Happy Atheist Forum

Religion => Religion => Topic started by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 02:41:50 PM

Title: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 02:41:50 PM
Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.

The common description used by atheists, that religion is the belief and worship of deities, is a misnomer from the dictionaries, because the definitions of "belief," and "worship," are not distinguishable enough to justify the conjunction of the terms to distinguish religion from theism. Belief is a form of worship, and so there is a redundant category error being deployed by the definition.

This becomes more apparent when theists argue that atheists have a religion. The theists realize that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god, and they realize that religion is not "belief and worship." They realize that the definition of religion is something else. The theists realize that atheists are adherents to a doctrine - science and reason. The problem is that atheists do not realize that their doctrine includes the definitions of words, because the definitions of words are the basic tools of reasoning - we have to agree to the definitions of the words we use in our arguments.

The problem is that there are incorrect definitions that atheists use, because the editing of the dictionaries have been without the strict rigorous review that scientific method would impose. And these incorrect definitions that atheists use to test arguments, that distinguish the arguments that theists use from the arguments that atheists use, form the dogma that stalls the atheists' agenda to advance reason in society.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Tank on January 25, 2019, 02:51:44 PM
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Icarus on January 26, 2019, 03:39:28 AM
 ^^ :query::wtf:...........please continue
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: hermes2015 on January 26, 2019, 03:50:12 AM
My daily visits to the loo also help maintain my dignity.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 26, 2019, 02:37:26 PM
My daily visits to the loo also help maintain my dignity.

Yes, it does. Washing your hands afterwards. Going to work in the morning - on time. Doing the best you can. Being kind to your neighbors. Loving your spouse and children. Indoctrinating your children with the correct information. Compromising your principles with your fool spouse. Not living in the fairy tale of a deity. Trying to make this a better world.

All that stuff is what religion is. It is not belief and worship of gods - that is theism. Belief is a form of worship - it is a redundant category error.

^^ :query::wtf:...........please continue
I'm pretty sure that the incorrect definition leads atheists to describe relative degrees of atheism - hard atheism, soft atheism, militant atheism. Very similar to describing people as, "not very religious," "very religious," and "not religious" it is a matter of counting how many of the rules that they comply with, and how they attempt to impose the rules on others.

It is not my fault that in previous generations, atheists, were probably unable to recognize the incorrect definitions and it really didn't make much difference back then. More, or less, atheists of the previous generations were compelled to just go along with whatever was less controversial. But now, as the society has relatively advanced in sophistication, some of these seemingly innocuous errors, do matter now; and it would be very beneficial to the ambition of atheists to correct these discrepancies before the Christians do it and claim their continued guardianship of atheists.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Bluenose on January 27, 2019, 11:25:06 AM
Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.

The common description used by atheists, that religion is the belief and worship of deities, is a misnomer from the dictionaries, because the definitions of "belief," and "worship," are not distinguishable enough to justify the conjunction of the terms to distinguish religion from theism. Belief is a form of worship, and so there is a redundant category error being deployed by the definition.

This becomes more apparent when theists argue that atheists have a religion. The theists realize that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god, and they realize that religion is not "belief and worship." They realize that the definition of religion is something else. The theists realize that atheists are adherents to a doctrine - science and reason. The problem is that atheists do not realize that their doctrine includes the definitions of words, because the definitions of words are the basic tools of reasoning - we have to agree to the definitions of the words we use in our arguments.

The problem is that there are incorrect definitions that atheists use, because the editing of the dictionaries have been without the strict rigorous review that scientific method would impose. And these incorrect definitions that atheists use to test arguments, that distinguish the arguments that theists use from the arguments that atheists use, form the dogma that stalls the atheists' agenda to advance reason in society.

This is just so much word salad. Not buying any of it.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Tank on January 27, 2019, 11:39:45 AM
Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.

The common description used by atheists, that religion is the belief and worship of deities, is a misnomer from the dictionaries, because the definitions of "belief," and "worship," are not distinguishable enough to justify the conjunction of the terms to distinguish religion from theism. Belief is a form of worship, and so there is a redundant category error being deployed by the definition.

This becomes more apparent when theists argue that atheists have a religion. The theists realize that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god, and they realize that religion is not "belief and worship." They realize that the definition of religion is something else. The theists realize that atheists are adherents to a doctrine - science and reason. The problem is that atheists do not realize that their doctrine includes the definitions of words, because the definitions of words are the basic tools of reasoning - we have to agree to the definitions of the words we use in our arguments.

The problem is that there are incorrect definitions that atheists use, because the editing of the dictionaries have been without the strict rigorous review that scientific method would impose. And these incorrect definitions that atheists use to test arguments, that distinguish the arguments that theists use from the arguments that atheists use, form the dogma that stalls the atheists' agenda to advance reason in society.

This is just so much word salad. Not buying any of it.

Yep. A perfect example of creating a straw man because one can't cope with the reality of a situation.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 03:08:44 PM
What's the reality of the situation that I cannot cope with???

What then is the correct definition of religion?

https://www.google.com/search?q=religion

WordNet has dropped the "worship," term. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h=
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Recusant on January 27, 2019, 08:44:30 PM
You don't like the definition you find in dictionaries so you make up your own, then justify this by disparaging dictionaries in general. It's not a problem to make up your own definitions, except to the extent it diminishes your ability to communicate clearly.

It is said that a productive discussion can only be had by agreeing to definitions of terms. It isn't conducive to a reasonable exchange of views to preemptively assert that your personal definition is the correct one, and that anybody who disagrees with you is incorrect. In fact you'll often end up discussing definitions rather than the ostensible topic, assuming there is one. In this case the topic is a particular personal definition, so maybe we'll be okay.  ;)

Dictionaries by long-standing practice tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, they attempt to delineate generally agreed and prevailing usages rather than dictate what is the proper usage according to the editors of the dictionary. So for instance incredulous is generally understood to mean "skeptical" or "expressive of disbelief." However in the latter part of the 20th century it was becoming common for people to use the term to mean "incredible" or "discreditable" because they were unaware that this was contrary to the prevailing usage. It so happens that a couple of centuries ago incredulous was used in this way as well as the current recognized usage. Merriam-Webster therefore has listed the revived usage, and appended a note saying that "it is widely regarded as an error resulting from confusion with incredible, and its occurrence in published writing is rare." Still, I've noted its use in published writing and expect that at some point it will be fully accepted.

It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors. They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.

All this is to say that I don't think it's out of line to disagree with a dictionary definition as long as one can make a very good case showing that the dictionary has failed to take account of a prevailing usage. On the other hand, the invention of a new definition to serve some agenda will tend to fail unless the inventor has a following that is willing to agree to the new definition and defend it. The lone advocate of an idiosyncratic definition, absent agreement by some portion of the population, is just engaging in a futile exercise in rhetoric.

How then would agreement be obtained? First, by showing that the current definition is inadequate in some vital way, failing to properly encompass a worthwhile concept. Second, by demonstrating the utility of the new definition. Third, by showing that the only way to improve the situation is to change the definition.

You believe that the current definition of religion used by atheists is "a misnomer." It isn't just atheists who use that definition though. I suppose if you get enough atheists to agree with you there will be at least some impetus to change the prevailing usage, but it's really the wider population that matters in regard to usage.

For instance, many atheists have been asserting for some time that atheism is "lack of belief in deities" rather than "disbelief in or denial of the existence deities." I've only encountered one dictionary that has partially accepted the definition supported by an apparent plurality of atheists: the Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist) says that an atheist is "someone who does not believe in any God or gods." However it still holds (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheism) that atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." The difference between a positive belief and the absence of belief doesn't trouble them, it seems. Atheists who insist that atheism is an absence of belief in deities will continue to be confronted with dictionary definitions that don't acknowledge their usage, probably for some considerable time into the future. Even if you convince atheists to agree with you, the prospects aren't great.

Your definition of religion dispenses with any reference to deities. OK as far as that goes, but the deities will not be so easily displaced; there will inevitably be confusion regarding the term should you succeed.

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

You attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people. That doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place. In the second place, agreeing with those religious people that atheism is a doctrine requires a redefinition of either the word doctrine or the word atheism. Atheism, as noted above, pertains to a position on the existence of a single class of entities, whatever recognized definition one chooses. On the other hand doctrine describes a body of instruction or teaching. While there may be atheistic doctrines, atheism itself doesn't qualify as a doctrine. Apparently you're proposing the redefinition of more than just religion, then.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 09:27:53 PM
It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors.They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.
I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.


You believe that the current definition of religion used by atheists is "a misnomer." It isn't just atheists who use that definition though. I suppose if you get enough atheists to agree with you there will be at least some impetus to change the prevailing usage, but it's really the wider population that matters in regard to usage.

Your definition of religion dispenses with any reference to deities. OK as far as that goes, but the deities will not be so easily displaced; there will inevitably be confusion regarding the term should you succeed.
We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.
Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...

In the second place, agreeing with those religious people that atheism is a doctrine requires a redefinition of either the word doctrine or the word atheism. Atheism, as noted above, pertains to a position on the existence of a single class of entities, whatever definition one chooses. On the other hand doctrine describes a body of instruction or teaching. While there may be atheistic doctrines, atheism itself doesn't qualify as a doctrine. Apparently you're proposing the redefinition of more than just religion, then.
Yes, you missed it in the other thread, or someplace. But that's really good that you recognized that I do have, at least, one other word that needs to be adjusted.

Your ability to present such arguments proves that BlueNose and Tank are somewhat in error in deciding that I merely composed a "word salad" that fails to argue anything.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Tank on January 27, 2019, 09:36:37 PM
Quote
I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.

I'll have mine with Blue Cheese sauce please.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 09:39:04 PM
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Recusant on January 27, 2019, 11:03:10 PM
It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors.They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.

I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology [. . .]

We're going to have to go through this bit by bit. When you say "code" what does it refer to? A well-defined system of thought? If not, then what?

What is the process of "delineat[ing] the order of technology"?

and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics [. . .]

Interesting that you're proposing enforcement of a prescriptive approach to language when I just pointed out that an existing attempt at just such an approach, fully supported by the government of the nation in question, is failing to achieve its aim. There's an inescapable reason for this: Language simply doesn't work that way. It's almost completely a bottom-up phenomenon--the population uses it and changes it as it suits them, not as some body of officious do-gooders tells them to.

which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.

The evolution of society doesn't have any expectations. Evolution cannot be correctly understood as a teleological process. Societal changes take place almost entirely in reaction to events and demographic movements. The desires and efforts of those who may think that they're in charge of directing the way that societies evolve are of relatively little importance.

We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!

That is their own construction, and it's usually nothing but a rhetorical cudgel. Those who actually believe it are the ones who are confused. In any case, some degree of confusion is a natural result of the way that humans think and communicate. Outside very strict academic venues this circumstance will continue to pertain.

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.

You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.

Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.
Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...

Can you cite an example?

Yes, you missed it in the other thread, or someplace. But that's really good that you recognized that I do have, at least, one other word that needs to be adjusted.

You can adjust all you like. I don't think you've actually addressed the difficulties such a project presents.

Your ability to present such arguments proves that BlueNose and Tank are somewhat in error in deciding that I merely composed a "word salad" that fails to argue anything.

It may be that at the moment I'm inclined to be a bit more patient than they are.  :lol:

So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?

When I take a shower in the morning it's part of maintaining a sense of dignity. Are you telling me that an atheist taking a shower is participating in religion?
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 27, 2019, 11:04:04 PM
Quote
I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.

I'll have mine with Blue Cheese sauce please.

:lol:

Make it two, please.

Seriously SidewalkCynic, what are you rambling on about?  :wtf: What on earth does "the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics" mean? Are you trying to create a linguistic meme that will propagate among atheists and theists alike? :lol:

If only OldGit could chime in. He's a linguist and would have some very interesting insight.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Sandra Craft on January 28, 2019, 12:41:34 AM
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?

I believe most people call that "self-care".
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: No one on January 28, 2019, 12:52:49 AM
(http://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/img/layout/icon_quote.jpg) Ambrose Bierce:
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Recusant on January 28, 2019, 01:42:12 AM
 :yes!: Hurrah for Mr. Bierce! May his dictionary long remain in print.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Tank on January 28, 2019, 07:27:11 AM
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?
Life without mythology.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 28, 2019, 12:27:20 PM
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?

Habit.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 28, 2019, 05:24:26 PM
We're going to have to go through this bit by bit. When you say "code" what does it refer to? A well-defined system of thought? If not, then what?
I am very confident that I have deliberated the valid collation for organizing technology. The primary application is a knowledge classification system, which is very similar to library classification systems. In the United States we have the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, the UK uses a system similar to the Dewey, and do not know if they have any other sysem. The collation is a list of semantic ques:

0) process
1) system
2) application
3) persons
4) organizations
5) abstractions
6) order

This collation formula generates a broad list of Knowledge Realms:

0) Reality
1) Nature
2) Technology
3) Life
4) Society
5) Culture
6) Time

What is the process of "delineat[ing] the order of technology"?
The collation formula is then interpolated to generate a category list for each of the realms, producing seven lists; and then the categories are interpolated with the collation to produce a longer list of more specific subjects. As the list becomes more detailed it becomes more difficult for me, the lone scientist, to deliberate the nuanced demarcation of the subjects - I have to study all of the possible subjects and calculate the interpolation relationships. I am trying to gain the interest of atheists to participate in the endeavor, before I present it to the general public, which is going to be predominately Christians.

https://www.secularlibrary.com

and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics [. . .]
Interesting that you're proposing enforcement of a prescriptive approach to language when I just pointed out that an existing attempt at just such an approach, fully supported by the government of the nation in question, is failing to achieve its aim.
Yeah, I am going to research that, and introduce my system to them.

There's an inescapable reason for this: Language simply doesn't work that way. It's almost completely a bottom-up phenomenon--the population uses it and changes it as it suits them, not as some body of officious do-gooders tells them to.
And the French group and I believe that that is very much in violation of science and reason - language needs to be unchanging and reliable. The problem is very apparent in the United States Constitution - the terms are ambiguous and interpreted differently, which is a violation of what a constitution is supposed to be.

which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.

The evolution of society doesn't have any expectations. Evolution cannot be correctly understood as a teleological process. Societal changes take place almost entirely in reaction to events and demographic movements. The desires and efforts of those who may think that they're in charge of directing the way that societies evolve are of relatively little importance.
Scientific discoveries and subsequent applications guide the evolution.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 28, 2019, 05:25:50 PM
We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!
That is their own construction, and it's usually nothing but a rhetorical cudgel. Those who actually believe it are the ones who are confused. In any case, some degree of confusion is a natural result of the way that humans think and communicate. Outside very strict academic venues this circumstance will continue to pertain.
Wow! Now, you are getting close to arguing to the favor of stabilizing the semantics. There is an atheist, Austin Cline, he publishes at Thought.com, now; and he claims that there are religions that do not have any gods - I think Buddhism is the usual example. So, there is a problem there - the guardians of an organized effort retain the ability to classify their efforts. It would seem that the Buddhists would probably be accepting of my definition for religion, as would the Christians, and I would imagine the Jews would not be offended, either.

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.

You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.
(I was a bit rushed for time)
There is a problem with your argument - it has a circular logic to it because you are describing theists as religious - you are not making a distinction. And there is a circular logic (category error) with the definition of religion, that I am arguing - so, this is going to take some time to unpack.

There is a problem with the definition of worship - the current definitions describe it as "strong belief," or "devotion" - look it up.

I believe the better description for worship is the (public/extrovert) exercises that promote the doctrine of organized exercises for maintaining dignity. Worship is only good for promoting the organization - there is no god to receive the kudos.

Describing oneself as believing in gods is worship.

Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.
Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...

Can you cite an example?
It does not happen often, but every once in a while, the atheists will cite some no-name preacher who issues a statement in support of the atheists argument concerning separation of Church and State.

When I take a shower in the morning it's part of maintaining a sense of dignity. Are you telling me that an atheist taking a shower is participating in religion?
Along with the other forms of etiquette, social contributions,  and indoctrination of abstract information.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 28, 2019, 06:45:33 PM
Speaking as a Christian, in the common usage "religion" relates to the belief in a God or Supreme Being of some sort.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods of any type, in its simplest form. I never think of atheism as being a religion.  It's essentially the lack of any form of religion. 

Christians who say that atheism is a religion probably don't spend a lot of time interacting with atheists.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 30, 2019, 03:50:30 PM
I put some time into this last night before I fell asleep.

Quote from: Recusant link=topic=16081.msg384590#msg384590
You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.
No.

Mediocre "religious" people are inclined to describe the activities as two distinct categories, because their church/organization is inclined to present a package of activites that they are going to describe as "worship services." The more keen theists recognize that belief is the essential part of the activities that "converts" the activities to worship.

You bought in to the church's description of "worship services," as being a distinctly different activity from belief, because it fit your needs for this debate. Chances are you have never had to debate an atheist over the definition of religion - I have never encountered an atheist who is willing to buck the dogma, like me. No atheist has ever joined in to support me, never before, and it will not happen here, either. Even if you are inclined to change your mind about the issue, you are not going to reveal that to the other members, because it elevates my credibility on other issues, and relatively lowers your leadership qualities; which is what is encountered at the atheist organizations - people at the top want to stay at the top, and are not inclined to reveal to the peasant members that there are problems in the established doctrine that has kept everybody happy for the longest time.

Atheists reinforce the dogma when they use the erroneous definition when debating theists who claim that atheists have a religion.
Quote
Atheists do not believe or worship gods - can't have a religion

The problem is you probably attended the services to appease your relationship with someone who expected you to participate, and that is worshiping the doctrine of the relationship; but your participation in the activities was not a form of worship of the gods; although, it was in tacit support of the church's membership campaign.


Quote from: Recusant link=topic=16081.msg384590#msg384590
You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.

Attending the services under contest is not worship. If a person describes them self as believing in a god, then that is worship (proselytism) - they are disseminating the information that there is a god. The purpose of overt worship (activities) is to promote the doctrine. The people singing in church are unwittingly promoting the church's activities to gather membership of people who want to sing and do the other activities that the church packages - they call it worship, because they attach a deity to their doctrine for organizing community.

It is amazing that you do not recognize the misplaced definition(s) that have formed the dogma that keeps atheists in the theists' "box," because you are very smart.
Title: Re: What is the Correct Definition of Religion?
Post by: Old Seer on April 10, 2019, 07:45:34 PM
Religion. A belief system based in a mentality. A psychological concept of fixed convictions.