Patriotism = Parochialism

[hobbes]

If religion is merely a set of values that one holds true based on an acceptance of views that one finds palatable then this encompasses too much. For example I support a particular sports team mainly because my Dad did and I was named after a couple of the players. I drive a specific vehicle because people have told me that they're safe and reliable. I have no idea if this is correct as I've little idea, or interest, in automobiles - I just accept it as I trust the people that have informed me.

A mad female American scientist truly believes that the pyramids were built using kites, the people around her also believe that this is so even tho' there is no evidence of this. I assist people with their finances - they blindly follow my advice and accept my word with no question (mostly ) but I'm not their God.

Your interest in a sports team is based on a relationship to that team by virtue of a common name. That is not faith and support of a soccer team is not associated with a philosophy.

The car you drive is based on the recommendation of people you have confidence in. That is not faith, that is confidence. Faith would be placing the names of all available cars in a hat and randomly drawing one, knowing that God will guide your hand to chose the best one.

It is critical to understand that faith is fully vested belief without any form of external validation.

People that come to you for financial assistance follow your word as you have the training to best guide them. They don't question your judgement in the same way that patients don't tell a surgeon how to operate. That is what you have a diploma for. Now if you were to tell me you just sit on the street playing guitar for change and people just walk up to you and tell you to invest their money, that would be a different story.



This is not religion. Just as Atheism isn't religion.

I can agree that the definition of the word can be thought of as encompassing these things but, really, religion is something that requires more than just a belief and an adherence to a set of values in which they have faith. That definition is much too broad.



Religious operations either get recognised by the country in which they function, or they do not. A lot of thought and deliberation goes into the process so for someone to assert that definition of a religious ethos is such a basic proceedure is patently guilty of oversimplification.

In my opinion religion has to involve the belief in the supernatural, at the very least. This precludes Atheism.


The definition of "religion" provided before is not mine, but that of Merriam Webster. If you don't wish to consider Athiesm a religion, it does not matter a whit. I will gladly rephrase my wording, as I did in my prior post, to "faith based" sets of values or beliefs. I still think Athiesm does fit under "religion" because it addresses the supernatural, but if you don't think it is a religion, that is your choice and quite fine with me.

dfdfhga

[manker]

Ah yeah, I remember the discusssion before on here regarding how faith is different to confidence. I don't necessarily subscribe to it tho'. For instance:

Christian folk may well believe in God because of the historical value of the bible - if the writers can accurately depict the pertinence of the Book of Dreams then they have confidence in the writers in accurately depicting Jesus' life. Thus Christianity isn't necessarily based on total blind faith.

This backs up my point that a religion doesn't fit the Mirriam Webster definition. It should also include a belief in the supernatural, at the very least.

Edit: The definition to which you refer does apply to following a doctrine religiously but cannot apply to conventional religion.

[hobbes]

Ah yeah, I remember the discusssion before on here regarding how faith is different to confidence. I don't necessarily subscribe to it tho'. For instance:

Christian folk may well believe in God because of the historical value of the bible - if the writers can accurately depict the pertinence of the Book of Dreams then they have confidence in the writers in accurately depicting Jesus' life. Thus Christianity isn't necessarily based on total blind faith.

This backs up my point that a religion doesn't fit the Mirriam Webster definition. It should also include a belief in the supernatural, at the very least.

Edit: The definition to which you refer does apply to following a doctrine religiously but cannot apply to conventional religion.

Faith is defined as belief without proof, the "total" and "blind" is implicit in the definition. I personally think that Jesus preached a philosophy which he felt came from God. Based on the Bible, I have some confidence that Jesus actually walked the Earth. However, documentation that Jesus existed to me is completely separate from the belief that he was immaculately conceived and was preaching the actual words of God. That is the leap of faith.

The world, the universe, our bodies are amazingly complex and it is fully understandable to me that people think someone created this and we are not an act of random chance. Given that the Earth has thousands of religions, all with differing views makes me confident that no one religion is correct and the others wrong. Particularly when each religion has followers of equal faith. Religions are man-made constructs to appease our fear of death.

Whether one decides that athiesm is a religion or not is immaterial to the point I was making.

All conventional religions and all those that live their life guided a by "faith" live in a rigid world that is not amenable to compromise, and that is a bad thing. You may not wish to view examples I have given as a "religions" because you have your opinion as to what the definition should be. I personally don't care to bother making a distinction between "equivalents" as it is the immutablilty of thought which I find troublesome, not the label one afixes to something.

[hobbes]

No, I am absolutely convinced that Zarquon does not exist, other than in the novels of DNA. So I am not a Zarquon Agnostic. As such, given your position then my absolute belief that he does not exist is a religion, in the same way. That's just pish.

I just find it so ironic that you can fully accept the Christian God and fully reject Zarquon and yet both are equally proven.

You are just acting as you were trained by your parents. I guarentee that you would be saying the same about your Christian had you grown up in a Zarquon state.

There is absolutely no objective criteria for your faith in your Christian God over Zarquon.

As I stated in the post above, if you don't wish to believe that Athiesm is a religion, that really has no bearing on the point I was making. It is like pecking at the crust, but ignoring the meat of the pie.

Athiests and Catholics suffer from the same rigidity of thought, thus they are equivalents to me. You can quibble labels if you wish.

[manker]

Faith is defined as belief without proof, the "total" and "blind" is implicit in the definition. I personally think that Jesus preached a philosophy which he felt came from God. Based on the Bible, I have some confidence that Jesus actually walked the Earth. However, documentation that Jesus existed to me is completely separate from the belief that he was immaculately conceived and was preaching the actual words of God. That is the leap of faith.

If faith is the belief without proof then I refer you to the people who ask me for advice, sure they know I have qualifications but they have no proof that I will be able to advise them properly on their problem. They go home with their minds put at rest because they are sure I'm going to deal with their affairs properly.

Their personal circumstances regarding their company at that particular time are unique and are not the same as any you'll find in a text book - they have faith in me and believe that I will. Yet I am not their God. This is the same with any service industry.

This is the same as Christians believing in the accuracy of the immaculate conception story because the same writers told them accurately of the Book of Dreams. They have seen some of the bible to be proven irrefutably, therefore there is a reason for confidence in the authors - if they saw and accurately recorded the exchanges between Joseph and the Pharaoh - why, the resurrection could also have been observed and recorded thusly.

The bible was accurate in that part, I have faith it will be accurate in this other part.
manker did work okay for me last year, I have faith he will do it okay again this year.

Where is the distinction?

The distinction is that I'm not supernatural and God is.

Hence religion must contain a belief in the supernatural.

The world, the universe, our bodies are amazingly complex and it is fully understandable to me that people think someone created this and we are not an act of random chance. Given that the Earth has thousands of religions, all with differing views makes me confident that no one religion is correct and the others wrong. Particularly when each religion has followers of equal faith. Religions are man-made constructs to appease our fear of death.

I quite agree. I am pointing out that faith is interchangable with having confidence in someone or something.

Whether one decides that athiesm is a religion or not is immaterial to the point I was making.

That is, though, what I took issue with.

All conventional religions and all those that live their life guided a by "faith" live in a rigid world that is not amenable to compromise, and that is a bad thing. You may not wish to view examples I have given as a "religions" because you have your opinion as to what the definition should be. I personally don't care to bother making a distinction between "equivalents" as it is the immutablilty of thought which I find troublesome, not the label one afixes to something.

That's just it, conventional religion has a totally different meaning to the definition you quoted earlier. That is my point.

I duno why I did that split up and in purple, hrm.

[hobbes]

At least you have admitted that your "point" was pish, at least in your own way.

Oh and thanks for saying that all of my belief system is based on what my parents taught me, rather than me having thought a bit about it myself and came to my own conclusions. Remarkably condescending, even for your good self.

What of people who were born into atheistic households, but later decide in adult life that they believe in God, or even join a religion. Were they taught by their parents too.

Your arguments move between the specious and the sublime. However they are invariably well written and it's to your credit.

My point was, i think valid. People who are faith driven are inflexible because they believe in things which are simply made up and cannot be negociated. When people of different faiths have conflict there can be no search for middle ground, things are black and white. I find this type of thinking troublesome.

You merely wanted to quibble about the definition of words, which is a rather trivial issue. I think Atheism is a religion, as it address the God issue. Whether you think it is or not is immaterial to my point.

As for people who convert religions or who are born again. I really don't like to let the exceptions to define the rule.

[hobbes]

Manker,

Probably most religious scripture are based in some sort of reality, and will contain some historical content that is real. The breech is whether one thinks that this is the work of God or man.

How does one objectively favor the stories in the Bible over all other religious texts?

Take Noah's Ark. If you examine that story it would not work. All the fish in the sea would die from dilution of the salinity,what did the animals on the ship eat for 2 years(?) and how did Noah live to be 500 years old? My Islamic co-worker tells me that according to the Bible,Adam and Eve were about 96 feet tall. If you understand mechanical engineering, you know that the very shape of the human body precludes this. The tallest man on record was Robert Wadlow at 8'11" and he basically could not support his giant body, dying at the age of 22.

Now, you may say that Noah's Ark is an allegory, but then that means you are allowed to look at the Bible and pick and chose what you think God meant by the inclusion of this story in the Bible.

I don't want to argue Bible stories because that has no point.

I just wonder how come it gets the credit for being the word of God and all the others are somehow wrong.

[vidcc]

on the BIO channel right now is a documentary called "face to face". It is about the conjoined Shappell sisters Lori and Reba. They are joined at the head.

The reason I am writing about this is because one of them said something that hits the nail on the head when asked if they get along.

"We have no choice, we either compromise or hit a stalemate and move onto something else. I don't think people around the world realise that the reason they don't get along is because they choose it to be that way. If you take away that choice then perhaps there would be a better world"

She wasn't making a political statement, just a comment on the reality of her life situation.

Religious, political beliefs or differing cultures are not reasons for the way we interact with each other........ but they certainly may be excuses

[Busyman]

Without religion the world would be shittier than it already is.

Regardless of what atheists believe about the strength within, those that are religious have that extra layer of conscience that an atheist does not.

That's logic for something illogical.

The time I got snuck on the basketball court what stopped me from waiting outside of one the fella's house at night and blowing his brains out?

It's easy for one, especially an atheist, to say, "I wouldn't because it's wrong."

When in an emotional state like I was what the fuck do I care?

There are many things you do wrong on any given day. Belief in God, in most cases, means you REALLY believe he is watching what you do and the bottomline is IT KEEPS MORE THINGS IN CHECK THAN WOULD BE KEPT IN CHECK SANS THE BELIEF.

People rightly so will complain about 9/11, Israel and Pakistan fighting, etc because it involves religious differences.

REALLY imagine an atheistic world.

[hobbes]

Without religion the world would be shittier than it already is.

Regardless of what atheists believe about the strength within, those that are religious have that extra layer of conscience that an atheist does not.

That's logic for something illogical.

The time I got snuck on the basketball court what stopped me from waiting outside of one the fella's house at night and blowing his brains out?

It's easy for one, especially an atheist, to say, "I wouldn't because it's wrong."

When in an emotional state like I was what the fuck do I care?

There are many things you do wrong on any given day. Belief in God, in most cases, means you REALLY believe he is watching what you do and the bottomline is IT KEEPS MORE THINGS IN CHECK THAN WOULD BE KEPT IN CHECK SANS THE BELIEF.

People rightly so will complain about 9/11, Israel and Pakistan fighting, etc because it involves religious differences.

REALLY imagine an atheistic world.

I'm actually insulted by the above comments. As one who does not believe in God or an afterlife, you will find that I act just as politely/morally as one doing so because they fear Gods' wrath. I don't need your "security blanket" and quite frankly, I'm terrified that you need one to keep control of yourself.

I understand that for a society to work we must have rules about interaction. If we all obey these rules I can be sure that my house will be mine when I get home. If society imposes laws and penalties, these can keep in line, as in Athiestic China.

Imagine a world in which we drop all the stories about exactly who God is and exactly what he wants and just go with a "God concept". It dictates that we are placed here by some God as a priviledge and we should treat the Earth and our fellow mankind kindly and fairly.

This would end all the bickering about manmade documents. As I stated before, the unitarian church already exists and allows people to focus on their union as humans one and allows the individual to define what God means to him.

Do I need devine intervention to come forth with a set of commandments to tell me right from wrong. No, not at all. If you are acting selfishly, you are not acting morally, simple as that. I mean when you read the 10 commandments, is any of them not obvious? Do you say, good thing we have a list or I would be lying and cheating and never thought it wrong?

But rather than just accept a less personal God concept, mankind seems to require a "cookbook" they can follow and when they die they will get exactly what the book states. Too many cookbooks can spoil the broth.