Are We All Religious?

[jazzguru]

Here's the Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) definition of the word "religion":

re-li-gion [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Especially in light of definitions 2, 3, 5 and 6, it could be argued that we are all religious in one way or another.

The object of one's religious devotion need not be a deity or deities, rather a particular set of beliefs or practices.

Could some be considered to have a religious belief that humans cause "climate change" and that "climate change" will destroy the planet? When you think about it, those extremely devoted to this cause hold in high regard certain texts that they believe to be authoritative. They follow certain people they believe to be experts and authorities on the matter. They modify their lifestyles - sometimes drastically - in such a way that they live in accordance with these beliefs. In some cases, they seek out others to tell them of the things they believe in and try to win them over to their cause.

Could some be considered to have a religious belief that Macs are the best computers on the planet?

What are some other examples of religion (besides the obvious "religions" such as Islam, Taoism, Chrisitanity, etc.)?

[Taskiss]

Everyone has elevated some kind of icon... an image of some superior ideal ... to a position of worship in their lives.

Then they get on the internet and argue with others who've done the same thing and assume a position of superiority because their ideal is the correct one and their argumentative opponent follows a lesser god.

[Northgate]

I'm an atheist. I do however believe in the energy of the Sun being the harbinger of life. But I reject all forms of theism.

[jazzguru]

I'm an atheist. I do however believe in the energy of the Sun being the harbinger of life. But I reject all forms of theism.

One can be religious without believing in a god or gods.

[groverat]

If the question is whether or not we can stretch the semantics to fit what we desire, then yes, everyone is religious. Likewise, everyone is gay. And everyone is atheist.

[jazzguru]

If the question is whether or not we can stretch the semantics to fit what we desire, then yes, everyone is religious. Likewise, everyone is gay. And everyone is atheist.

Stretching semantics? Read the definitions. I didn't make them up.

[groverat]

How would the definitions apply to atheists?

[jazzguru]

How would the definitions apply to atheists?

Try to see the word "religious" in a different context.

Have you ever heard of the expression: "to do something religiously"?

There's a lot of truth to that.

As I stated in my OP, for one to be religious, the object of one's devotion/faith/worship does not have to be deity/deities.

For example, I know many people who approach politics with a religious ferver that rivals the most pious Evangelical Christians.

Really, what is a religion but a set of deeply-held beliefs and practices that one follows with devotion?

[groverat]

Try to see the word "religious" in a different context.

As I said, "If the question is whether or not we can stretch the semantics to fit what we desire, then yes, everyone is religious."

Really, what is a religion but a set of deeply-held beliefs and practices that one follows with devotion?

"Religion", as commonly used, involves a belief in the supernatural.
If you take definition 3, then you could stretch that to cover just about anything.

So if you like, you can definitely say that all people are religious.

I could argue that all people are atheists, as well.

The key question here is this: What's the point? Is this an attempt to draw an equivalency between feeling strongly about universal healthcare and believing that a god made the earth 6000 years ago?

[jazzguru]

As I said, "If the question is whether or not we can stretch the semantics to fit what we desire, then yes, everyone is religious."



"Religion", as commonly used, involves a belief in the supernatural.
If you take definition 3, then you could stretch that to cover just about anything.

So if you like, you can definitely say that all people are religious.

I could argue that all people are atheists, as well.

The key question here is this: What's the point? Is this an attempt to draw an equivalency between feeling strongly about universal healthcare and believing that a god made the earth 6000 years ago?

Why question my intent? Why assume there is any purpose other than to foster and encourage discussion?

I would like to hear your argument that all people are atheists.

[groverat]

Why question my intent? Why assume there is any purpose other than to foster and encourage discussion?

I didn't question intent, I asked what your point was.

What this discussion would involve, if it doesn't have an unspoken point, is the mass labeling of entire groups of people and attempting to characterize them from an outsider's perspective. For example: "Could some be considered to have a religious belief that humans cause "climate change" and that "climate change" will destroy the planet? When you think about it, those extremely devoted to this cause hold in high regard certain texts that they believe to be authoritative."

You are stretching the word religious to cover a stereotype that you have in your head of a group of others.

I would like to hear your argument that all people are atheists.

No individual believes in all gods. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in god.
Is it good logic? No, but it makes a certain type of sense from a certain perspective.

[Outsider]

When we're born, we are all atheists. We learn to believe in supernatural beings.

[jimmac]

I'm an atheist. I do however believe in the energy of the Sun being the harbinger of life. But I reject all forms of theism.

My father was an athiest to the core. However when I was a teenager and it came time for Sunday church my mom wasn't. So I'd have to go with her every Sunday while dad sat at home and read the paper. Of course I thought this was a little hypocrtical and unfair.

Years later when dad found out he probably didn't have long to live he all of a sudden found the light! So here we have this very intellectual, well read, loved science and art, didn't believe in god, man in his 60's who all of a sudden was covering his bases.

I don't really blame him. Finding out you're going to die is probably a very scary thing to face.
I just think belief or not isn't as sure as we sometimes think.

[vinea]

Stretching semantics? Read the definitions. I didn't make them up.

How ironic your sig is with your attempt to redefine what it means to be religious. Newspeak at its best.

It's pretty obvious that being religious is associated with...OMG how amazing...religion.

The attempt to conflate science with religion is...um...what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, transparent.

[vinea]

My father was an athiest to the core. However when I was a teenager and it came time for Sunday church my mom wasn't. So I'd have to go with her every Sunday while dad sat at home and read the paper. Of course I thought this was a little hypocrtical and unfair.

Years later when dad found out he probably didn't have long to live he all of a sudden found the light! So here we have this very intellectual, well read, loved science and art, didn't believe in god, man in his 60's who all of a sudden was covering his bases.

I don't really blame him. Finding out you're going to die is probably a very scary thing to face.
I just think belief or not isn't as sure as we sometimes think.

Well, sure. At its best religion promotes the best in us. So the worst that happens in this scenario is that someone performs good acts because might find favor with an entity that may or may not exist. They are good acts, so what?

The problem with religion is when it promotes the worst in us. I do not belive that God approves.

[Aquatic]

Here's the Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) definition of the word "religion":

re-li-gion [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Especially in light of definitions 2, 3, 5 and 6, it could be argued that we are all religious in one way or another.

The object of one's religious devotion need not be a deity or deities, rather a particular set of beliefs or practices.

Could some be considered to have a religious belief that humans cause "climate change" and that "climate change" will destroy the planet? When you think about it, those extremely devoted to this cause hold in high regard certain texts that they believe to be authoritative. They follow certain people they believe to be experts and authorities on the matter. They modify their lifestyles - sometimes drastically - in such a way that they live in accordance with these beliefs. In some cases, they seek out others to tell them of the things they believe in and try to win them over to their cause.

Could some be considered to have a religious belief that Macs are the best computers on the planet?

What are some other examples of religion (besides the obvious "religions" such as Islam, Taoism, Chrisitanity, etc.)?

Are we all religious?

No.

I'm not. If Windows 8 is better than OS X 10.7 "Ocelot" I'll use that!

[jazzguru]

How ironic your sig is with your attempt to redefine what it means to be religious. Newspeak at its best.

It's pretty obvious that being religious is associated with...OMG how amazing...religion.

The attempt to conflate science with religion is...um...what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, transparent.

Opinion noted.

Next?

[Hands Sandon]

No, except maybe for the Jesus phone! :p

Going green helps the environment and your _ _ _ _ er.....wallet/health at the same time.
"Berlin brothel offers discounts for cyclists.
Customers who arrive on bicycle or who can prove they took public transportation get a 5-euro (4 pounds) discount from the usual 70-euro ($100) fee for 45 minute sessions, Goetz told Reuters. He said the environmentally friendly offer was working.
"We have around 3-5 new customers coming in daily to take advantage of the discount," he said, adding the green rebate has helped alleviate traffic and parking congestion in the neighbourhood."
~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090713/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_brothel

[e1618978]

I personally welcome Jazzguru's attempt to water down the definition of Religion. We need that crap watered down as much as we can get.

[jazzguru]

I personally welcome Jazzguru's attempt to water down the definition of Religion. We need that crap watered down as much as we can get.

Ad-hom non-sequitur noted.

Next?

[e1618978]

Ad-hom non-sequitur noted.

Next?

How is that exactly an ad-hom, or a non-sequitor for that matter? It wasn't an attack on you, but on a concept, and it was entirely within the subject matter of this thread.

By defining Religion in a way that makes everyone religious, you make the concept of Religion meaningless, and I welcome that.

[Tauron]

The ultimate answer as to what is God lies in science, not religion.

All religions are ultimately baseless.

[jazzguru]

The ultimate answer as to what is God lies in religion, not science.

All religions contain some degree of truth.

See, I can do it, too. :)

[jazzguru]

How is that exactly an ad-hom, or a non-sequitor for that matter? It wasn't an attack on you, but on a concept, and it was entirely within the subject matter of this thread.

You addressed my intent and made a statement based upon what you alleged my intent to be. Your allegation is completely erroneous.

By defining Religion in a way that makes everyone religious, you make the concept of Religion meaningless, and I welcome that.

Please elaborate on how suggesting that everyone is religious in one way or another devalues or renders meaningless the "concept" of religion.

[Tauron]

The ultimate answer as to what is God lies in religion, not science.

All religions contain some degree of truth.

See, I can do it, too. :)

You can write in english.

[jazzguru]

You can write in english.

You noticed! I can write in Portuguese, too. :D

[groverat]

Ad-hom non-sequitur noted.

Next?

trumptman?

[Tauron]

You noticed! I can write in Portuguese, too. :D

Voce e a pessoa mais burra do mundo.

[jazzguru]

Voce e a pessoa mais burra do mundo.

:lol: Que palhaço! Espero que você estava brincando....

[vinea]

Please elaborate on how suggesting that everyone is religious in one way or another devalues or renders meaningless the "concept" of religion.

Amusingly, it does devalue religion as a faith in a higher entity by equating Apple fans with devout Christians. Even more amusing, you try to link belief that global warming is occurring to blind faith to ridicule global warming supporters. By trying to conflate "ignorant" belief in a deity with belief in climate change.

By a self-professed mormon. You just insulted the religion you profess to follow. :lol:

The beauty of faith in a higher power is the complete lack of objective evidence. In comparison, climate change can be debated with observational evidence whether you are a proponent or opponent. Belief in climate change is far less than the belief in a deity given that you can point to charts and data that supports the assertion that yes, it really is happening.

[jazzguru]

Amusingly, it does devalue religion as a faith in a higher entity by equating Apple fans with devout Christians. Even more amusing, you try to link belief that global warming is occurring to blind faith to ridicule global warming supporters. By trying to conflate "ignorant" belief in a deity with belief in climate change.

By a self-professed mormon. You just insulted the religion you profess to follow. :lol:

The beauty of faith in a higher power is the complete lack of objective evidence. In comparison, climate change can be debated with observational evidence whether you are a proponent or opponent. Belief in climate change is far less than the belief in a deity given that you can point to charts and data that supports the assertion that yes, it really is happening.

I'm not insulting any religion.

I disagree that faith in a higher power requires the "complete lack of objective evidence".

[vinea]

I disagree that faith in a higher power requires the "complete lack of objective evidence".

If you have hard evidence there's no real need for faith is there? It's a lot easier to believe God exists if you have a burning bush talking to you or a few miracles thrown about.

[Outsider]

:lol: Que palhaço! Espero que você estava brincando....

Hey, I speak portuguese too! Watch it fellas! 8-)

Se a minha mãe sabia que o meu portuguése era tão mau...

[Outsider]

If you have hard evidence there's no real need for faith is there? It's a lot easier to believe God exists if you have a burning bush talking to you or a few miracles thrown about.

Provided there isn't any valid explanations to them. ;)

[Tauron]

jazzguru vai tomar no meio do cu...

hey that rhymed!!

[jazzguru]

If you have hard evidence there's no real need for faith is there? It's a lot easier to believe God exists if you have a burning bush talking to you or a few miracles thrown about.

Oh there's absolutely still a need for faith, even with hard evidence. Just look at the story of Simon Peter in the Bible. After all he did and saw with the Savior, all the miracles and manifestations he witnessed, he still denied the Christ.

[Outsider]

jazzguru vai tomar no meio do cu...

hey that rhymed!!

That's just gross.

[e1618978]

You addressed my intent and made a statement based upon what you alleged my intent to be. Your allegation is completely erroneous.

I did not address your intent. There is no way that I think that you intended to devalue religion, you did it without realizing that was what you were doing - and I think that is awesome.

You devalued religion by trying to paint everyone as religious, and vinea's post on that was more eloquent than I could ever be.

[jazzguru]

I did not address your intent. There is no way that I think that you intended to devalue religion, you did it without realizing that was what you were doing - and I think that is awesome.

And I don't think I'm devaluing religion at all.

[e1618978]

And I don't think I'm devaluing religion at all.

Do you think that letting Gay people marry devalues marriage? It is a similar concept to "if everybody is religious, religion is meaningless". It seems to me that you would have to believe either both or neither of the two concepts if you want to be internally consistent.

[jazzguru]

Do you think that letting Gay people marry devalues marriage? It is a similar concept to "if everybody is religious, religion is meaningless". It seems to me that you would have to believe either both or neither of the two concepts if you want to be internally consistent.

Letting gay people marry redefines marriage. Saying that everyone is religious in one way or another does not redefine religion. See the definition in the OP.

[Tauron]

Letting gay people marry redefines marriage. Saying that everyone is religious in one way or another does not redefine religion. See the definition in the OP.

Jazz, I think you are gay.

[FormerLurker]

Jazz, I think you are gay.
Everyone's gay in one way or another.

[jazzguru]

I am generally a happy person, yes.

[FormerLurker]

I am generally a happy person, yes.

Oh, so you're not married?

:lol:

[jazzguru]

Oh, so you're not married?

:lol:

Nice! :lol:

[vinea]

Oh there's absolutely still a need for faith, even with hard evidence. Just look at the story of Simon Peter in the Bible. After all he did and saw with the Savior, all the miracles and manifestations he witnessed, he still denied the Christ.

He did not deny the existence of Christ. Nor did he deny the divinity of Christ (he wasn't asked so he might have but he didn't).

What he denied was that he was one of Christ's followers.

And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You, too, were with Jesus the Nazarene. But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch. (Mark 14:66-68 NASB)

It would be more helpful to your arguments to actually select verses that support your position. In fact, your whole position is...well...unbiblical.

Peter's denial of Christ is an example of where human pride (Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!) led to a fall (Who me? Nah, I dunno who he is...please don't string me up!).

I am too prideful of my intelligence but I do know that there are many things I do not know or understand and that there are many much smarter and wiser than I. So I don't try particularly tricky things in my arguments assuming my opponents are idiots or my positions unassailable.

That seems to put me one up on a lot of my Republican brethren...so I leave you with this verse:

"For by the grace given to me I ask every one of you not to think of yourself more highly than you should think, rather to think of yourself with sober judgment on the measure of faith that God has assigned each of you." Romans 12:3

[vinea]

Letting gay people marry redefines marriage. Saying that everyone is religious in one way or another does not redefine religion. See the definition in the OP.

Um wow. I guess the next (semi) appropriate verse is

"so that 'they may see clearly but not perceive, and they may hear clearly but not understand, otherwise they might turn around and be forgiven." Mark 4:12

Although in this case we're not talking about the word of God, but rather Dictionary.com.

Redefining religious to include the irreligious isn't redefining the word? :lol:

[jazzguru]

He did not deny the existence of Christ. Nor did he deny the divinity of Christ (he wasn't asked so he might have but he didn't).

What he denied was that he was one of Christ's followers.

And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You, too, were with Jesus the Nazarene. But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about." And he went out onto the porch. (Mark 14:66-68 NASB)

It would be more helpful to your arguments to actually select verses that support your position. In fact, your whole position is...well...unbiblical.

Peter's denial of Christ is an example of where human pride (Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!) led to a fall (Who me? Nah, I dunno who he is...please don't string me up!).

I am too prideful of my intelligence but I do know that there are many things I do not know or understand and that there are many much smarter and wiser than I. So I don't try particularly tricky things in my arguments assuming my opponents are idiots or my positions unassailable.

That seems to put me one up on a lot of my Republican brethren...so I leave you with this verse:

"For by the grace given to me I ask every one of you not to think of yourself more highly than you should think, rather to think of yourself with sober judgment on the measure of faith that God has assigned each of you." Romans 12:3

My whole position is "unbiblical"? You know as well as I that anyone can "prove" or "disprove" just about anything using the Bible. It comes down to interpretation.

I'm not saying your assessment of Simon Peter's denial of The Christ is wrong. It was a poor example for me to use for my point.

Judas Iscariot would be a better example. He saw many of the same things Simon Peter saw and he ultimately betrayed Christ.

The point I was tring to make is that seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing. "Objective evidence" would never be enough. Many people have seen such evidence with their own eyes and have still fallen away.

Those who are adamant that there must be "objective evidence" to "prove" the existence of God - if that evidence fell right in their lap would it be enough?

I try not to come across as condescending or arrogant in my posts. Sometimes I do it in jest and I'm sure it comes across the wrong way. It's one of the many limitations of debating/discussing something in writing. It is not my intent to boast of myself.

Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever. Alma 26:12

[jazzguru]

Um wow. I guess the next (semi) appropriate verse is

"so that 'they may see clearly but not perceive, and they may hear clearly but not understand, otherwise they might turn around and be forgiven." Mark 4:12

Although in this case we're not talking about the word of God, but rather Dictionary.com.

Redefining religious to include the irreligious isn't redefining the word? :lol:

Asking people to look at the various definitions of the word religion found on Dictionary.com and think about them in a context outside of the popular definition of religion is not redefining anything. I didn't make up the definitions.

[e1618978]

Letting gay people marry redefines marriage. Saying that everyone is religious in one way or another does not redefine religion. See the definition in the OP.

But why is it OK to have a vast, all encompassing definition of religion, and not have the same type of definition for marriage? Is marriage somehow a more important thing than religion?

[jazzguru]

But why is it OK to have a vast, all encompassing definition of religion, and not have the same type of definition for marriage? Is marriage somehow a more important thing than religion?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking me, here. Can you please clarify?

[SpamSandwich]

Stretching semantics? Read the definitions. I didn't make them up.

Definitions change.

[vinea]

My whole position is "unbiblical"? You know as well as I that anyone can "prove" or "disprove" just about anything using the Bible. It comes down to interpretation.

No, you can't prove or disprove just about anything using the Bible. Not if you read it anyway. It's pretty firm on a variety of topics (no, it's not a huge fan of other religions...or democracy for that matter). It also doesn't address a lot of topics (like abortion).

Faith (pistis) is an important concept in the new testament. It is used over 200 times. Faith in that which we have no direct scientific evidence is the cornerstone of religious belief.

For by grace are you saved by faith. Ephesians 2:8.

Equating belief in global warming to religious belief doesn't have a biblical foundation and insulting to religious belief of all kinds. Including your own.

[jazzguru]

No, you can't prove or disprove just about anything using the Bible. Not if you read it anyway. It's pretty firm on a variety of topics (no, it's not a huge fan of other religions...or democracy for that matter). It also doesn't address a lot of topics (like abortion).

This is all according to your interpretation of it.

Faith (pistis) is an important concept in the new testament. It is used over 200 times. Faith in that which we have no direct scientific evidence is the cornerstone of religious belief.

Faith is indeed essential. We consider Faith to be one of the first principles of the Gospel.

For by grace are you saved by faith. Ephesians 2:8.

Faith is important, but is faith enough by itself?

James 2: 14-26 (KJV)

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Equating belief in global warming to religious belief doesn't have a biblical foundation and insulting to religious belief of all kinds. Including your own.

How can it be insulting to "religious belief of all kinds" because it "doesn't have a biblical foundation"? Not all religions are based upon the Bible, nor do those based upon the Bible interpret the Bible in the same manner.

[vinea]

This is all according to your interpretation of it.

Nope. It's simple if you read it. While it is translated from the original text the lack of certain topics isn't open to debate. Likewise on the basic concepts the text is very clear. You cannot prove "anything" using the bible because it is quiet on many things.

Your cynicism of the Bible is amusing given your professed faith in it.


Faith is indeed essential. We consider Faith to be one of the first principles of the Gospel.

Faith is important, but is faith enough by itself?


Alas, James 2:14-26 says faith is merely the minimum requirement but that you must also act on that faith. Not that faith is not a requirement. So, once again, you quote verse that does not in any way advance your position.

Works alone will not save you. This is very clear in Ephesian 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5. The lack of works, however, probably indicates less than adequate faith given you aren't really following Christ's example in deed as well as words. Which includes "works".

James 2:14-26 says you if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk. Makes sense eh?


How can it be insulting to "religious belief of all kinds" because it "doesn't have a biblical foundation"? Not all religions are based upon the Bible, nor do those based upon the Bible interpret the Bible in the same manner.

Incorrect parsing of that sentence.

Part 1: Conflating religious faith with science debate does not have a biblical foundation because faith in God is not one based on interpretation of objective data points but faith in the unknown and unseen.

Part 2: Equating climate debate to religion insults religions of all kinds by reducing religious faith in the unknown to that of faith in a brand of MP3 players or faith in a human interpretation of satellite data.

I may not be religious, but I respect religion enough not to degrade it.

[jazzguru]

Nope. It's simple if you read it. While it is translated from the original text the lack of certain topics isn't open to debate. Likewise on the basic concepts the text is very clear. You cannot prove "anything" using the bible because it is quiet on many things.

Your cynicism of the Bible is amusing given your professed faith in it.



Alas, James 2:14-26 says faith is merely the minimum requirement but that you must also act on that faith. Not that faith is not a requirement. So, once again, you quote verse that does not in any way advance your position.

Works alone will not save you. This is very clear in Ephesian 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5. The lack of works, however, probably indicates less than adequate faith given you aren't really following Christ's example in deed as well as words. Which includes "works".

James 2:14-26 says you if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk. Makes sense eh?



Incorrect parsing of that sentence.

Part 1: Conflating religious faith with science debate does not have a biblical foundation because faith in God is not one based on interpretation of objective data points but faith in the unknown and unseen.

Part 2: Equating climate debate to religion insults religions of all kinds by reducing religious faith in the unknown to that of faith in a brand of MP3 players or faith in a human interpretation of satellite data.

I may not be religious, but I respect religion enough not to degrade it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_xl_AR0IRs

[vinea]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_xl_AR0IRs

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933

[franksargent]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933

With all the books that were left out of the final canon, it makes you wonder what they would of done with the Book of Mormon if it had existed then.

I kind of think they would have left it out.

BTW and IMHO, that was a most excellent South Park episode.

[jazzguru]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103933

I may not be religious, but I respect religion enough not to degrade it.

But specific religions are not off limits, apparently.

[Taskiss]

But specific religions are not off limits, apparently.If the "religion" in question is Scientology, I can understand making a distinction.

[SpamSandwich]

If the "religion" in question is Scientology, I can understand making a distinction.

I know that Scientology uses the definition of religion for tax purposes, but aren't they really just (more or less) providing a framework, or philosophy for living? It's more or less a set of guidelines for people who need their particular brand of rationalizations to make life navigable. I don't think they "worship" LR Hubbard, per se. Anyone here who identifies with Scientology may want to give their perspective.

[vinea]

But specific religions are not off limits, apparently.

If you're going to respond with a mormon propaganda video, I'll answer with a funny one that makes fun of your propaganda video.

What on earth did it have to do with anything we were talking about? Nada...you simply realized you lost and punted. Just like you did with your assertion that the Constitutional party is actually based on the bible.

What's really funny is that in the end, that South Park episode sums ups my feelings about Mormons. They can believe any dumb thing they want but (for the most part) they are nice folks. Which is good enough in my book. I don't care what they believe if they believe sincerely and try to be good folk.

Unless they start pushing their brand of Christianity down my throat. In which case I don't mind mocking them. There IS a reason for separation of church and state in this country and it's to keep other CHRISTIAN sects from pushing their doctrine from an official platform. What you consider doctrine I might consider heresy. Or in this case, just dum dum dum dum...

[vinea]

With all the books that were left out of the final canon, it makes you wonder what they would of done with the Book of Mormon if it had existed then.


It probably would have involved flammable material. Smith would have been lucky not to have been included as additional fuel.


BTW and IMHO, that was a most excellent South Park episode.

Yes.

[jazzguru]

If you're going to respond with a mormon propaganda video, I'll answer with a funny one that makes fun of your propaganda video.

What on earth did it have to do with anything we were talking about? Nada...you simply realized you lost and punted. Just like you did with your assertion that the Constitutional party is actually based on the bible.

What's really funny is that in the end, that South Park episode sums ups my feelings about Mormons. They can believe any dumb thing they want but (for the most part) they are nice folks. Which is good enough in my book. I don't care what they believe if they believe sincerely and try to be good folk.

Unless they start pushing their brand of Christianity down my throat. In which case I don't mind mocking them. There IS a reason for separation of church and state in this country and it's to keep other CHRISTIAN sects from pushing their doctrine from an official platform. What you consider doctrine I might consider heresy. Or in this case, just dum dum dum dum...

You're right, you "win". I concede "defeat". Well played, sir.

[dfiler]

I suppose that everyone is "religious", in the same way that everyone is:
a criminal
angelic
narcissistic
satanic
etc...

What's the purpose stretching a definition so greatly that it everything fits the definition? What's the point in even having the word at that point?

These are honest questions. My interpretation is that the definition isn't actually in dispute, but rather some other agenda is at hand. This isn't to say the agenda is wrong, but rather, I'm just trying to figure out what it is...

[vinea]

I suppose that everyone is "religious", in the same way that everyone is:
a criminal
angelic
narcissistic
satanic
etc...

What's the purpose stretching a definition so greatly that it everything fits the definition? What's the point in even having the word at that point?

These are honest questions. My interpretation is that the definition isn't actually in dispute, but rather some other agenda is at hand. This isn't to say the agenda is wrong, but rather, I'm just trying to figure out what it is...

To equate science and religion.

[Taskiss]

To equate science and religion.I think it's more to identify issues where faith influences an individuals position instead of issues where proof does.

When you believe something you can't prove because you don't have the skills, you're using faith. That puts the issue squarely in the same field as religion.

The idea that using "consensus" where the issue is science is no more logical than using faith in believing in religion...seeing's how most people believe in a supreme being, and every religious "expert" believes...

Bottom line, it's not bad to have faith, but realize when you're doing so and allow for the possibility of being mistaken...allow for the possibility that another position may contain more truth than the one you hold. Refusing to do so makes you a fanatic.

[franksargent]

Anthropomorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism)

Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God.

A brilliant example of circular reasoning.

When we can no longer test hypotheses via the scientific method, perhaps then we might try to equate science with religion.

Demarcation in contemporary scientific method

The criteria for a system of assumptions, methods, and theories to qualify as science today vary in their details from application to application, and vary significantly among the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science. The criteria typically include (1) the formulation of hypotheses that meet the logical criterion of contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability and the closely related empirical and practical criterion of testability, (2) a grounding in empirical evidence, and (3) the use of scientific method. The procedures of science typically include a number of heuristic guidelines, such as the principles of conceptual economy or theoretical parsimony that fall under the rubric of Ockham's razor. A conceptual system that fails to meet a significant number of these criteria is likely to be considered non-scientific. The following is a list of additional features that are highly desirable in a scientific theory.

Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

IMHO this whole thread is based on weak and lame Deconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism). :(

Are we all scientific? :no:

[NoahJ]

Interesting thread. Some things never change around here. Some of you may be sad/suprised to see me around and many of you may not know me but I felt a need to reply.

Religion is not the point. Anyone can "get religion" on any topic. Be it Christianity, an iPod, windows vs. mac, etc... What matters is who you are and how you live that out. I have found that trying to distill the beliefs themselves down and boxing them into a religion that people follow is not the point. Actually living out what your beliefs are takes far more courage and personal fortitude.

Religion is only a word, living out what you claim to be following daily is the relevant point. Many posts above say this with scriptural backing, but still cling to religion as a word or idea as being more important to the post. I say, everyone has a religion of some kind. Not many have the courage to live as they should. That is hard. I am no exception to anything I have said above, it is tough to get past the years of "religious training" and get down to what really matters.

[NoahJ]

Shoot, after updating my profile I lost my custom Tag under my name! Oh well...

[vinea]

I think it's more to identify issues where faith influences an individuals position instead of issues where proof does.

When you believe something you can't prove because you don't have the skills, you're using faith. That puts the issue squarely in the same field as religion.

The idea that using "consensus" where the issue is science is no more logical than using faith in believing in religion...seeing's how most people believe in a supreme being, and every religious "expert" believes...

Bottom line, it's not bad to have faith, but realize when you're doing so and allow for the possibility of being mistaken...allow for the possibility that another position may contain more truth than the one you hold. Refusing to do so makes you a fanatic.

No. You see science isn't consensus based. It's based on data. Now there are periods where their is contention on how that data can be interpreted but once inconvertible evidence is found most of the debate goes away except for a few crackpots or really old guys. Are there crackpots and fanatics among scientists? Sure. Do scientists have bias? Sure. They are human.

Consensus shows where the large body of evidence points for the moment but it very mutable based on getting new data. Nothing is canon. Nothing is not questioned when new data is discovered. If new data showed that there was no global warming, the consensus would shift...not because of faith or popularity but because there was new evidence that changes our understanding of the universe.

When you try to equate science to religion you get idiocy like creationism.

[Taskiss]

When you try to equate science to religion you get idiocy like creationism.Science shows that order devolves to disorder. It's called "entropy". That concept pretty much rules the physical world.

In order to explain how life began, Schrödinger suggested that life feeds on negative entropy. That pretty much makes life an exception to the physical world...

God's got some 'splainin' to do.

[Taskiss]

God, as your weak mind understands it, has nothing to explain and nothing to do even with anything real.Schrödinger stated it very clearly - "Living matter evades the decay to equilibrium".

Other than an exhibit of boorish behavior, you haven't addressed that at all.

[NoahJ]

What, exactly, does an argument about creationism vs science have to do with the original topic? :( other than showing how people can be religious in their adherance to any belief at he expense all else. Including common decency. I guess in that respect the topic has been answered. Don't make the religion more important than the people you are trying to help understand it.

[Hands Sandon]

Humus!;)

[franksargent]

Science shows that order devolves to disorder. It's called "entropy". That concept pretty much rules the physical world.

In order to explain how life began, Schrödinger suggested that life feeds on negative entropy. That pretty much makes life an exception to the physical world...

God's got some 'splainin' to do.

Science does not show that order devolves to disorder. In fact just the opposite, it's called evolution. It's called birth of new star and planetary systems, the universe evolves, it changes state. In fact everything evolves.

Schrödinger ... is also known as a conjecture.

Entropy? Please define the space-time invarient control volume. :no: Is entropy space-time invarient? If so give us a number for entropy. Note that the number must be positive by it's own definition. A positive number with one significant digit will do, with the caveat that this number is universally accepted by the universe itself. But then again maybe entropy is a complex number, with real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number) and imaginary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number) parts? Please define the universe, not just the part of the universe that we can currently observe.

Oh and I've been told that we are in fact at the center of the observable universe.

[Taskiss]

Science does not show that order devolves to disorder. In fact just the opposite, it's called evolution. It's called birth of new star and planetary systems, the universe evolves, it changes state. In fact everything evolves.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state.Entropy? Please define the space-time invarient control volume. Please define the universe, not just the part of the universe that we can currently observe.

Oh and I've been told that we are in fact at the center of the observable universe.With respect to the origin of the observation, the loci of "we", we are. As for your request, for the purposes of this conversation those definitions aren't necessary.

[Taskiss]

What, exactly, does an argument about creationism vs science have to do with the original topic? :( other than showing how people can be religious in their adherance to any belief at he expense all else.My argument is that, as individuals, it is a fact that we absolutely lack proof for many of our firm beliefs. Since we lack proof yet we continue to believe in certain things (and science was a handy subject to pick here, it's not necessarily the focus of my argument) we have to use a different mechanism for justifying the certainty we have. That mechanism is, in my opinion, faith. We either consciously or unconsciously decide to pick from various possibilities based on our trust in something other than proof...which is the basis for religion.

[franksargent]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4With respect to the origin of the observation, the loci of "we", we are. As for your request, for the purposes of this conversation those definitions aren't necessary.

There is no space-time invarient loci, there is no we, there is no frame of reference, the system, as it is, is fully dynamic and ever changing.

Tell us all some more about this thing called entropy.

Also tell us all some more about this thing called scientific conjecture. Since you introduced this into this discussion to begin with.

Also, please review my previous edited reply. In other words, I'd suggest to everyone that they think before they speak.

[Taskiss]

Tell us al some more about this thing called entropy.

Also tell us all some more about this thing called conjecture. Since you introduced thiis into this discussion to begin with.

Also, please review my previous edited reply. In other words, I'd suggest to everyone that they think before they speak.Perhaps if you start a thread where it would be appropriate to delve into the intricacies of entropy I'll join in the discussion there.

For the purposes of this discussion, the fact that entropy is inherent in what we understand are the physical laws of the universe and that there is apparent discrepancy where living matter is concerned is all that's necessary for me to suggest that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, franksargent.

[franksargent]

My argument is that, as individuals, it is a fact that we absolutely lack proof for many of our firm beliefs. Since we lack proof yet we continue to believe in certain things (and science was a handy subject to pick here, it's not necessarily the focus of my argument) we have to use a different mechanism for justifying the certainty we have. That mechanism is, in my opinion, faith. We either consciously or unconsciously decide to pick from various possibilities based on our trust in something other than proof...which is the basis for religion.

Deconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) at it's worst. :rolleyes:

[franksargent]

Perhaps if you start a thread where it would be appropriate to delve into the intricacies of entropy I'll join in the discussion there.

For the purposes of this discussion, the fact that entropy is inherent in what we understand are the physical laws of the universe and that there is apparent discrepancy where living matter is concerned is all that's necessary for me to suggest that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism), franksargent.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.

So on the one hand you refer to the scientific concept of entropy as fact, while on the other hand you refer to the scientific concept of entropy as faith. :embarrass

I know that science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) is not religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religon), I know that religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religon) is not science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). :\

Again, I ask the same rhetorical question I posed in a previous post:

Are we all scientific?
Are we all ...?
Are we ...?
Are ...?
We?
?
.

[NoahJ]

My argument is that, as individuals, it is a fact that we absolutely lack proof for many of our firm beliefs. Since we lack proof yet we continue to believe in certain things (and science was a handy subject to pick here, it's not necessarily the focus of my argument) we have to use a different mechanism for justifying the certainty we have. That mechanism is, in my opinion, faith. We either consciously or unconsciously decide to pick from various possibilities based on our trust in something other than proof...which is the basis for religion.

Some people have different levels of proof required. I am not interested in picking apart someone else's beliefs or their foundation unless they invite the discussion first. Otherwise, it is just me telling them how they are wrong or stupid and them being defensive.

Everyone takes a leap of faith daily. Sit down in a chair, you know that yesterday that chair held you up, today, why would it not do so again? Faith with previous experience, yet what you may not know is your kid used it to prop the door shut and in their roughhousing they broke it and did not tell you. When you sit down it collapses. Faith is very much involved in intellectual arguments as well, and many scientists use faith in scientific principles that went before to support the methods they use now. If it is found to be wrong, the chair may fall from under them, and their faith will be shaken.

There is nothing inherently spiritual about faith, it is what it is. To get back to a previous argument, faith without works is dead. If you don't walk the talk, then who cares? Very few people will believe what you have to say about anything if you cannot back it up with real actions that have a real impact.

And to go all the way back to the topics initial point, Are we all Religious? The answer to me is still yes. Just look at how spirited discussion gets when you even mention it. People are religious about their religion, or their science, or their anti-science, or their Atheism, or their computers, or their cars, or their routines, TV shows, education, etc. Ever watch a TV show religiously? Line up at midnight to catch the next hot movie with your favorite actor/actress? Bought every (Insert your favorite author) novel released? It happens to everyone at some level.

[franksargent]

Some people have different levels of proof required. I am not interested in picking apart someone else's beliefs or their foundation unless they invite the discussion first. Otherwise, it is just me telling them how they are wrong or stupid and them being defensive.

Everyone takes a leap of faith daily. Sit down in a chair, you know that yesterday that chair held you up, today, why would it not do so again? Faith with previous experience, yet what you may not know is your kid used it to prop the door shut and in their roughhousing they broke it and did not tell you. When you sit down it collapses. Faith is very much involved in intellectual arguments as well, and many scientists use faith in scientific principles that went before to support the methods they use now. If it is found to be wrong, the chair may fall from under them, and their faith will be shaken.

There is nothing inherently spiritual about faith, it is what it is. To get back to a previous argument, faith without works is dead. If you don't walk the talk, then who cares? Very few people will believe what you have to say about anything if you cannot back it up with real actions that have a real impact.

And to go all the way back to the topics initial point, Are we all Religious? The answer to me is still yes. Just look at how spirited discussion gets when you even mention it. People are religious about their religion, or their science, or their anti-science, or their Atheism, or their computers, or their cars, or their routines, TV shows, education, etc. Ever watch a TV show religiously? Line up at midnight to catch the next hot movie with your favorite actor/actress? Bought every (Insert your favorite author) novel released? It happens to everyone at some level.

Stop blurring the line with a twisting of words in a futile attempt to make all forms of language and communication totally meaningless.

See and address my post immediately above yours.

Are we all ...?

Note: I used a lower case letter for my question, the original poster posed the question with a capital R. Major difference right there.

Words have absolutely no meaning in your view as we can substitute any word immediately preceeding the queation mark. Give it any answer as words have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. :( :( :(

Are we all asshats? Yes would be the answer. Are we all janitors? Yes would be the answer. Are we all dead? Yes would be the answer. Or no would be the answer for all three. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters as you've debased all forms of language, communication, and understanding.

When you attempt to make all words meaningless, then that exercise voids all forms of communication or attempts thereof.

Deconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) at it's worse, worser, and worst. :rolleyes:

[Taskiss]

Proves my point.

Everyone creates an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being in their lives that they promote and worship.

Some just cut out the middle man.

[franksargent]

Proves my point.

Everyone creates an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being in their lives that they promote and worship.

Some just cut out the middle man.

What point and how so? Be exact and explicit such that there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in your language.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

When you can't poke a hole in the airtight argument, you are reduced to a sideswiping form of ...

Proves my point.

[Taskiss]

What point and how so? Be exact and explicit such that there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in your language.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

When you can't poke a hole in the airtight argument, you are reduced to a sideswiping form of ...

Proves my point.Be exact? OK, sure. I'm agreeing with you. You think we're all asshats.

I think you believe that, frank. I think you believe you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think your confidence in your ability to know it ... to judge others of having that quality in their makeup ... is unswerving. I believe it's apparent in every post you make.
Are we all asshats? Yes would be the answer.
I believe what I wrote - "Everyone creates an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being in their lives that they promote and worship".

I think you've very clearly communicated that you believe there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being.

edit: I had people on my ignore list 'till they were banned, and after they were allowed back I removed them from the list, figuring that if the admins here could give them another chance, well, I could to. I thought it would be a good idea.

I guess the difference between you and I, frank, is that I can admit when I'm wrong, 'cause I sure was wrong.

[Trajectory]

Are children who believe that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny really exist religious? What's the difference between them and those who believe in gods?

There's really no difference between children's fairy tales and religious fairy tales. Turning water to wine? Parting the sea? Immaculate conception? Coming back to life after being killed?

The bible is no different from any other work of fiction. Ron L. Hubbard turned his science fiction books into a religion. People who appear to be perfectly sane believe it. Does that make it real? Is that what religion is about, convincing people to believe in fairy tales? I think so. Let's call it what it is: institutionalized brainwashing.

[franksargent]

Be exact? OK, sure. I'm agreeing with you. You think we're all asshats.

I think you believe that, frank. I think you believe you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think your confidence in your ability to know it ... to judge others of having that quality in their makeup ... is unswerving. I believe it's apparent in every post you make.

I believe what I wrote - "Everyone creates an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being in their lives that they promote and worship".

I think you've very clearly communicated that you believe there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and supreme being.

edit: I had people on my ignore list 'till they were banned, and after they were allowed back I removed them from the list, figuring that if the admins here could give them another chance, well, I could to. I thought it would be a good idea.

I guess the difference between you and I, frank, is that I can admit when I'm wrong, 'cause I sure was wrong.

No comment is necessary or needed for the utter gibberish above.

ROTFLMFAO!

Proves my point.

[franksargent]

Are we all scientific?
Are we all ...?
Are we ...?
Are ...?
We?
?
.

I have not, as of yet, seen anyone address these questions at all.

Why is that?

[jazzguru]

edit: I had people on my ignore list 'till they were banned, and after they were allowed back I removed them from the list, figuring that if the admins here could give them another chance, well, I could to. I thought it would be a good idea.

I guess the difference between you and I, frank, is that I can admit when I'm wrong, 'cause I sure was wrong.

It's okay, Taskiss. We all make mistakes. Very decent of you to admit it. ;)

The ignore feature does come in handy now and again.

edit: Although I do find it is easy for some people to ignore what others are saying even without an ignore feature.

[franksargent]

It's okay, Taskiss. We all make mistakes. Very decent of you to admit it.


Yeah, faced with an airtight argument, Taskiss was indeed wrong. :p

[NoahJ]

Stop blurring the line with a twisting of words in a futile attempt to make all forms of language and communication totally meaningless.

See and address my post immediately above yours.

Are we all ...?

Note: I used a lower case letter for my question, the original poster posed the question with a capital R. Major difference right there.

Words have absolutely no meaning in your view as we can substitute any word immediately preceeding the queation mark. Give it any answer as words have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. :( :( :(

Are we all asshats? Yes would be the answer. Are we all janitors? Yes would be the answer. Are we all dead? Yes would be the answer. Or no would be the answer for all three. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters as you've debased all forms of language, communication, and understanding.

When you attempt to make all words meaningless, then that exercise voids all forms of communication or attempts thereof.

Deconstructionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction) at it's worse, worser, and worst. :rolleyes:

I did answer your question above as you specifically stated:

Again, I ask the same rhetorical question I posed in a previous post:

Are we all scientific?
Are we all ...?
Are we ...?
Are ...?
We?
?
.

Since the question was Rhetorical, it required no answer. :p

However to be serious, this is not my topic, view or question. I am simply participating in the discussion as I find it interesting. Since you find Wikipedia to be so enlightening have a read:

Religion According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious)

It seems to wander a bit in definitions as well:

Religious belief can also involve causes, principles or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, not necessarily limited to organized religions.

However, as generally understood religions deal with spirituality, and if you narrow it down to that usage of religious, there are those that would not be especially religious. Don't know why the question bothers you so much, religion and the word religious has been so watered down that it seems to mean about anything anymore. Just like people who claim to be Christians and do not hold to the tenets of what they claim to be.

[Taskiss]

However, as generally understood religions deal with spirituality, and if you narrow it down to that usage of religious, there are those that would not be especially religious.When you drill down into the definition of "spiritual", you find that it's defined as being concerned with "non-material, incorporeal, intangible" topics. That's a pretty broad focus.Don't know why the question bothers you so much, religion and the word religious has been so watered down that it seems to mean about anything anymore. Just like people who claim to be Christians and do not hold to the tenets of what they claim to be.One can, in pursuit of worship in the religious sense, deify the Sun, planetary constellations, spirits of earth, wind, fire and water, etc. etc. etc... up to and including the little chits of paper we exchange to formalize financial transactions. I don't think it ever could be watered down more than it is.

[NoahJ]

When you drill down into the definition of "spiritual", you find that it's defined as being concerned with "non-material, incorporeal, intangible" topics. That's a pretty broad focus. One can, in pursuit of worship in the religious sense, deify the Sun, planetary constellations, spirits of earth, wind, fire and water, etc. etc. etc... up to and including the little chits of paper we exchange to formalize financial transactions. I don't think it ever could be watered down more than it is.

I am not arguing, that point, simply answering the question. :)

All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial... To paraphrase a bit.

[franksargent]

Interesting thread. Some things never change around here. Some of you may be sad/suprised to see me around and many of you may not know me but I felt a need to reply.

Religion is not the point. Anyone can "get religion" on any topic. Be it Christianity, an iPod, windows vs. mac, etc... What matters is who you are and how you live that out. I have found that trying to distill the beliefs themselves down and boxing them into a religion that people follow is not the point. Actually living out what your beliefs are takes far more courage and personal fortitude.

Religion is only a word, living out what you claim to be following daily is the relevant point. Many posts above say this with scriptural backing, but still cling to religion as a word or idea as being more important to the post. I say, everyone has a religion of some kind. Not many have the courage to live as they should. That is hard. I am no exception to anything I have said above, it is tough to get past the years of "religious training" and get down to what really matters.

Shoot, after updating my profile I lost my custom Tag under my name! Oh well...

What, exactly, does an argument about creationism vs science have to do with the original topic? :( other than showing how people can be religious in their adherance to any belief at he expense all else. Including common decency. I guess in that respect the topic has been answered. Don't make the religion more important than the people you are trying to help understand it.

Some people have different levels of proof required. I am not interested in picking apart someone else's beliefs or their foundation unless they invite the discussion first. Otherwise, it is just me telling them how they are wrong or stupid and them being defensive.

Everyone takes a leap of faith daily. Sit down in a chair, you know that yesterday that chair held you up, today, why would it not do so again? Faith with previous experience, yet what you may not know is your kid used it to prop the door shut and in their roughhousing they broke it and did not tell you. When you sit down it collapses. Faith is very much involved in intellectual arguments as well, and many scientists use faith in scientific principles that went before to support the methods they use now. If it is found to be wrong, the chair may fall from under them, and their faith will be shaken.

There is nothing inherently spiritual about faith, it is what it is. To get back to a previous argument, faith without works is dead. If you don't walk the talk, then who cares? Very few people will believe what you have to say about anything if you cannot back it up with real actions that have a real impact.

And to go all the way back to the topics initial point, Are we all Religious? The answer to me is still yes. Just look at how spirited discussion gets when you even mention it. People are religious about their religion, or their science, or their anti-science, or their Atheism, or their computers, or their cars, or their routines, TV shows, education, etc. Ever watch a TV show religiously? Line up at midnight to catch the next hot movie with your favorite actor/actress? Bought every (Insert your favorite author) novel released? It happens to everyone at some level.

I did answer your question above as you specifically stated:



Since the question was Rhetorical, it required no answer. :p

However to be serious, this is not my topic, view or question. I am simply participating in the discussion as I find it interesting. Since you find Wikipedia to be so enlightening have a read:

Religion According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious)

It seems to wander a bit in definitions as well:



However, as generally understood religions deal with spirituality, and if you narrow it down to that usage of religious, there are those that would not be especially religious. Don't know why the question bothers you so much, religion and the word religious has been so watered down that it seems to mean about anything anymore. Just like people who claim to be Christians and do not hold to the tenets of what they claim to be.

I am not arguing, that point, simply answering the question. :)

All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial... To paraphrase a bit.

You have not answered the question posed;

Are we all scientific?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

BTW, avoidance of the question is not an answer to the question.

[NoahJ]

I have answered the question of the thread and what it is based on. Post a new thread and see if anyone cares to respond. Have you specifically answered the question of this thread? Perhaps I could go back and quote all of your responses and see as well? I am betting your answer is no but I don't think that it would be feasible to include all your replies in one post. :p

(My answer to your question is, perhaps. I would have to think about what that would mean to me. Is not nearly as interesting a topic in my opinion.)

For your other questions:
Are we all asshats?
If you include the words capable of being, then yes would be the answer, otherwise, no.

Are we all janitors?
Nope

Are we all dead?
If you are speaking physically, you are posting, I hope that answer is no. If you are speaking spiritually, the answer is definitely no. If you are speking metaphorically in some other way, probably not.

Being religious is harder to pin down than other words, for the reason you keep crying about. It has been made to mean so many different things to different people. Sorry if that aggravates you further.

[franksargent]

I have answered the question of the thread and what it is based on. Post a new thread and see if anyone cares to respond. Have you specifically answered the question of this thread? Perhaps I could go back and quote all of your responses and see as well? I am betting your answer is no but I don't think that it would be feasible to include all your replies in one post. :p

(My answer to your question is, perhaps. I would have to think about what that would mean to me. Is not nearly as interesting a topic in my opinion.)

For your other questions:
Are we all asshats?
If you include the words capable of being, then yes would be the answer, otherwise, no.

Are we all janitors?
Nope

Are we all dead?
If you are speaking physically, you are posting, I hope that answer is no. If you are speaking spiritually, the answer is definitely no. If you are speking metaphorically in some other way, probably not.

Being religious is harder to pin down than other words, for the reason you keep crying about. It has been made to mean so many different things to different people. Sorry if that aggravates you further.

Yet, you still evade the primary question;

Are we all scientific? Yes or No.

[franksargent]

sci⋅en⋅tif⋅ic

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies.
2. occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts.
3. regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures.
4. systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science.


Yes. We Are All Scientific.

Reason? Using the broadest definition (4) We all have at least once in our existence exhibited scientific behavior.

We? We includes at least the the phyla Chordata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordata), since all of these species have at one time or another behaved in a manner of an exact science.

[NoahJ]

My answer to your question is, perhaps. Sorry, that is all you get.

Actually. After reading your post and thinking it over I have to change my answer to no. We are not all scientific. If you had asked if we are capable of being scientific then yes, but we are not all presently scientific. Even. By definition 4. The word Are specifies a present state of being and I do not see that as being the case with all of us.