Religion Discussion

[autisticdragonkin]

There's a clear enough definition of supernatural for most people's purposes. I'm sure there are corner cases where people might argue forever about whether something is supernatural or not, but that's not the norm.

The problem is that the common notion is very eurocentric and ignores that the person that we may see as a religious leader in a tribe may simply just be a doctor through their understanding of the world. Likewise several other theories about the world that are just wrong may be seen as supernatural just because we don't understand that they are theories of reality. Medieval people didn't see anything mystical in the 5 elements they just saw them as what the world was made of and nothing more. So I really don't understand what the supernatural is

 

[Marvin]

The problem is that the common notion is very eurocentric and ignores that the person that we may see as a religious leader in a tribe may simply just be a doctor through their understanding of the world. Likewise several other theories about the world that are just wrong may be seen as supernatural just because we don't understand that they are theories of reality. Medieval people didn't see anything mystical in the 5 elements they just saw them as what the world was made of and nothing more. So I really don't understand what the supernatural is

I think having to separate out certain beliefs as being "religious" is more of a modern, western thing inherently. Science grew in prominence and religion gradually became highly optional. So it's useful to separate out mystical, supernatural beliefs, from beliefs that science widely considers to be factual.

When we talk about the supernatural, we talk about it from the perspective of people who are capable of making that distinction. Whether or not the subject realizes the truth of the situation is irrelevant. Lots of Christians sincerely believe in magical Jesus bullshit, and we still call it a religion because of the supernatural aspects.

Like, if you're going to argue about the semantics, some people will bring up things like Laveyan Satanism. Some people consider that a religion. I'm pretty skeptical though. There's nothing to distinguish it from just a life philosophy. To me, it's an edgy life philosophy with dark lipstick.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think having to separate out certain beliefs as being "religious" is more of a modern, western thing inherently. Science grew in prominence and religion gradually became highly optional. So it's useful to separate out mystical, supernatural beliefs, from beliefs that science widely considers to be factual.

Does this mean that you do not distinguish between an uncontacted tribe performing a communal ritual vs an uncontacted tribe member putting a ground up plant on a wound believing it to have healing properties

When we talk about the supernatural, we talk about it from the perspective of people who are capable of making that distinction. Whether or not the subject realizes the truth of the situation is irrelevant. Lots of Christians sincerely believe in magical Jesus bullshit, and we still call it a religion because of the supernatural aspects.

But I don't understand what this distinction is in the first place. By what you said it seems that just every wrong belief is the supernatural. What is the distinction between believing that Jesus will prevent the snakes you are holding from biting you and believing that the tongue is the strongest muscle in the body

Like, if you're going to argue about the semantics, some people will bring up things like Laveyan Satanism. Some people consider that a religion. I'm pretty skeptical though. There's nothing to distinguish it from just a life philosophy. To me, it's an edgy life philosophy with dark lipstick.

On the topic of Laveyan Satanism I think that LaVey actually had a pretty good explanation of the difference between a "life philosophy" and a religion in "Some evidence of a new Satanic Age"

He says that religions have rituals and culture and art whereas ideology is just a way of life

 

[Marvin]

But I don't understand what this distinction is in the first place. By what you said it seems that just every wrong belief is the supernatural. What is the distinction between believing that Jesus will prevent the snakes you are holding from biting you and believing that the tongue is the strongest muscle in the body

I would say that religious beliefs severely affect your perception of reality. Having an obscure factoid you believed in debunked won't seriously affect your view of reality.

On the topic of Laveyan Satanism I think that LaVey actually had a pretty good explanation of the difference between a "life philosophy" and a religion in "Some evidence of a new Satanic Age"

He says that religions have rituals and culture and art whereas ideology is just a way of life

Hobbies also have rituals, culture and art.

Like, you can apply those standards to furryism. It doesn't make being a furry a religion. (Well, until you actually start believing you're literally a wolf-kin or whatever.)

I really think the most useful definition of "religion" requires it to affect your perception of reality in a way that's not grounded in reason. That is, that it has supernatural elements.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I would say that religious beliefs severely affect your perception of reality. Having an obscure factoid you believed in debunked won't seriously affect your view of reality.

So would a major belief that is wrong such as that class conflict doesn't exist be an example of a belief in the supernatural

Hobbies also have rituals, culture and art.

Like, you can apply those standards to furryism. It doesn't make being a furry a religion. (Well, until you actually start believing you're literally a wolf-kin or whatever.)

If they have the fundamental characteristics of having normative values and art and a community then I see no reason why to say that being a furry isn't a religion

I really think the most useful definition of "religion" requires it to affect your perception of reality in a way that's not grounded in reason. That is, that it has supernatural elements.

If I were going to shitpost I would say that that is the most euphoric thing that I have heard

But I understand your point and it isn't wrong but rather it is referring to a completely different thing than I am referring to. We can question whether one concept is the more useful concept for understanding the world but there isn't any fundamental disagreement between us.

I would however say that what you are describing (effectively wrong belief) is much less useful than a description of a certain aspect of culture that elicits certain emotions and behaviours in a group of people and carries its own art and rituals which trigger those emotions and behaviours as your definition merely is a criticism of a small number of cultural practices in the western world whereas mine allows for the creation and application of these phenomena for practical purposes

 

[DZ 305]

I kinda want to start a separate thread about the Pope. Would anyone be on board?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I kinda want to start a separate thread about the Pope. Would anyone be on board?

Please do

 

[SregginKcuf]

There is a massive difference between religion and faith. 2,000 years ago the wordly religion hated Jesus because he was against the laws.

The Bible doesn't get everything right. But you're correct, the most important thing to draw from it is to have a personal relationship with God. The purpose of the Creation story isn't to tell us historically what happened, but that God created us. Whether it be through the big bang, evolution, etc.
I have to point out that your statement about IQ being fixed at birth is incorrect. That is a very old biological argument, and we have many studies demonstrating the plasticity of the brain and that IQ can be improved or lowered given certain factors. I would be happy to send you some studies on this matter if you like. Yes, an atheist is closed minded, but they are not the most unscientific - you are basing this off of the single concept of the big bang theory. Christians can be just as closed minded and more scientific, denying modern medicine, evolution, and adopting the early Biblical stories as scientific fact.
The reason Jesus came wasn't to better understand us - he created us! From Jesus we got to know a side of God that we couldn't have otherwise - we got to develop a personal relationship with him. We got to know the depth of his love for us, that he would ultimately die for us, no matter who you are, no matter what you've done. So we get to understand God as a merciful, kind, and loving God that we just didn't see in the Old Testament.

Wrong, ANYTHING in the Bible is right.

The Pope however is just a liar.

 

[AnOminous]

Religion is fucking gibberish. It's impossible to be sane and believe in it.

The absolute meaninglessness of existence is also fucking gibberish. It's impossible to recognize it and not go insane.

So there are two choices for being utterly insane, and in one of them, you get to be happy.

Ever wish you could believe in God?

 

[UptownRuckus]

I'm Mormon :^

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

There is a massive difference between religion and faith. 2,000 years ago the wordly religion hated Jesus because he was against the laws.

Wrong, ANYTHING in the Bible is right.

The Pope however is just a liar.

"I'm not religious! I'm a Christian!"

Are you every FCA girl I went to high school with?

 

[Give Her The D]

I got to thinking if there are any religious Kiwis, of any sort, considering that this site tends to know the difference between a believer and an insane fundie who takes their religious book quite literally in every sense of the term. Cool there's a thread.

I started attending a UMC (Methodist) church recently, and it's quite an interesting service and place in general. I think I'll keep going, everyone seems to be quite connected and less like a gigantic megachurch you generally see around here. It's a large one, but doesn't seem like it.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I grew up in a Christian family, but I never paid much attention to it in the long run. And neither has the rest of my extended family to be honest. We were pretty lax compared to most. More often than not, the only reason I couldn't watch something was because of my age, and that was only when I was really young.

Stepdad did have a bunch of L. Ron Hubbard books, but I never brought it up with him.

 

[heyilikeyourmom]

Stepdad did have a bunch of L. Ron Hubbard books, but I never brought it up with him.

Nothing to be concerned about. If he was a scientologist, you’d have been a scientologist.

 

[dirtydeanna96]

I grew up evangelical, where doubting was forbidden.
Naturally I ventured into Gnosticism, manly p hall, solomonic magic, heavens gate, Descartes, Aurelius, the Carmelites.
And I -also- own the 18 Elron Hubbard "Basic" books.

Methodist personally though, convert from Southern Baptist Convention.. I'm Traditional in faith and liberal in culture.

"You can do whatever the hell you want, just leave me alone"

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

::Laughs in religious studies minor::

A functional definition of religion is based on what religion does and how it operates ‘in terms of its place in the social/psychological system.’1 This means that the focus is on the instrumental role of religion. This can pertain to the social function of religion for group coherence, social order, defense of group interests, etc. It can also pertain to the psychological functions of religion by providing stories, symbols & rituals that will help individuals to identify with role models, be motivated, find consolation, provide answers to existential questions, etc. ....Now, a substantive definition entails defining religion ‘in terms of its believed contents.’8 This includes meanings that refer to ‘transcendent entities in the conventional sense’ such as God and supernatural beings and things. Substantive definitions can also be referred to as essential definitions.9 In a substantive approach to religion, it is the content and “essence” that characterize a religion. What religions share, according to this approach are certain patterns in the essence or content of all religious systems but not any non-religious world views. An early definition exemplifying a substantive view of religions comes from E.B. Tylor who defined it simply as ‘the belief in supernatural beings.’10 In this conception, religion is something extraordinary, special that has a symbolic and supernatural meaning to people.

A social constructionist definition of religion comes from interpretivist sociologists who argue that there are so many different types of religion that it is impossible to come up with a single, undisputed definition. Instead, what is interesting is the process by which a set of beliefs becomes recognised as a religion and who has power to determine whether something is a religion or not.

 

[L50LasPak]

I'm the atheistic sort but I do have to admit that something religion has over my beliefs is that a well-run local church provides a sense of community that is extremely difficult to replicate for the purely secular person. Despite stone-cold not believeing in God or even anything slightly paranormal I've considered joining local churches on a few occasions just to have something to do with myself. I always think twice about it since I have a big mouth and overthink stuff like philosophy and mysticism so I figure inevitably I would end up pissing people off if I went.

I'm aware there are secular, agnostic or syncretic churches out there, but those have a whole host of problems. The community aspect of a church kind of falls apart if its members don't share a common faith or at least a common trust in a higher power. I loathe the "we need more prayer in schools!" arguement but I do agree that the loss of a common faith amongst a population leads to instability. I'd chaffe badly if faith was forced upon me but at the same time I don't know what a good replacement for it would be.

 

[Give Her The D]

I loathe the "we need more prayer in schools!" arguement but I do agree that the loss of a common faith amongst a population leads to instability. I'd chaffe badly if faith was forced upon me but at the same time I don't know what a good replacement for it would be.

I completely agree with you. This country should keep the church and state separated, and I never understood why people are insistent that this country being based on Judaeo-Christian values means the country should be run from a Christian standpoint. The United States was founded upon people escaping religious persecution from the Church of England, and I think this applies to any religion to be honest. We as a people can have disagreements on religion, but I take a standpoint that Jesus loves everyone, no matter what religion or what their actions are. Humans are flawed and the Lord sent his son for all wrongdoings to be forgiven.

I'm completely fine with people practicing religions other than mine, or having no religion at all. I believe in people finding their own way through divine spirit, and if yours is not believing in any sort of religion, so be it. I do have my problems with the modern church (like how I think megachurches try to commercialize Christianity, going against Jesus' teachings on not letting material evils pollute the church), but nothing is completely perfect. Just do how you feel best.

 

[L50LasPak]

I completely agree with you. This country should keep the church and state separated, and I never understood why people are insistent that this country being based on Judaeo-Christian values means the country should be run from a Christian standpoint. The United States was founded upon people escaping religious persecution from the Church of England, and I think this applies to any religion to be honest. We as a people can have disagreements on religion, but I take a standpoint that Jesus loves everyone, no matter what religion or what their actions are. Humans are flawed and the Lord sent his son for all wrongdoings to be forgiven.

I'm completely fine with people practicing religions other than mine, or having no religion at all. I believe in people finding their own way through divine spirit, and if yours is not believing in any sort of religion, so be it. I do have my problems with the modern church (like how I think megachurches try to commercialize Christianity, going against Jesus' teachings on not letting material evils pollute the church), but nothing is completely perfect. Just do how you feel best.

I appreciate the sentiment, though I was kind of talking about something else. Basically, I think a lot of people out there maintain faith because it helps them connect with others. Certainly there are the real believers out there, but I think a significant number of people maintain faith as a way to find common ground with each other.

The average fedora tipper would make some crack about how that makes people with faith deluded, but the reality is far more complicated than that. There's an arguement out there that faith provides a sense of comfort and its simply incorrect. While faith itself may be the comfort for some people, its the structure and solidarity it provides that is the important part. Hell, before the rise of psychotherapy, your local priest or pastor basically was a mental health professional. And a lot of modern mental health practices bear great simliarity to the preaching practices of old.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that despite being outside of the machine, I understand that it has real merits and offers solutions one cannot often find on their own. Atheists and agnostics are so often dismissive of religion just becuase they don't believe in it, but I think that is painfully shortsighted.

 

[Meat Poultry Veg]

I am a religious person. I won't beat anyone over the head with it (which is evidenced by the fact that I post on KiwiFarms and make fun of exceptionals just like everyone else here). There was a period of intense doubt where I thought I was becoming an atheist, but strangely enough, my faith grew in a secular university. In California. That might convince a vanishingly small minority of your that God is real.

The reason why I rejected atheism was because I quickly realized without God (and not only that, an immutable and just God), all things are permissible. That BTW was the selling point of Aleister Crowley's Thelema cult: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." However, in such a paradigm, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone to correct wrongdoing because right and wrong does not exist. There is only the strong willed and everybody else.

Even Richard Dawkins is rolling back his euphoric atheism from the heady days of the mid 00's as he is watching his country turn into a burning shitpile right before his very eyes.