Splain this one, god loonies

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Nowhere in the definition of religion in any contemporary dictionary is a "supernatural being" a required component of religion. It's merely ONE of several non-exclusive components that define the belief/practice system as being religious in nature.

You can have your eccentric, over-generalised definition of religion, but I'll stick to the version understood by virtually everybody else - a belief in a supernatural being or beings and (in most cases) a set of rules on how to worship it, and how to behave in such a way that pleases it.

Poor thing, you're so afraid of being labeled religious that you have to delude yourself and deny it like a child insisting the Easter Bunny exists. Two sides of the same coin.

[Seth]

Every one of them I've ever met, or for that matter corresponded with, including you, clearly has a very firmly held and vigorously defended belief that God does not exist

Every one? You have corresponded with me on the matter numerous times. Please link to an instance where I claimed, or even implied, that God does not exist. Come to think of it, please do likewise for all other atheist members of this forum.

Well, okay, not every one I've ever corresponded with, but every one I've ever met, that much is certain.

[JimC]

We call 'em merry-go-rounds in Oz...

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Nowhere in the definition of religion in any contemporary dictionary is a "supernatural being" a required component of religion. It's merely ONE of several non-exclusive components that define the belief/practice system as being religious in nature.

You can have your eccentric, over-generalised definition of religion, but I'll stick to the version understood by virtually everybody else - a belief in a supernatural being or beings and (in most cases) a set of rules on how to worship it, and how to behave in such a way that pleases it.

Poor thing, you're so afraid of being labeled religious that you have to delude yourself and deny it like a child insisting the Easter Bunny exists. Two sides of the same coin.

Less of your customary arrogance would be a good thing...

You have chosen one, over-generalised definition of religion.

I've chosen the version understood by the world at large, including the vast majority of religious people themselves. I'll stick to my choice

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Nowhere in the definition of religion in any contemporary dictionary is a "supernatural being" a required component of religion. It's merely ONE of several non-exclusive components that define the belief/practice system as being religious in nature.

You can have your eccentric, over-generalised definition of religion, but I'll stick to the version understood by virtually everybody else - a belief in a supernatural being or beings and (in most cases) a set of rules on how to worship it, and how to behave in such a way that pleases it.

Poor thing, you're so afraid of being labeled religious that you have to delude yourself and deny it like a child insisting the Easter Bunny exists. Two sides of the same coin.

Less of your customary arrogance would be a good thing...

You have chosen one, over-generalised definition of religion.

I've chosen the version understood by the world at large, including the vast majority of religious people themselves. I'll stick to my choice

If you were correct, the usage would not be in the dictionary. It gets into the dictionary as a result of common contemporary usage.

[JimC]

The major usage is what counts. Belief in a supernatural being is the core of religions, as shown by the fact that is what the vast majority of religious people themselves would say...

There is nothing wrong with identifying aspects of religion which are shared by other organised activities or institutions such as sport, or the NRA; it can be quite illuminating. Finding a number of such parallels does not make them identical categories...

[Svartalf]

Merkins worship their guns, FACT

[rainbow]

The major usage is what counts. Belief in a supernatural being is the core of religions, as shown by the fact that is what the vast majority of religious people themselves would say...

A common misconception, but clearly wrong.
Religions exist for a political purpose. The mythology that they use is merely for the purpose of motivating their followers to be obedient, go off to war, pay tithes, etc.

Even if God did not exist, religions would exist.

[Svartalf]

As a matter of fact, godless religions exist... just look at sports, college fraternities, and similar practices where people are made to conform to silly rituals, just because they need to affirm they are part of the tribe.

[rainbow]

As a matter of fact, godless religions exist... just look at sports, college fraternities, and similar practices where people are made to conform to silly rituals, just because they need to affirm they are part of the tribe.

Pétanque is a good example.

[Svartalf]

I don't know about pétanque, I was thinking more of team sports and other supporter heavy disciplines... but maybe pétanque has them too.

[Hermit]

The major usage is what counts. Belief in a supernatural being is the core of religions, as shown by the fact that is what the vast majority of religious people themselves would say...

Religions exist for a political purpose. The mythology that they use is merely for the purpose of motivating their followers to be obedient, go off to war, pay tithes, etc.

Religion has become a tool for social and political control, but I think it has started off as the first step of humans toward abstracting concepts from physical appearances and events. Trees share a sort of commonality, which is spiritual. Call it animism if you will. Later on a kind of proto-science evolved from that. What causes thunder? The god of thunder of course. As soon as such gods were evoked to explain things some bright sparks thought they knew more about gods than what they wrought; they thought they knew what their intentions were. Rituals developed to influence those gods' intentions: Be kind to us. And then other bright sparks realised that all this stuff could be utilised to their own advantage. It is only then that religion became a means of social and political control, and it reached its apogee with monotheistic theocracies.

[Animavore]

We call 'em merry-go-rounds in Oz...

So do we, but I wanted to be more universal.

[Rum]

I suspect it wasn't long before a priesthood or proto priesthood which proclaimed exclusive or special knowledge started up and demanded special authority deriving from their special relationship with the supernatural.

[Animavore]

As a matter of fact, godless religions exist... just look at sports, college fraternities, and similar practices where people are made to conform to silly rituals, just because they need to affirm they are part of the tribe.

Utter bollox. You're stretching the definition as to be meaningless. What's the Man U. doctrine? What are the moral precepts for followers of Liverpool. What's the metaphysical Truth to Aston Villa? What's the ground of all being for Chelsea? Do Sheffield Wednesday have a creation myth? Who dishes out cosmic justice to West Ham? Is there an afterlife for Arsenal?

Yes you can follow a team religiously, but to say following a team is a religion is asinine.