The Primary Function of Religion

[usregimechange]

Poll question: The Primary Function of Religion

Theories abound what is yours?

[Stop_the_War]

1. Religion is the opiate of the masses - Karl Marx

[usregimechange]

4. What about agrarian based paganism?

[Telly Savalas]

72. Or liberation theology for that matter?

[puddycat]

2. social control

If you truly think that there is life after death, then you don't mind that the ruling class pisses on you--after all, you are merely waiting for the rapture.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Napoleon Bonaparte had this to say:

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."

[Zynx]

5. This is a slanted poll.

I refuse to take part in it.

[usregimechange]

7. Why do you say that? What could I have included?

[Clark2008]

12. Something more positive of the functions, for one thing:

Like the praise of a higher being or the teaching of humility and charity, to name a couple.
Your poll only includes the views of someone who either hates religion or doesn't understand the merits thereof.
I didn't take the poll, either.

[usregimechange]

13. Praise is more of a manifestation than a function but I will add

something more like that.

[immoderate]

28. How come I understand humility and charity?

I have no religion. Next thing you'll say is to build hospitals. You can't credit religion for thing they didn't invent, but co-opted.

--IMM

[Telly Savalas]

73. I learned to play the guitar without getting lessons.

Have guitar teachers co-opted music?

Just because you don't need it doesn't mean religion can't be a powerful and postive force for others.

[Bellamia]

34. I didn't take the poll either

because I agree it is slanted. Never thought about the primary function of religion; I like a definition I heard in college..Religion is the attempt to answer the unanswerable, like why babies are born deformed etc. etc. etc.

[d_b]

6. I'd say it started off as #1

Now used for #3

[Cleita]

8. I said other.

I think it's to control the population, not with just fear, but with a fantasy other world they can believe in. If you were a chief and could explain disasters and hardships as the will of the gods and if one of those gods just happened to be an ancestor of yours, it would solve those little sticky problems when things didn't go right.

[BeFree]

9. Funny thing, Christianity

It got people to work together, ya know, love one another, turn the other cheek, and all that jazz.

Well, when people did that, working together, they started coming up with all kinds of cool things: Electricity, cars, sewers, etc, etc.

Religions form social cohesion.

Does anyone here know the roots of the word "Religion?"

[Stop_the_War]

11. .

[Cleita]

16. Excuse me but we got electricity, cars, etc. etc. in spite of

Christianity. The Christians were never champions of science. Could be the work of the Devil you know. It's government that got plumbing and sewers engineered as far back as the Minoans because necessity inspired invention.

[Stop_the_War]

17. Exactly!

We would have made all those technological advancements without Christianity. We probably would have made them faster.

[BeFree]

23. Let's see

Humans had been mucking around for over 10,000 years. Only once the good books of the world had been read by the 100th monkey did we start to ramp up and begin using the materials available all along.

The great Roman empire was the first and largest Christian empire, and Europe blossomed quite well once they quit fighting each other after the fall of Rome.

Besides, the desire to share the printed word with other folks got people writing and reading. I can't think of another impetus. Surely somone here will provide another theory as to how writing got started, eh?

[Cleita]

27. Writing was not invented by Christians.

Writing has been around conservatively for about 2,000 years before Christ. Others would argue for an earlier date. Not one Christian invented writing.

[BeFree]

29. Of course you are correct

Even the Chinese had writing before then. IIRC our race's writings began in what is now Iraq.

My point is that Europeans perfected writing in an attempt to communicate to the masses just why it was so important to give money to the church. And boy, did the church leaders love that!

[Tux]

93. Yes

Writing began with the Sumerians about 2,000 or 3,000 BCE. They needed a method to store information for future generations.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html

[baldguy]

38. Real funny. Islam did all those things first.

[BeFree]

43. As I understand it

Islam was one of the 12 original Israeli tribes. The one that went east to Babylon and got cranked up and started our writings. But I could be wrong.

Anyway, close enough... the Bible(s) needed to be written out and who best to do that chore than scholarly bible freaks who sat around all day trying to write down what they were hearing so that these important words of man's origin could be passed around to other guys sitting around all day.

Yeah, it's a scratchy theory, but I kinda like it, and until I hear something better, I'm sticking with it, eh?

[baldguy]

44. How 'bout real history instead of something you made up?

Islam began with Muhammad in the 7th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

[BeFree]

45. Not made up

It was related to me some years ago by a historian.

And we are talking oh, 3,000 years ago. In the time of Abraham. Ya see the old testament was being put together in those days, and the splinter group of what we know as Israelites camped over in the Euphrates river region. The prophet Muhammad descended from those people.

I am a little iffy on history that far back, who wouldn't be?

The thing is, almost all religions say the same thing. It's the churches that speak with forked tongue.

Really, how many cities do you suppose there would be if we all lived like savages; stealing from our neighbors? Religion is responsible for the huge metropolises we have today.

On edit: Thanks for that wikipedia link... it pretty well affirmed what I was told. History is interesting, eh?

Also: Funny the two words: Is-rael and Is-lam

[Igel]

70. Uzh net. It was the Russians. n/t

[T Bone]

51. Without looking it up specifically religion comes from 2 Latin words

re = back
ligare= to tie

I think if I recall my Latin derivatives and vocabulary correctly.

[BeFree]

68. Yep, "tie back" pretty well says it

Religion comes from the latin root religio, meaning: the source of man.
Tie back present day man to his source.

[eShirl]

53. religion gave us cars? electricity?

good grief

[Hardrada]

57. Hot Air Balloons too

and blimps.

[BeFree]

69. No, religion is history

And produces nothing.

Our goodies do not come from religion, and I never wrote anything like that. Please, don't make me responsible for your irresponsible reading abilities.

What I am saying is that religious practices have created and fostered friendship among diverse individuals and paved the way for communities to grow. It is the subsequent human community and cooperation which produced all our goodies.

Of course, capitalism played a huge part in the process. Most modern day Christians are capitalists, eh?

[Hardrada]

79. The Puritan Ethic and Capitalism have a connection

But really "capitalist" is almost as ill-defined a term as "Christian." When one gets too much diversity in common belief all-inclusive terms become relatively meaningless. IMHO.

[Tux]

92. Funny thing, Christianity

It got people to work together, ya know, hate one another, turn on each other, and all that hip-hop.

Well, when people did that, working together, they started coming up with all kinds of cool things: Racism, burning at the stake, beheadings, etc, etc.

Religions form social disorder.

Does anyone here know the roots of the word "Hypocrite"?

[Toucano]

10. It's control.

That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing, but it's all about control.

[DARE to HOPE]

18. No.

It's about experiencing the WONDER and WONDROUSNESS of the earth, and us in it!

It's about opening our spirits to the Breath of the Holy Creative Spirit that blows all around us and through our lives!

It's about realizing that each of us is a unique creation ourselves, with a purpose on this ball that is apart from accumulation and lording over others--that builds on the dreams of childhood as our delighted Father watches us grow!

It is about the music of the universe, singing inside me, as well as all around me when I venture out of my own four plasterboard walls.

It is about Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Gentleness. Faithfulness. AND--something a lot of us Americans could all learn a little more of--Self Control.

Peace to all. :-)

[ashmanonar]

21. i'd say that's spirituality.

religion, as i see it in this poll, is the organized religions.

what you're talking about sounds more like being a spiritual person.

[Toucano]

24. No.

There's no religion on earth that does anything you've said.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[immoderate]

31. You bought the hype!

I can do all of those things without religion. They take the credit, then overcharge you.

--IMM

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. A chance to encounter something beyond one's self

in a loving community that can be stronger than any individual.

[immoderate]

32. ...until you break their rules...

Then you're out on your ass, unless they stone you to death.

--IMM

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. My church isn't like that

I'm sorry if yours was.

[immoderate]

35. Maybe not now...

Have you read the Ten Commandments lately?

--IMM

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Yes, we recited them in procession on the first Sunday in Lent

but we recognize that "we are all sinners and fall short of the grace of God."

We don't throw people out. I wouldn't attend a church that did.

[immoderate]

49. Do you recite the full version or...

the abbreviated version that is usually displayed. For instance the commandment for honoring your parents requires stoning to death as the punishment. Fortunately, my parents didn't follow that commandment.

It's funny that only 0.2% of prison inmates claim that they have no religion. Obviously, religion doesn't prevent deviance. Atheism doesn't prevent deviance either, but that's a self selected group. Stopping killing and other crimes is desirable to most people. It's self evident. But preventing others from committing crimes is problematic. It's natural that religion would absorb that into its rubric. A perfect fit. God doesn't want you to do something. And you can't hide it. And you can't get away with it because he can punish you after you're dead. I'll concede that there may be even more crime if religion did not exist. But think about no police. Do you know what happens when the police have gone on strike and the churches didn't?

You want to prevent crime? Eliminate poverty.

And let me throw in, in all seriousness, and because we've been together here for years among people who think like us and want the best for society, I don't want to denigrate you, LL, or the fine people who comprise your church. I see the good too. </serious>

I get to a church every so often. I'm not hurt by it. I don't have much taste for ritual and ceremony, some people are drawn by that. I like the socializing part, and the fact that there is someone in the community whose concern it is to watch after people. Note that these thing have nothing to do with religion. They are the church acting as a social agency and providing services to its clients. One of the things that keeps it in business. This I think is a good example of what they call a meme. I think that some practices like prayer or meditation are harmonious with some people's systems. I have to be moving. Tai Chi and dancing work for me.

They can keep the rules. Most of them are stupid. Again I don't give them credit for inventing civility and respect. They didn't invent the golden rule. But inasmuch as they promote civility in society, that's a good thing.

They make up for it by forbidding a billion people to using condoms, and that is just for spite. "You don't follow the rules, you deserve to die." Religion does that, even if some churches don't.

--IMM

[Hardrada]

58. I spent a whole year at a Lutheran seminary

and still could not find a satisfactory definition of "sin."

[Tux]

95. There isn't one.

[dand]

15. To manipulate the masses,

it really is an opiate, most of the parasites that exploit religion are too intelligent to believe in it.

[DARE to HOPE]

19. "To manipulate the masses?" Humbug.

And of course the Bush gang et al does not believe it! They are trying to destroy it! And judging from this thread, they are doing a darn good job!

P.S. I saw the news today--hooboy! SAT tests taken around the country. Mine were darn good. Top quarter of the top percent, from the old days yet. How 'bout you all?

[VOX]

20. Organized religion was originally a sexual regulation society...

Sex with the "wrong person" (by whatever reason, in a non-Church approved relationship) was the ONE thing that could get you thrown out of the Church, without hope of forgiveness. The Church knew if it could control sexual behavior, then most everything else would follow.

Based upon what happened to Bill Clinton, that sad idea apparently still holds some sway in these dark times.

And in the past national election, too many churches were literally telling their congregations how to vote. :grr:

[Warpy]

22. I've seen even religions I consider extremely toxic to the spirit

be oddly comforting when a family member is dying in an ICU. I have no idea if it's the social support or the belief in heaven that is doing it, but I do know that religion can't simply be dismissed as irrelevant for everyone.

[No Exit]

25. To make people act in a way that is beneficial to society...

I'm not saying religion always accomplishes this goal! But I think that's the reason we have it.

When I was an undergrad, I read a (psych) journal article called "Sorcery, Sin, and the Superego".

To sum up the article? Easy. What do those three things have in common? They all attempt to steer people into behaving in a way that promotes and betters the society.

Oh, I know, I know--that the current use of (Christian) religion as a battering ram is NOT conducive to the betterment of society! But that's because most of the people currently wearing the name "Christian" are not living up to what the religion requires.

Sorcery: in old times, people feared magic. Magic could be used as a protection against someone who was physically stronger than you. One of the main things civilization tries to do is make it so the strong don't forever just kill, rape, take from, the weak.

Superego: a little inner voice which usually only develops in people who have had the experience of intimacy with someone who nurtured them. I DON'T mean sexual intimacy! I mean physical, mental, maybe familial, intimacy--the closeness btw nurturer and nurtured. Being properly nurtured gives a person the gift of being able to empathize. (Take a look around and you'll see most sociopaths and narcissists were not properly nurtured when they needed it.) The little voice is supposed to make you feel bad when you've hurt someone else.

Sin: we all know this one. Some behavior that is detrimental to the society is a "sin". This one has been so abused that it's almost neutered in our society. But it wasn't meant to work that way.

[immoderate]

30. If you said, "To make people act in a way the religion wants them to..."

You might have been close. religion does not prevent raping, pillaging, killing, it encourages it. Want some examples?

It is to control people. Sin is a way of manufacturing guilt.

--IMM

[No Exit]

36. "It is to control people"--Exactly!

It is a way of exerting control over people, to make them behave in a certain way.

Please remember, I tried to draw a distinction btw what I thought religion was FOR, and what it actually is, in our warped society today.

Religion is SUPPOSED to prevent raping, pillaging, and killing.

The sad irony is that, as you said, it not only is not fulfilling that purpose--but it is often being used to PROMOTE the very things it was designed to DISCOURAGE.

I am not speaking of what it DOES in practical terms--I am speaking of what I think its original purpose was ('cause that's what the question was!)

Lately I've been feeling very anti-religion, thanks to the hypocrites all around us who couple their religion with support for a foul, evil, poisonous man (George W. Bush).

[immoderate]

40. It started out to control nature...

and took advantage of human social instincts. You know these religions are created by people. Imagine them saying, "There's too much raping and pillaging going on, even though people know it's wrong. So let's create a god that will punish the baddies by denying them entry to the afterlife."

Why did people get married for centuries before the Ten Commandments made adultery forbidden?

Can you see that religion picked up all these notions to increase it's power? Morality came before religion co-opted it. It's part of being sentient. You don't give humanity much credit.

--IMM

[No Exit]

65. Fine.

Okay, I don't give humanity much credit. In my view humanity still has enough of the animal in it that humans tend toward what helps them survive--though much of this comes from forces which are not conscious ones. I don't agree that morality necessarily comes from being sentient, since I see many sentient beings who have no recognizable morality.

How do we really know when religion began? Why couldn't we view this early morality as something similar to religion? Society depends on cooperation, and reins in the aggressive impulses. One way in which it might do that is to create a god which will punish those who continue to engage in harmful aggression. Another way is to create laws which will punish those people. The law thing will work as long as there are enough people with enough power to enforce the law. The "god" thing is more efficient--because it creates a belief which causes the would-be offender to control HIMSELF, w/o the need for others to track him down and stop him.

Okay, maybe religion picked up on things like marriage in order to increase its power. But if that's the case, it leaves unanswered the original question of "why do we have religion"? It leaves unanswered the question of, why did religion come into existence in the first place? There must have been some reason.

[immoderate]

76. Sure religion helps to control impulse.

But what happens when the cops go on strike? Looting and violence.

Religion is mainly involved with self preservation, and will do what it can to propogate. (See Az' posts below.) They will perform whatever function keeps the customers coming in, such as socials, and massage night, exorcisms. See my post #49 for more on this, it directly addresses your points.

--IMM

[depakid]

26. Read Joseph Campbell

or watch Bill Moyer's excellent series of interviews with him....

[baldguy]

37. Opiate of the masses.

Organized religion has hijacked faith and spirituality to control the people.

[Telly Savalas]

74. An intriguing hypothesis.

Perhaps someone can give me specifics on what my church does to control me.

[Darranar]

39. It varies. Religion as part of a hierarchy...

tends to serve as an excuse for the excesses of that hierarchy, which is one reason the separation of church and state is so essential.

Religion can also, however, be an empowering force, a motive for moral action and a provider of hope to those fighting against unspeakable odds.

It is far from a monolith, so I cannot say what its "primary function" is.

[usregimechange]

46. Now that is a good answer!

[Az]

42. The primary function of religion is to propogate itself

A religion that does not succesfully propogate itself ceases to exist within a generation.

Once a means of propogation is established competition with competing belief systems become a secondary concern. Minds and societies are the environment for which beliefs compete. The more succesful propogation techniques find access to a growing range of believers.

Building a strong and compliant society is an advantage to a religion. Therefore authority and strong focus of shared moral values become advantageous. Because a stronger society can overwhelm a weaker society the focus is on creating strong societies.

[More Than A Feeling]

47. How about reaching out to God(s) ?

or Goddesses or about ending the cycle of rebirth as in Buddhism and (I think) Hinduism?

[Az]

48. There are religions that do not

There are many religions that do not reach out to gods or goddesses.

[More Than A Feeling]

50. Indeed, and I mentioned Buddhism

as an example of such. However, many do.

[Az]

52. Yes many do include references to gods

But the fact that some do not indicates that gods are not necissary for religions to form or function. Therefore the issue of what their primary function is does not have to include gods.

[PowerToThePeople]

54. Helps people to feel they are "good"

Lets them believe they are "the chosen ones." They can do harm, ie "sin" yet Jesus, their lord and savior(for Christians) will stand at their side when the time comes. Lets then of the hook of personal responsibility, that responsibility belongs to a higher power.

[Hardrada]

55. Everyone knows the clergy is to pray,

The serfs are to work
and the knights and liege lords are to protect.

[nolabels]

56. I could not vote on any one reason

Thinking about it though, I would say we are due for another new religion that really could be encircled by knowledge. One that in which belief is just one aspect of it.

Belief is way over rated, as I see it :shrug:

On Edit: syntax and to say most religions spend a whole lot of energy trying to deny the truth

[usregimechange]

61. Sounds like UU to me.

[nolabels]

63. I think you are correct

Thanks for the tip :thumbsup:

Unitarian Universalist Association Principles and Purposes
http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

[Tux]

98. If we could make it more well known

In the red states, they just might switch to the method rather than the rule of spiritual development and not see people as "us vs them" as some churchs teach.

[benny05]

128. Amen! n/t

[sweetheart]

59. Beyond organized religion

If the primary function is considered in an individual context, and not
that of a community or society, then surely it is to come
to terms with life's mystery. In this regard, religion is not a
"function", or even "religion" per se, rather direct communion with
life through whatever means suit the aspirant.

To presume that religion exists for social purposes is the fallacy of
the framing of this thread. That some may pursue organized religion as
a herd instinct may be so, but it does not invalidate the fact that
religion is private and direct, not some political control mechanism.
That it is seen to be this, is itself selling out to the religion that
there is no truth in religion... as extreme a position as any fallwell
or robertson might declare.

[Hardrada]

60. Does Zen Buddhism count?

And what about the FGC Quakers who discount most of the medieval theological framework and who practice Peace. My two favorite non-hierarchical non-controlling religions.

[fortyfeetunder]

62. Another tax shelter for...

those who can get away with it. Think about it, real estate, tithing, etc....

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

64. Religion is essentially man's attempt to reach God.

Religion, while possessing inumerable social benefits, can be used for good, or for ill. False and perverted religion has allowed a lot of vile, ugly enterprises to exist. I'm a Christian, and my faith in Christ is what sustains me. Oftentimes, people allow religion and ritual to get in the way of faith, spirituality and righteousness, and we not only miss God, but in our hubris actually presume to supercede God's standard.

"If God loves them, why can't you?"

"If God said we're all equal, what's your deal?"

[Delphinus]

66. I chose Other

because I think it's all about control.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. This thread is like the

proverbial group of blind men encountering an elephant. One touches the elephant's tail and concludes the elephant is like a rope, a second feels the elephant's leg and thinks the elephant is like a tree, and so on.

The way you approach religion has a lot to do with what you see in it.

[Nikia]

71. Most of you seem to forget that religion has been around for a long time

Before there were "masses". With the exception of some modern secular societies, every culture has religion as did every historic culture in the past, as did prehistoric cultures for over 100,000 years. Most atheists may be moral now and secular societies might prosper now, but it wasn't always the case (Are chimpanzees moral animals?). There were more unexplained mysteries in the past now to be explained. The poll also seems to take an atheistic view, which assumes that all the prophets and others claiming to have mystical experiences are not credible either.

[kwassa]

75. Religion is a universal human activity, probably a basic human need

All human cultures have religions, which indicates it as a basic human need, simply because we all do it. The function of religion is a means for humans to deal with the nature of that-which-is-greater-than-us, whether we call it God or something else. We wonder about greater meaning, and our individual role in that meaning. I've heard religion described as human psychological states projected outwards as archtypes, which could well be true. Nonetheless, it is important, it is a constant need, and it won't go away.

I also regard serious atheism as another religious faith, though I would certainly except a bit of disagreement here.

By the way, this poll does really reveal the anti-religious, pro-athiest majority on this group, which is actually worse than I thought it was.

[DARE to HOPE]

77. Lots of hurting people...

Much love to you all.

[Az]

80. Perhaps not so much a need as much as a result

I suspect religion is a result of an aspect of human nature. It can be a force for good or evil. It depends on how it forms up in a given society. Its effectiveness is tied to our social natures thus it will bring with it many social reinforcements.

By being a result of human nature we can come to understand how religion can have such a wide and dispersed set of doctrines. Dependent more on the environment and time than anything else it forms from the defining qualities of the people it comes from. Over time it becomes something stronger that can instead direct the people that hold to it.

[kwassa]

81. Religions also have universal aspects across many cultures

Earlier in this thread someone mentioned Joseph Campbell, who was a great scholar in comparitive religions.

One thing Campbell often pointed out is that there were similar religious myths on opposite sides of the globe from cultures that had no possible contact with each other. This would also seem to indicate something inate within human psychology that had a need for these particular myths. One of his more famous books was "Hero of a Thousand Faces", as a matter of fact, the study of herioc myths.

Another article I recently read pointed out how all major religious groups had some version of the Golden Rule, and specifically quoted each one of them, chapter and verse, so to speak.

[Az]

82. I believe it goes to our sense of self and projection

Our mind has to develop its understanding of itself relative to the universe. From there we learn that other things have similar senses of self as we do. So we learn to project our sense of self onto other beings. But it doesn't just stop at beings. We initially project identity onto nearly anything that we percieve having properties that we can discern.

As we learn the nature of some of these things we dismiss the identity we have learned to associate with them. Some such percieved identities are not as easily dismissed. Thus such identities persist even independent of culture.

[Dervill Crow]

78. It attempts to teach people how to get along.

I don't see religion as the problem; it's religious people.

[onager]

83. Yes, Virgina, there ARE cultures without religion...

Joseph McCabe, "The Story Of Religious Controversy:"

In point of fact, it is false that all nations or peoples believe in God...The human race does not begin with Monotheism, or a revelation, and degenerate from it.

On every strict test of facts, it begins without religion, then believes in spirits of the dead, next in Polytheism, and finally in Monotheism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_02.html

[kwassa]

86. Care to post examples of cultures without religions?

since it isn't here in your quote.

[trotsky]

87. Too lazy to click the link?

I have just quoted a most experienced and devoted missionary saying that the Yabgans had no religious belief whatever, and missionaries never err on the side of Rationalism!

Etc., etc.

[kwassa]

88. why is the relevant quote not quoted?

Any book with like this sure gives me warm feelings of credibility about him as an author.

"The Church The Enemy Of The Workers
Rome Is The Natural Ally Of All Exploiters"

by Joseph McCabe

I'm a fan already.

[trotsky]

89. To annoy lazy people, maybe?

No one asked you to be a fan of the author, it's just a citation of multiple godless cultures.

[kwassa]

91. God and religion are not necessarily the same thing

I would think you could understand that idea, but maybe not.

Take Buddhism, one of the worlds largest religions. No deity whatsoever.


(edited for greater clarity)

[trotsky]

94. Naw, I'm pretty dumb.

After all, I'm under the delusion that atheism isn't a dogma itself, just a lack of belief in religious dogma.

But then that kind of would mean that godlessness and religion ARE two different things, wouldn't it? I mean, they can't be different and yet both be dogmas, can they?

So hmmm, were you wrong before, or are you wrong now?

[kwassa]

96. I edited my note.

"After all, I'm under the delusion that atheism isn't a dogma itself, just a lack of belief in religious dogma."

Yes, you do have that misunderstanding.

"But then that kind of would mean that godlessness and religion ARE two different things, wouldn't it? I mean, they can't be different and yet both be dogmas, can they?'

Sure. Just one person believes in one, and one believes in the other.

"So hmmm, were you wrong before, or are you wrong now?"

Oh, neither. I didn't quite write what I wanted to say, so I went back to edit it.

Critique it now, if you must.

[trotsky]

97. Maybe you should define what constitutes a "religion."

Belief in a supreme being, from what you've said so far, is not necessary.

What is?

On edit: A clarification of what the difference is between "dogma" and "religion", in your esteemed opinion, would also be quite helpful.

[kwassa]

99. here you go

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3)The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1) A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2) An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3) A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[trotsky]

101. So you have no standing for disagreement then?

Religion:
1) Nope, no supernatural power, certainly none regarded as a creator.
2) Nein, because of the negation of 1).
3) Not applicable in this case.
4) No spiritual leaders.
5) Is open to personal interpretation. How intensely can one pursue something before it's called "zeal"?

Dogma:
1) Obviously does not apply to atheism, as we have no churches.
2) Obviously does not apply to atheism, as we have no authority.
3) This is the closest you can get - but this definition of dogma is different than the religious one. So the point that you so desperately want to cling to - that atheism is a "dogma" - is bogus. You're using two different definitions.

[kwassa]

103. We don't know that there are no spiritual leaders or not

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

(I think these might apply to the Yahgan)

4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

(I think some of the atheists pursue their cause with such zeal as to be defined as a religion, don't you?)

now turning to the atheists:

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1) A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

(doesn't apply to atheists)

2) An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

(could very well apply to atheists, as you have your one authoritative principle, the "lack of belief" which unifies your group, no "authority" is required.)

3) A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

you say:
"3) This is the closest you can get - but this definition of dogma is different than the religious one. So the point that you so desperately want to cling to - that atheism is a "dogma" - is bogus. You're using two different definitions"

Uh, no, this is your personal misinterpretation. Speaking of bogus arguments. I've never defined atheisim as a religious dogma, though by the definition of religion above, I certainly could.

[trotsky]

104. Whatever it takes for you to be comfortable pigeonholing us.

I've made my points, and I don't think you've accomplished anything resembling a defense of yours. Just more insistence that somehow a "lack of belief" is some kind of authoritative statement, and now that a desire expressed by some to explain the concepts of atheism is a "cause" pursued with "zeal" to the point of being a religion.

But apparently whatever you've come up with works in your mind to label others, so good luck!

[kwassa]

105. Naturally, I disagree

I feel that I've made my points, and you haven't made yours.

I think you show considerable zeal on almost a daily basis here attacking religion and notions of God, in pushing your belief in atheism. You spend a good deal of energy on it.

A "lack of belief" IS an authoritative statement, the unifying principle that the atheists here all agree on, and as far as I am concerned, a dogma. Your milage may vary. It is certainly not a developed, elaborate dogma, but a dogma, nonetheless.

Not unlike the Unitarian statement that the only dogma they have is that they have no dogma. At least they recognize it as a dogma.

And it is not about pigeon-holing or labeling, no more than you do with us who do have a religious belief.

[trotsky]

106. Aha, the key words...

"as far as I am concerned"

Exactly my point. Thank you for admitting such!

[kwassa]

109. So? What is so important about that?

[trotsky]

112. It's an imaginary distinction.

You've created your own imaginary construct - atheists, by merely "sharing" (i.e., having in common) a certain philosophical position, somehow this constitutes a "dogma" or creed by which all atheists must live. (Or be kicked out of the fictional atheist community? Um, or what?)

You've utterly failed to support your case on here, but you're obviously quite secure with it within your own mind. More power to ya, if that's how you have to deal with atheism!

[kwassa]

114. Sorry, you fit the dictionary definition of dogma, so live with it.

Embrace it.

It's you.

[trotsky]

116. In your mind, yes.

I understand and accept your perception of atheists.

Your perception is wrong, but it's yours. Embrace it.

[kwassa]

120. Oh, I've talked with many atheists over the years

and I don't think my perception is far off at all.

This isn't new territory for me.

[trotsky]

125. It's not new territory to second-guess people's motivations?

Because that's exactly what you're doing.

[kwassa]

127. No, I guess George W. Bush's motivations, and other people, too!

And so do you.

[arwalden]

107. I'm An Asmurfist...

... because I do not believe that Smurfs exist. Is that lack of belief a dogma?

[trotsky]

108. But of course!

Because, obviously, you can't be an asmurfist without accepting the "authoritative" statement that you lack belief in smurfs.

(As an aside: Note that the argument has changed - formerly, our authoritative statement required an active disbelief. The individual has backed off to a "lack of belief." But it's still a dogma, got it?)

[kwassa]

110. I haven't backed off in the slightest: the Asmurfist dogma

A lack of belief is a belief in an off itself. There is no change in my argument.

Now, the lack of belief in Smurfs

There is, as far as I know, not a large Asmrufist community anywhere, a group defined by their lack of beliefs in Smurfs as a unifying principle. If there was one, there certainly could be an Asmurfist dogma. Technically, there would be such a dogma without such a group.

Atheists, however, are a group that does have such a unifying dogma.

[trotsky]

111. What is this large atheist community, then?

Do we all meet on Sunday mornings and sing songs about there not being a god? Go door-to-door proclaiming the "bad" news?

All you're doing is breaking off a number of individuals based on one characteristic and calling them a "community." I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.

Does everyone who has blue eyes constitute a "community?"

What about everyone that drives a Ford?

Are these communities *defined* by a unifying principle?

Do you really have this perception that ALL us atheists get together and have secret meetings and dictate exactly what atheism is and isn't? Because that's what it sure seems like.

I don't know why it seems to be a threat to you if atheists simply don't believe in your god.

[kwassa]

113. The atheist community is all round DU, isn't it?

trotsky:
"Do we all meet on Sunday mornings and sing songs about there not being a god? Go door-to-door proclaiming the "bad" news?'

Well, if you are a Unitarian, then the answer is probably yes, Sunday mornings and all.

You have a community going RIGHT HERE. There are a whole group of you who feel the need to bash God and religion incessently in the Religion and Theology forum! How whacked is that? You in particular follow these threads around.

You atheists are not a threat to me in the slightest. I just think your "lack of belief" stance is a phony as a $3 bill. Your atheism is a strongly-held belief, or you wouldn't expend the effort you do.

[trotsky]

115. So now it's "effort" that defines the group?

No, I'm not a Unitarian, so I'm not in that group. Bzzzt. Try again.

I'm just trying to pin you down, once and for all. You keep shifting and backpedaling. Now we're apparently a pack of atheists that swarms around DU to bash God and religion. And in the forum that was expressly created to take the atheism/theism debates OUT of General Discussion, oh my!

But as long as you think you can assign motives to those of us who pop in on threads to question the prevailing majority in this country, I can't really stop you. In other circles, your tactics might be considered prejudice. But to you, you've figured out what us mean, nasty atheists are really all about, haven't you?

[kwassa]

122. Easy to pin me down. Just read what I write.

Ask me anything!

trotsky:
"But as long as you think you can assign motives to those of us who pop in on threads to question the prevailing majority in this country,"

no, you pop in on threads to question religious believers on DU. Not the same thing at all, is it?

[trotsky]

123. So your problem is that you don't like having your beliefs questioned?

Otherwise, why would you care what threads I choose to respond to?

It's an open message board, isn't it?

The Religion and Theology forum was created to make a place for atheist/theist discussions. But you're upset that I'm using it for its intended purpose?

[arwalden]

119. Babies And Toddlers Are Atheists, Right?

Through no choice of their own, they are atheists. I wonder where they fit in to this "dogma".

-- Allen

[kwassa]

121. huh? what? how? where? what the heck are you talking about?

[trotsky]

124. Babies and toddlers lack belief in gods.

Therefore, they are dogmatic atheists. According to your logic, that is.

[kwassa]

126. How do you know babies lack a belief in gods? Did they tell you?

To babies and toddlers, their parents are gods! The source of all things.

[arwalden]

118. That Makes As Much Sense As Saying That "Bald" Is A Hair Color.

edit: punctuation

[kwassa]

90. Others state this group does have a religion

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/southamerica/yahgan.html

The religion is fairly simple to understand. Rev. Bridges states: the Yahgans have no Supreme Deity, God, or Creator, nor any word in their language for such (148). The Rev. also says: ...the Yahgan supposes the sun and moon, male and female, to be very old indeed, and that some old man, who knew their maker, had died, without leaving information upon his subject (148). They do not believe in a supreme deity, but they do have a good and an evil spirit that lives among the tribe.

The birth of a child in the Yahgan Tribe is an occasion to celebrate with many rituals. When the child is born, the umbilical cord is cut with a sea shell; and then, the cord and the placenta from the womb are both burned. The mother and the child are both brought to the sea and bathed; the belief is that after the child is born they bath it in the sea for strength.

As with many tribes, ceremonies are held to mark the initiation of important customs among the tribe. For instance, an adolescent boy is put to a physical and psychical test to prove his endurance, honesty, bravery, and to learn the laws of marriage. When the boy has proven himself to the tribe, he is told the truth about the spirits. Cooper says in his book: ... he is threatened with dire punishment if he should ever reveal the secrets to the women or children (156).

When we first discovered the Yahgan Indians, their population was about 3,000, and now there is less than 100 natives left, and only 40-50 still live in their native territory. Their ways of life have been forgotten with the aging society and those that still live have given up most of their native culture entirely.

[onager]

100. Well, they aren't the ONLY group mentioned...

...without a religion, either. And their meaning of "spirits" is open to interpretation.

The statement was made upthread that "all cultures have a religion." Well, they don't.

Your quote is apparently from Bridges, the Xian missionary who studied them for 20 years. McCabe says that the Yaghans' "spirits of the woods" were simply a neighboring tribe. They occasionally attacked the Yaghans and kidnapped their children.

[kwassa]

102. McCabe has some interesting and unique viewpoints

some which I quite disagree with.

here is a quote from your McCabe article:(defining religion)
"Here I take the word in its commonly accepted meaning: the belief in God and immortality and the practices inspired by those beliefs. I am glad to be able to agree for once with my Fundamentalist friend!"

Like I said, Buddhism is a great religion, and has no deity. Obviously, it is not a religion, as defined by McCabe.

How do you reconcile that?

[onager]

117. I don't think I have to reconcile it...

...since I'm not McCabe. And looking at your quote, the phrase "commonly accepted meaning" might let him off the hook. I haven't read him in a while, but it sounds like he's talking about the "commonly accepted" monotheistic religions.

I do like the story that when Buddha was on his deathbed, his followers told him they were going to start a religion around his teachings and he started laughing out loud.

He'd probably laugh even louder if he could see the biggest Buddhist temple in Tokyo, which is surrounded by little stalls selling all manner of tacky Buddhist knick-knacks.

See if you can reconcile this proverb I heard in Japan, where the same folks shuttle between Shinto and Buddhist shrines without thinking twice...and where the Christians have been proselytizing for centuries with very little result:

"Fifty per cent of Japanese are Shinto, fifty per cent are Buddhist, and fifty per cent have no religion at all."

BTW, thank you for responding!

[Democrat Dragon]

84. It depends greatly on the religion

Diffrent religions have diffrent values. For example (real) Christianity values peace and love. Whereas Taoism and Shintoism value harmony with nature.

[Tux]

85. Seems

That religion is a dead version of spirituality. Spirituality is a finger pointing at the moon. Follow the finger and you can find the moon. Focus too much on the finger and religion is born.