Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.
No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’
How can I concede someone else's argument? What ding says or believes is on him.
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
Or any "god" at all, for that matter.How do you know there's only one god?I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s trueIf no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?
So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?
So maybe you are trying to say something else.
In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.
Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.
How can I concede someone else's argument? What ding says or believes is on him.
Fair enough, I took the way you jumped into the conversation to imply that you were agreeing with him.
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
If you're using a similarly broad definition of religion as the one I've explained, then we are in furious agreement, as the saying goes. For example, would you accept Confucianism in China as a "primary religious foundation?"
As to definitions, religion is defined by Merriam-Webster as " the service and worship of God or the supernatural", "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
Confucianism would qualify, I should think. I suppose it's also the primary religious foundation in at least some areas, although I don't know a great deal about Asian history or culture. My mother-in-law was Chinese, from Taiwan, and her culture's primary religious foundation was apparently Buddhist. She later converted to Catholicism after marrying my father-in-law, but her philosophical worldview was still very Buddhist.
As to definitions, religion is defined by Merriam-Webster as " the service and worship of God or the supernatural", "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
In this conversation I think definitions from anthropology of religion would be more appropriate, or sociology of religion. The reason I think so is that the English dictionary definitions are a little ethnocentric, as you might expect ("worship of God..." and "faith") or else a little tautological ("system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", but what is religious?). The former is a problem since we're trying to understand the role of religion as a cultural universal, and neither the first nor third definitions fit confucianism very well at all, while the second definition fits fine but is vacuous.
Ironically though, the second is probably closest to an anthropological definition, except an anthropologist like Geertz will try to flesh out more what is meant by religious (e.g. the development of and relationship between ethos and worldview), while keeping the elements of attitude, belief, practice, and especially the idea of institutionalized systems. Anyway, the point that I'm trying to work my way towards is this: if you allow a definition of religion broad enough to encompass both Confucianism and Catholicism, then this statement also becomes something of a tautology:
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
(or, to generalize: "the moral structure of a culture derives from it's religious foundations")
It becomes tautological because we end up defining religion as that aspect of culture which is concerned with morality and how moral structure is derived from a worldview. So whatever serves that role within a culture we will end up referring to as religious, although the religion of one culture will vary tremendously from that of another. I think this is relevant to both the religious and the anti-religious participants in this thread. It is both why the anti-religious should be skeptical about the idea of eliminating religion, but also why the defense of specific western religious institutions that ding wants to make fails, IMO.
Confucianism would qualify, I should think. I suppose it's also the primary religious foundation in at least some areas, although I don't know a great deal about Asian history or culture. My mother-in-law was Chinese, from Taiwan, and her culture's primary religious foundation was apparently Buddhist. She later converted to Catholicism after marrying my father-in-law, but her philosophical worldview was still very Buddhist.
I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that the three primary religio-philosophical systems in Chinese history are Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Confucianism is the oldest, and I think traditionally probably the most important. But it's also the least "religious" (by western standards) of the three. For my purposes, it serves as an example of an ideology that fills that "moral structure" role in a culture without being theistic or concerned with worship and faith.
No, it is correct.There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.
No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’
Ah.... no. That would be incorrect. I have had 2 specific individuals that openly advocated to ban religion.
Given the existence of 2 people that supported such a move, I would be willing to guess there are more than that. How many more, I don't know.
You don't "know" anyone on an anonymous message board.
Research the founders beliefs on natural law and get back to me.Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.
Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.
Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon
I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.
I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.
No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.
And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.
"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."
There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.
Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.
Keep trying!
yawn.
Don't need to.
I've been following the antics of conservative fascists christians since roger ailles put limbaugh on radio stations all over the country back in the late 1980's.
We appear to be talking about people imposing their beliefs on everyone. SOME people DO want to impose their religion on EVERYONE and it is not my fault that you are either unaware of it (no doubt you watch too much conservative misleading/lying news stations) or you're too obtuse to see it.
Did I mention roy moore? conservative, christian, republican, just lost out on a senate run?
He said he would legislates from his bible and he would criminalize gays,
THAT is IMPOSING your bible.
Would YOU vote for moore?
I skipped over Buddhism a little bit because I know Mahayana treats Buddha as divine in some sense, albeit one that's fairly different from a Christian God. I agree that many/most schools of Buddhism are non-theistic, and some also do not contain anything like a supernatural realm. Confucianism likewise does not really involve supernatural elements.
Breeze has a hard time understanding that Christianity and God are not automatically responsible for the evil that humans choose to do, simply because the humans attempt to hide behind them.
your religious platting is showing through ...
and yes the distortion of the 1st century by christianity is responsible for the evil it has attracted and bread through the centuries to this day.
If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.
No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’
If liberals are as bad as every conservative says they are (liars, commies, perverts, nazis, fascists, scum, traitors, terrorists lovers) the logical conclusion would be to eliminate them. Right? Am I missing something?
Nah on the "divine". Buddha - all of the Buddhas, really, but particularly Siddhartha Gautama, the most recent Buddha - was a person, albeit one who was enlightened far beyond what normal people achieve.
To a certain extent, anything that ends up filling the role that has traditionally been filled by religion throughout human history DOES, to a certain extent, become a religion. That's one of the reasons why the dictionary definitions are fairly general: to cover those occasions when people use the term "religion" to apply to things that aren't necessarily an orthodox religion as we understand it.
.As to definitions, religion is defined by Merriam-Webster as " the service and worship of God or the supernatural", "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", and "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
In this conversation I think definitions from anthropology of religion would be more appropriate, or sociology of religion. The reason I think so is that the English dictionary definitions are a little ethnocentric, as you might expect ("worship of God..." and "faith") or else a little tautological ("system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices", but what is religious?). The former is a problem since we're trying to understand the role of religion as a cultural universal, and neither the first nor third definitions fit confucianism very well at all, while the second definition fits fine but is vacuous.
Ironically though, the second is probably closest to an anthropological definition, except an anthropologist like Geertz will try to flesh out more what is meant by religious (e.g. the development of and relationship between ethos and worldview), while keeping the elements of attitude, belief, practice, and especially the idea of institutionalized systems. Anyway, the point that I'm trying to work my way towards is this: if you allow a definition of religion broad enough to encompass both Confucianism and Catholicism, then this statement also becomes something of a tautology:
My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.
(or, to generalize: "the moral structure of a culture derives from it's religious foundations")
It becomes tautological because we end up defining religion as that aspect of culture which is concerned with morality and how moral structure is derived from a worldview. So whatever serves that role within a culture we will end up referring to as religious, although the religion of one culture will vary tremendously from that of another. I think this is relevant to both the religious and the anti-religious participants in this thread. It is both why the anti-religious should be skeptical about the idea of eliminating religion, but also why the defense of specific western religious institutions that ding wants to make fails, IMO.
Confucianism would qualify, I should think. I suppose it's also the primary religious foundation in at least some areas, although I don't know a great deal about Asian history or culture. My mother-in-law was Chinese, from Taiwan, and her culture's primary religious foundation was apparently Buddhist. She later converted to Catholicism after marrying my father-in-law, but her philosophical worldview was still very Buddhist.
I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that the three primary religio-philosophical systems in Chinese history are Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Confucianism is the oldest, and I think traditionally probably the most important. But it's also the least "religious" (by western standards) of the three. For my purposes, it serves as an example of an ideology that fills that "moral structure" role in a culture without being theistic or concerned with worship and faith.
So whatever serves that role within a culture we will end up referring to as religious, although the religion of one culture will vary tremendously from that of another.
Nah on the "divine". Buddha - all of the Buddhas, really, but particularly Siddhartha Gautama, the most recent Buddha - was a person, albeit one who was enlightened far beyond what normal people achieve.
Sure, but this is like saying that Jesus was human. In orthodox Christian traditions he was indeed human, but also divine. Also just like in Christianity, there are different viewpoints in Buddhism on this topic, but there are plenty of Buddhist texts which treat Buddha as something greater than human, and Buddha-hood as something like a state of divinity. Anyway this is a tangent and we don't have to sort it out really, my main point was just that I chose to focus on Confucianism instead of Buddhism because it's lack of supernatural elements or deities was more clear cut than in Buddhism. But to the extent that there are strictly non-theistic and naturalistic forms of Buddhism they are as useful of examples to my argument as Confucianism.
It seems like you chose to focus in on my mention of theism in order to rebut it by saying that all religions share some form of supernaturalism? I could be wrong about your intent, but in any case that is not true of Confucianism. Otherwise it's not clear to me where in your longer post you were really disagreeing with me. This passage for example is just a restatement of my post:
To a certain extent, anything that ends up filling the role that has traditionally been filled by religion throughout human history DOES, to a certain extent, become a religion. That's one of the reasons why the dictionary definitions are fairly general: to cover those occasions when people use the term "religion" to apply to things that aren't necessarily an orthodox religion as we understand it.
So I certainly agree with it.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but I think when you refer to religion as a "metaphysical ingredient" you are referring to a belief that religious values are revealed from some metaphysical source? If so, that's wrong under the paradigm of "religion" I've suggested. Religion as I've defined it doesn't have to be concerned with metaphysics or the supernatural at all. And in any case my view is that religions as cultural systems are thoroughly human creations, not divine revelations.
I'd say our area of disagreement remains largely in the realm of whether or not you accept that cultural morality always stems from religious roots.
I'd say our area of disagreement remains largely in the realm of whether or not you accept that cultural morality always stems from religious roots.
I mostly agree with this statement, although I think there are a couple of areas where we might interpret it differently. The first, the scope of the definition of religion, we've already discussed. The second is the logical implications of the word "always" (Ding on the other hand said "only").
Minimally, if "always" refers only to the historical record then I think that statement is true almost regardless of the definition used and I wouldn't quibble too much about some of the nuances in Buddhism or Confucianism or whatever else.
On the other hand, if it's supposed to imply some logical necessity which constrains what features "religions" might have in future cultures, then I think it's much weaker, depending on the definition of religion used. If it's taken to necessarily imply supernaturalism then I think that's wrong as a matter of necessity, although I expect a majority of humans to hold supernatural views into the foreseeable future, maybe even for as long as there are humans. But while it is true for example that many important values in European society developed within a Christian context, it's also true that the enlightenment values which shaped modern European societies are secular in ways which differ dramatically from the Byzantine empire or medieval Europe, and the trend in most of Europe is towards a far less "religious" kind of cultural Christianity, especially in places like Sweden.
Basically your statement here comes closest to my view: "To a certain extent, anything that ends up filling the role that has traditionally been filled by religion throughout human history DOES, to a certain extent, become a religion."
But I think we may seen an expansion of institutions filling that role in the future which are very different from the major religions which have been dominant over the last couple thousand years.
