Religion does this, atheism is that

[OmarKhayyam]

Originally Posted by frg001

Not necessarily both. Buddhism, Christian Atheism, Lavey Satanism etc. No supernatural being.
Religion tends to require a belief in a supernatural being, but can simply be a set of doctrines for how to live.

If that is all it is it AIN'T a religion.

[OmarKhayyam]

Originally Posted by Alceste

I like this one:

God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

See that is what I mean. She can say things that are not correct. She says things that are unintelligible. But something this BOTH correct and intelligible - that's rare. And worth noting.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

If that is all it is it AIN'T a religion.

What a bizarre way of thinking you have - you've allowed American Christian fundamentalists to decide what religion is, even though you aren't one yourself.

You do know these folks are a very small, noisy minority in the global population, right? Why would you elevate them to such a significant role as to be the custodians of the definition of the word "religion"?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

No, I WASN'T joking. Religion properly so called REQUIRES a supernatural being. It REQUIRES a set of proscriptions/prescriptions that aim to control individual behavior.

No, it doesn't. The fact that it doesn't is an observable fact.

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

In the immortal words of Ann Coulter, "I believe in a real religion. You know, one with rules and things."

No true Scotsman is an argument I'd expect from Coulter, but not from you.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by frg001

Not necessarily both. Buddhism, Christian Atheism, Lavey Satanism etc. No supernatural being.
Religion tends to require a belief in a supernatural being, but can simply be a set of doctrines for how to live.

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

If that is all it is it AIN'T a religion.

While I agree that frg001's definition is too broad, the anthropological definition of religion, though varied and contentious, still encompassess non-theistic beliefs like Buddhism- which Alceste already mentioned.

Burkheim's loose definition of religion was "a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them." It certainly includes a wide range of ideologies while potentially excluding theism. Prof. of Anthropology James W. Dow has written some interesting stuff on the subject.
James Dow: Is Religion an Evolutionary Adaptation?
http://www.anpere.net/2007/2.pdf

[OmarKhayyam]

Originally Posted by Alceste

What a bizarre way of thinking you have - you've allowed American Christian fundamentalists to decide what religion is, even though you aren't one yourself.

You do know these folks are a very small, noisy minority in the global population, right? Why would you elevate them to such a significant role as to be the custodians of the definition of the word "religion"?

They and their Muslim cousins are not nearly as small as you indicate. Further no matter their numbers they have a profound influence on the societies in which they are found. They are relentless in their desire to have the rest of us at least ACT like we believe what they believe. They DO define religion for most of the world simply because they are the most visible and most ardent practitioners of it.

You may continue to enjoy the quiet of your study and the pablum of your unconcern. It is comforting to do so. But that will stop the battle outside. And it can still reach you; your willful ignorance notwithstanding.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

They and their Muslim cousins are not nearly as small as you indicate. Further no matter their numbers they have a profound influence on the societies in which they are found. They are relentless in their desire to have the rest of us at least ACT like we believe what they believe. They DO define religion for most of the world simply because they are the most visible and most ardent practitioners of it.

You may continue to enjoy the quiet of your study and the pablum of your unconcern. It is comforting to do so. But that will stop the battle outside. And it can still reach you; your willful ignorance notwithstanding.

Actually, I live in Canada.

[Zorro1227]

Originally Posted by Madhuri

I wish people would stop making absolute statements about religion and atheism. It's possibly the most frustrating thing I experience on these boards. If you're going to say 'religion does this' please specify which religion and if you want to say something about atheism, ie/ 'atheists are all' please specify which and why. It would save a lot of arguments and offensiveness that I experience and what I see other people experiencing. I think everyone would benefit if we all tried to be more conscious of this.

Just thought I'd put that out there

I completely agree with you. I would not consider myself a religious person or an atheist. I am very spiritual, however. I think religious people and atheists all vary in their beliefs.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by frg001

Not necessarily both. Buddhism, Christian Atheism, Lavey Satanism etc. No supernatural being.
Religion tends to require a belief in a supernatural being, but can simply be a set of doctrines for how to live.

Christian Atheism?

Sadly for westerners, Buddhism is FULL of supernatural beings....
but your comments thus far are full of weak generalisations...so I am not shocked at this assertion.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Zorro1227

I completely agree with you. I would not consider myself a religious person or an atheist. I am very spiritual, however. I think religious people and atheists all vary in their beliefs.

How does one differ if they are "spiritual" as opposed to "religious" in your opinion?