (more or less).

In every sense of the shade of meaning inferred, when used, it could be freely substituted with another word and no sense of meaning is lost.

Passion, devotion, etc, are synonyms for the shade of meaning being conveyed.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:29:12)

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

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

No. I say it is so because that is how it is defined by those who study it and its implications in great detail. It is how it has been defined throughout history.

The only reason I brought up a dictionary source is that RB asked for a definition outside of Serge's source. I provided that.

topal63 wrote:

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 defined all things as being religious based upon human motivation and by including ethics standards.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

People often speak of religion as a way of life, which is exactly what it is. Whether any type of communal or otherwise organised religion is a part of that or not.

I am not denying the shade of meaning exists - now am I. I am saying they are not interchangable or equal.

We all have some beliefs, a worldview, some motivation, emotional reactions, ethical standards. This is a shade of meaning and I have no problem with it.

Semantically this is un-important. Unless you are attempting to say they are the same thing.

Going to the Mosque and be a faithful Muslim, and being religious (the actual practicing of the tenets of a religion).

Is not the same meaning.

As enjoying mountain-bike riding one day, doing that with gusto, then doing something different on another day with gusto; and each time you do anything you do it with some degree of passion and devotion (thus the shade of meaning: religiously).

We are all emotional.
We are all passionate about something (well maybe)
We all have some beliefs (some more than others).
We all have personal interests.
We all have personal ethics (more or less).

In every sense of the shade of meaning inferred, when used, it could be freely substituted with another word and no sense of meaning is lost.

Passion, devotion, etc, are synonyms for the shade of meaning being conveyed.

The whole point where your argument completely falls down is that mountain biking is not a belief. That is completely different tangent to the meaning.

That sense of meaning of religion is very different to the one I have been presenting. That sense is only pertinent to routine, not to belief. There is a very important difference.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-27 07:41:11)

Atheism is a belief concerning religious matters, but is not a religion in of itself.

Bertster7 wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Atheism is a belief concerning religious matters, but is not a religion in of itself.

Buddhism is a form of atheism, yet I don't hearing anyone complaining about that being called a religion.

No it isn't - it is the way of the Buddha (a way; not thee way). A path to enlightenment. Unknowable God in Buddhism does not necessarily equal atheism.

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No. I say it is so because that is how it is defined by those who study it and its implications in great detail. It is how it has been defined throughout history.

The only reason I brought up a dictionary source is that RB asked for a definition outside of Serge's source. I provided that.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

People often speak of religion as a way of life, which is exactly what it is. Whether any type of communal or otherwise organised religion is a part of that or not.

I am not denying the shade of meaning exists - now am I. I am saying they are not interchangable or equal.

We all have some beliefs, a worldview, some motivation, emotional reactions, ethical standards. This is a shade of meaning and I have no problem with it.

Semantically this is un-important. Unless you are attempting to say they are the same thing.

Going to the Mosque and be a faithful Muslim, and being religious (the actual practicing of the tenets of a religion).

Is not the same meaning.

As enjoying mountain-bike riding one day, doing that with gusto, then doing something different on another day with gusto; and each time you do anything you do it with some degree of passion and devotion (thus the shade of meaning: religiously).

We are all emotional.
We are all passionate about something (well maybe)
We all have some beliefs (some more than others).
We all have personal interests.
We all have personal ethics (more or less).

In every sense of the shade of meaning inferred, when used, it could be freely substituted with another word and no sense of meaning is lost.

Passion, devotion, etc, are synonyms for the shade of meaning being conveyed.

The whole point where your argument completely falls down is that mountain biking is not a belief. That is completely different tangent to the meaning.

That sense of meaning of religion is very different to the one I have been presenting. That sense is only pertinent to routine, not to belief. There is a very important difference.

No it isn't and that is why I brought it up, as a hook, to see if you would not see the difference. And you did not.

The mountain biker can be utterly passionate about it, build an entire lifestyle around it. Be into: magazines, like minded individuals he/she associates with, taking care of his/her body as if it were a temple, commune with nature, care for nature, be part of a sub-culture and a community of like minded individuals. What is routine about that?

And by the way the Biker can be a Christian or a Muslim or an Atheist or an Agnostic or a non-labeled individual of no faith whatsoever. So is the Christian mountain biker who is entirely passionate about mountain biking have two religions? It seems absurd to me to redefine activities one participates in as a religion.

Soccer is a religion. Trading baseball cards is a religion. Always choosing rocky-road ice-cream is a religion. Playing video games is a religion. Being a member of BF2S forums is like being a member of a religion (if your making a commitment to it to some degree).

Yet every knows this is a different shade of meaning. Me thinks it is a not that bright of an idea – to lump everything together and call it the same.

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Of course not believing in a god makes you religious. Not believing in a god is a belief, and in any and every sense a religious belief. Therefore you hold a religious belief, therefore you are religious.

Not it does not make you religious.

I don't disbelive on God, I don't believe in God. It exist or doesn't exist, regardless of what I might conclude (in-mind).

I accept the possibility of it whatever that my be.

But, atheists don't have PROOF that God does not exists, they simply lack facts and reasons to consider the belief as being rational in the first place. The do not have to deny what they cannot affirm (find fact or reason to support the idea or claim).

Yes it does. Atheists do by definition have to deny gods existence. You are confusing atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is also a religious belief, the belief that any gods existence is unknowable.

That is a label - it is not %100 accurate - no definition really is - it only infers a meaning, and that can change with use of the word. That is all that can be done. Atheism is a word that acquired meaning over time through use of the word. It is not written in stone that context cannot change the meaning of it; in fact word-use in-context does.

I am not confused in any sense. It is unfair of you to suggest otherwise. Also as I said in one sense I am atheist in another I am not – that does not make me the label: agnostic either.

Also I have explained that the word meanings are not fixed (they are dependant upon context: IMO):

topal63 wrote:

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. 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, 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 (2007-04-28 16:59:31)

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The whole point where your argument completely falls down is that mountain biking is not a belief. That is completely different tangent to the meaning.

That sense of meaning of religion is very different to the one I have been presenting. That sense is only pertinent to routine, not to belief. There is a very important difference.

No it isn't and that is why I brought it up, as a hook, to see if you not see the difference. And you did not.

The mountain biker can be utterly passionate about it, build an entire lifestyle around it. Be into: magazines, like minded individuals he/she associates with, taking car of his/her body as if it were a temple, commune with nature, care for nature, be part of a sub-culture and a community of like minded individuals. What is routine about that?

And by the way the Biker can be a Christian or a Muslim or an Atheist or an Agnostic or a non-labeled individual of no faith whatsoever. So is the Christian mountain biker who is entirely passionate about mountain biking have two religions? It seems absurd to me to redefine activities one participates in as a religion.

Soccer is a religion. Trading baseball cards is a religion. Always choosing rocky-road ice-cream is a religion. Playing video games is a religion. Being a member of BF2S forums is like being a member of a religion (if your making a commitment to it to some degree).

Yet every knows this is a different shade of meaning. Me thinks it is a not that bright of an idea – to lump everything together and call it the same.

No, there is a very important difference. The noun religion is different to the adverb religiously. Mountain biking is something you can do religiously, meaning rountinely and passionately. Religion is concerning beliefs.

The two are connected but not as closely as you seem to think.

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The whole point where your argument completely falls down is that mountain biking is not a belief. That is completely different tangent to the meaning.

That sense of meaning of religion is very different to the one I have been presenting. That sense is only pertinent to routine, not to belief. There is a very important difference.

No it isn't and that is why I brought it up, as a hook, to see if you not see the difference. And you did not.

The mountain biker can be utterly passionate about it, build an entire lifestyle around it. Be into: magazines, like minded individuals he/she associates with, taking car of his/her body as if it were a temple, commune with nature, care for nature, be part of a sub-culture and a community of like minded individuals. What is routine about that?

And by the way the Biker can be a Christian or a Muslim or an Atheist or an Agnostic or a non-labeled individual of no faith whatsoever. So is the Christian mountain biker who is entirely passionate about mountain biking have two religions? It seems absurd to me to redefine activities one participates in as a religion.

Soccer is a religion. Trading baseball cards is a religion. Always choosing rocky-road ice-cream is a religion. Playing video games is a religion. Being a member of BF2S forums is like being a member of a religion (if your making a commitment to it to some degree).

Yet every knows this is a different shade of meaning. Me thinks it is a not that bright of an idea – to lump everything together and call it the same.

No, there is a very important difference. The noun religion is different to the adverb religiously. Mountain biking is something you can do religiously, meaning rountinely and passionately. Religion is concerning beliefs.

So was/is mountain-biking in that example - there is nothing routine about the commitment. So it is with any potential activity. A social cause of committing oneself to the condition/plight of those in poverty can be an ethical pursuit of pure passion (it is just a shade of meaning to substitute passion, commitment for the word religious).

Exactly so therefore - we are not all religious (members of some religion).

Stingray24 wrote:

Why is it so offensive or a point of disagreement to have one’s value system or philosophy characterized as religion?

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.

Nothing offensive about it all... I am agruing that there is intellectual dishonesty at play here. Simple stupid word-play. But if you personally want to believe that I am a member of some universal unspoken religion where the source of being unites us all and you accept that the differences on the surface are only superficial, illusory, temporal, and include me in the ONE unspoken religion, and thus we are all members of that - I am fine with that - if it is tolerant, non-judmental, and all inclusive as a redefinition of universal religion (of being religious).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 08:50:28)

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yes it is.

There can be no denying that Buddhism is a atheistic religion. There are no gods in Buddhism, it is therefore atheistic.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220595.htm

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/athei … dhism.html

You have no idea what you are talking about it. Even the Gods (the Devas) were in reverence on the day Buddha received enlightenment under the bo tree.

Ascribing that there is no supreme-being responsible for creation (no creator god) is a different idea than there being no Gods. The point is that that Gods are subject to the same ground of being for their existence as we are.

P.S. Those website opinions are just that (opinions someones perspective; for whatever reason, motivation, I don't know, I don't care - to make the claim that Buddhism is something they can easily label). Also the idea of Devas is that those are heavenly beings - but subject to manifestation in existence as you are. There is no creator God but there are other heavenly beings transcending this reality.

So since they are opinions which differ to your own they are invalid? They are beliefs held by millions of people.

There is no mention of gods in the four truths or in the eightfold path. Perhaps calling Buddhism atheistic was a little strong, but it is at the very least nontheistic, as are most Eastern religions.

Non-theistic is a far better word. The notion of creator-god (as a dogma, a tenet) simply does not help on ones "way" or path to enlightenment. (And of course one has to take that on "faith.")

Oh, check this out from:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69107&p=1
"CREATIONIST:  Sounds a lot like faith to me."

I am making nearly the exact same argument here as I did in that thread.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 09:05:40)