Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :

Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

No, the definition hasn't been made explicit although I have clarified in another thread what I believe wo/man's religion to be:

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other) where, through their experience of this entity they have conveyed to others within various cultures of their esoteric experiences. Now we have the result of that in the form of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc..

The entire point of the thread is...screw it...U all had your chance through time and reincarnations to find the guiding light.

You are all running out of time (for the guide)

Thus.

I am done with caring for NE1 about such matters. ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED.

There is no reason that religion need to be part of any requirement of humanity at this age of 2024.

The JOB is DONE.

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other)

If that is the case then God or Nature intervenes in and changes its own diktat . If you believe an interventionist God to be a fact you must believe in so called miracles .

I myself respect the wisdom of prophets and seers. But I also think their wisdom comes, not directly from God in the form of miracles, but through their own intelligence, wisdom, and reason.

Moreover all have not been warned: the low level of education on this forum is startling.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :



How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

No, the definition hasn't been made explicit although I have clarified in another thread what I believe wo/man's religion to be:

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other) where, through their experience of this entity they have conveyed to others within various cultures of their esoteric experiences. Now we have the result of that in the form of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc..

The entire point of the thread is...screw it...U all had your chance through time and reincarnations to find the guiding light.

You are all running out of time (for the guide)

Thus.

I am done with caring for NE1 about such matters. ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED.

There is no reason that religion need to be part of any requirement of humanity at this age of 2024.

The JOB is DONE.

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other)

If that is the case then God or Nature intervenes in and changes its own diktat . If you believe an interventionist God to be a fact you must believe in so called miracles .

Maybe I should put "miracles" into a context an atheist might under_stand.

I have seen an Aboriginal boy "morph" into an Anglo-Saxon appearing OLD man. (1997)

Miracle. Mirror Coil.

No - I do not believe an actual flesh and blood human morphed! DUH! - It was a projection - a light projection - just like what is capable with current VR tech.

Belinda wrote:I myself respect the wisdom of prophets and seers. But I also think their wisdom comes, not directly from God in the form of miracles, but through their own intelligence, wisdom, and reason.

Oh..really.

Profits and see ers u say.

If only U knew Belinda wot I know about a sage. (indeed REAL IT Y)

Belinda wrote:Moreover all have not been warned: the low level of education on this forum is startling.

Your arrogance is astounding.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :

Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

This is a good illustration of the limitations of common, non-technical dictionaries, no matter how august their reputations, B. This definition would fit practically anything anybody could believe. Notice that "they" only have to "regard" it as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence." So the Cult of the Sacred Mushroom is not a nutty sub-cult with a hallucinatory story, or a case of lunacy and drug abuse, but a "religion"? Not only that, but if I, (presuming I qualify as a "they") choose to regard my cat as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence," then apparently, that would also make it a case of "religion."

So a great deal more work needs to be done on the definition, if it's to be of any use; because a very loose definition that includes far too much is just as bad as a narrow definition that excludes real cases. Both make it impossible to properly locate the subject of discusssion.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:08 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:02 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:53 pm

No, the definition hasn't been made explicit although I have clarified in another thread what I believe wo/man's religion to be:

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other) where, through their experience of this entity they have conveyed to others within various cultures of their esoteric experiences. Now we have the result of that in the form of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism etc..

The entire point of the thread is...screw it...U all had your chance through time and reincarnations to find the guiding light.

You are all running out of time (for the guide)

Thus.

I am done with caring for NE1 about such matters. ALL HAVE BEEN WARNED.

There is no reason that religion need to be part of any requirement of humanity at this age of 2024.

The JOB is DONE.

World religions have been formed from divine interaction with certain people through time (often referred to as 'prophets' or other)

If that is the case then God or Nature intervenes in and changes its own diktat . If you believe an interventionist God to be a fact you must believe in so called miracles .

Maybe I should put "miracles" into a context an atheist might under_stand.

I have seen an Aboriginal boy "morph" into an Anglo-Saxon appearing OLD man. (1997)

Miracle. Mirror Coil.

No - I do not believe an actual flesh and blood human morphed! DUH! - It was a projection - a light projection - just like what is capable with current VR tech.

Belinda wrote:I myself respect the wisdom of prophets and seers. But I also think their wisdom comes, not directly from God in the form of miracles, but through their own intelligence, wisdom, and reason.

Oh..really.

Profits and see ers u say.

If only U knew Belinda wot I know about a sage. (indeed REAL IT Y)

Belinda wrote:Moreover all have not been warned: the low level of education on this forum is startling.

Your arrogance is astounding.

It's your own responsibility to assess who is or who is not trustworthy, unless you are in a position of responsibilty to excercise a duty of care for instance towards all children, your patients, your students, your customers, and so forth. " What you know about a sage" may be a good reason to, not call them a sage , but to call them a charlatan and possibly a dangerous charlatan who may be of interest to the police.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 4:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :

Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death.

How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

This is a good illustration of the limitations of common, non-technical dictionaries, no matter how august their reputations, B. This definition would fit practically anything anybody could believe. Notice that "they" only have to "regard" it as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence." So the Cult of the Sacred Mushroom is not a nutty sub-cult with a hallucinatory story, or a case of lunacy and drug abuse, but a "religion"? Not only that, but if I, (presuming I qualify as a "they") choose to regard my cat as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence," then apparently, that would also make it a case of "religion."

So a great deal more work needs to be done on the definition, if it's to be of any use; because a very loose definition that includes far too much is just as bad as a narrow definition that excludes real cases. Both make it impossible to properly locate the subject of discussion.

I agree that the Britannica definition as I copied it does not evaluate religion. However the title of this conversation implies that we henceforth set out to evaluate religion.

You yourself have long since evaluated religions and chosen which one is the best. I don't agree that Biblical literalism is best but I respect your knowledge of Scripture despite I don't always like your interpretation of Scripture.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:28 pm It's your own responsibility to assess who is or who is not trustworthy,

..wot?

I have no idea Y you stated that to me within this conversation.

Belinda wrote: " What you know about a sage" may be a good reason to, not call them a sage , but to call them a charlatan and possibly a dangerous charlatan who may be of interest to the police.

Listen. When an entity removes all the pain from a broken arm and I quiz this entity as to whether it is GOD and it replies from the aether "I am a sage"..

Ya kind of believe the runt.

atheists R really a waste of my time.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:48 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:28 pm It's your own responsibility to assess who is or who is not trustworthy,

..wot?

I have no idea Y you stated that to me within this conversation.

Belinda wrote: " What you know about a sage" may be a good reason to, not call them a sage , but to call them a charlatan and possibly a dangerous charlatan who may be of interest to the police.

Listen. When an entity removes all the pain from a broken arm and I quiz this entity as to whether it is GOD and it replies from the aether "I am a sage"..

Ya kind of believe the runt.

Indeed charlatans are credible that is how they earn their money or power.
There are a lot of bad people who try to get stuff from us.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 4:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.
Encyclopedia Britannica :



How would you propose to "get rid of" the above in your own personal life

This is a good illustration of the limitations of common, non-technical dictionaries, no matter how august their reputations, B. This definition would fit practically anything anybody could believe. Notice that "they" only have to "regard" it as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence." So the Cult of the Sacred Mushroom is not a nutty sub-cult with a hallucinatory story, or a case of lunacy and drug abuse, but a "religion"? Not only that, but if I, (presuming I qualify as a "they") choose to regard my cat as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence," then apparently, that would also make it a case of "religion."

So a great deal more work needs to be done on the definition, if it's to be of any use; because a very loose definition that includes far too much is just as bad as a narrow definition that excludes real cases. Both make it impossible to properly locate the subject of discussion.

I agree that the Britannica definition as I copied it does not evaluate religion.

It's more basic than that, B. It doesn't even effectively define "religion" at all. It just mushes the definition into essentially, "whatever you revere, that's a religion." That's pretty thin stuff, so far as defining goes.

I don't agree that Biblical literalism is best but I respect your knowledge of Scripture despite I don't always like your interpretation of Scripture.

I never expect that people with whom I discuss things have a responsibility to agree with me. They can disagree freely. I'm interested, however, in their reasons for doing so, provided that they, like you, are able to remain polite and relevant to the topic. So that's a credit to you, if I may say...you're always civil.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:00 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 4:27 pm
This is a good illustration of the limitations of common, non-technical dictionaries, no matter how august their reputations, B. This definition would fit practically anything anybody could believe. Notice that "they" only have to "regard" it as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence." So the Cult of the Sacred Mushroom is not a nutty sub-cult with a hallucinatory story, or a case of lunacy and drug abuse, but a "religion"? Not only that, but if I, (presuming I qualify as a "they") choose to regard my cat as "holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence," then apparently, that would also make it a case of "religion."

So a great deal more work needs to be done on the definition, if it's to be of any use; because a very loose definition that includes far too much is just as bad as a narrow definition that excludes real cases. Both make it impossible to properly locate the subject of discussion.

I agree that the Britannica definition as I copied it does not evaluate religion.

It's more basic than that, B. It doesn't even effectively define "religion" at all. It just mushes the definition into essentially, "whatever you revere, that's a religion." That's pretty thin stuff, so far as defining goes.

I don't agree that Biblical literalism is best but I respect your knowledge of Scripture despite I don't always like your interpretation of Scripture.

I never expect that people with whom I discuss things have a responsibility to agree with me. They can disagree freely. I'm interested, however, in their reasons for doing so, provided that they, like you, are able to remain polite and relevant to the topic. So that's a credit to you, if I may say...you're always civil.

Yes, I'd certainly add to the Britannica definition that religion also means etymologically a binding together. I think 'religion' always includes rituals that bind people together in spirit. I understand that Christian or paraChristian ministers of religion meet the problem of serving a congregation of disparate people who have different worship needs.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:15 pm I think 'religion' always includes rituals that bind people together in spirit.

Again, if that's all it is, then frat parties are "religions."

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 am So far nobody in this conversation has defined 'religion'.

I like Harari's: "Religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order."

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 5:49 pm atheists R really a waste of my time.

Why don’t you get rid of them then?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 7:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:15 pm I think 'religion' always includes rituals that bind people together in spirit.

Again, if that's all it is, then frat parties are "religions."

That is not it! Part of the definition of religion is people getting together to worship what is often ineffable but which is enriched by moral code and foundation myth. Some performative religions stress communal prayers and processions with priests and symbols: more cerebral religions stress the presence of God when honest seekers get together in mutual charity to seek God.

"Frat parties" may be horrendous, for all I know about them, but then to a lot of people here so do religions sound disagreeable.
The problem is not that you and I are disagreeing but that so many people are illogically biased against religion .

We all can agree that when people get together to worship anything at all they may be worshipping Trump, or love of money ,or jingoist patriotism. It's necessary that people have the mental tools to select among get -togethers those that are good get -togethers. As you know, it is by their fruit that you will know them.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 11:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 7:41 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:15 pm I think 'religion' always includes rituals that bind people together in spirit.

Again, if that's all it is, then frat parties are "religions."

That is not it! Part of the definition of religion

EVERYTHING is "part of" the definition of religion, if you leave it that loose.

"All religious people have noses." That's not a useful observation, though.

What you need is a definition that does not include everything. You need one that provides enough exclusions to be informative -- meaning, that one can use it to locate genuinely "religious" people, and not accidentally catch into the net things that are not "religious."

So "has rituals that bind," just won't work. And "mentions God" won't work. And even "calls themselves religious" doesn't work, because some people you might regard as religious don't, and some who are rather irreligious do.

The problem, B., is that you've stumbled on one of the truly difficult definitional problems: what is a "religion." And great experts like Eliade, James or Jung couldn't get it right, and ended up disagreeing with each other on the precise nature of the definition...so what are the chances you can pull off a more precise definition?