Is it even proper to use the verb "to believe" as an indicator of adherence to religion?

[paarsurrey]

Maybe it helps if I tell you that deities, as I understand them, are something for the adherent to choose and take responsibility for - and, in fact, to create and destroy if he or she feels like it?

The way I see it, Christianity and Islaam have lost their ways in the very act of making their doctrines rely on the very literal existence of their gods.

"Islaam"

Not exactly true for Islam. Allah, as I understand, is not a physical being or a spirit as in Pagan-Christianity. Allah is not born of a human female like in Christianity (or in Bahaism). Allah has no wife or a son or a daughter*. Allah is attributive and his attributes are reflected in the Universe/s in absolutes. So, please don't club Islam with the religion of Pagan-Christ (or with the ideology of Bahaullah). Right, please?

Regards
____________
*[[112:1]
بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ﴿۱﴾
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[[112:2]
قُلۡ ہُوَ اللّٰہُ اَحَدٌ ۚ﴿۲﴾
Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[[112:3]
اَللّٰہُ الصَّمَدُ ۚ﴿۳﴾
‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[[112:4]
لَمۡ یَلِدۡ ۬ۙ وَ لَمۡ یُوۡلَدۡ ۙ﴿۴﴾
‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[[112:5]
وَ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّہٗ کُفُوًا اَحَدٌ ٪﴿۵﴾
‘And there is none like unto Him.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 112: Al-Ikhlas

 

[LuisDantas]

"Islaam"

Not exactly true for Islam. Allah, as I understand, is not a physical being or a spirit as in Pagan-Christianity. Allah is not born of a human female like in Christianity (or in Bahaism). Allah has no wife or a son or a daughter*. Allah is attributive and his attributes are reflected in the Universe/s in absolutes. So, please don't club Islam with the religion of Pagan-Christ (or with the ideology of Bahaullah). Right, please?

Regards
____________
*[[112:1]
بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ﴿۱﴾
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[[112:2]
قُلۡ ہُوَ اللّٰہُ اَحَدٌ ۚ﴿۲﴾
Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[[112:3]
اَللّٰہُ الصَّمَدُ ۚ﴿۳﴾
‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[[112:4]
لَمۡ یَلِدۡ ۬ۙ وَ لَمۡ یُوۡلَدۡ ۙ﴿۴﴾
‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[[112:5]
وَ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّہٗ کُفُوًا اَحَدٌ ٪﴿۵﴾
‘And there is none like unto Him.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 112: Al-Ikhlas

You have just confirmed my point.

Thanks.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, since most adherents to a religion are believers.

I doubt it. Very much so, as a matter of fact.

Belief is encouraged in the Abrahamics, and largely irrelevant in most others. But even in the Abrahamics, actual belief is odd enough to be something of a taboo subject in many societies. Brazil is holds the largest Catholic population in the world and it is actually a breach of etiquette to mention even the general direction of one's beliefs here.

Why would it be the case? Mostly because at some level traditional Catholics feel odd about claiming to be believers, and mostly go along with it in order to not be disruptive.

However, I agree that not all followers of dogmatic religions are “believers”. They follow the rules of the dogma and give lip-service to the faith, but I wouldn’t consider them actual believers of the faith. Example: Members of the KKK.

The KKK, like Westboro and so many others dangerous fringe and not-so-fringe groups, are clearly true enough believers. That they are missing is hardly belief, but discernment instead.

They can and do weaponize their own god-belief, time and again, because belief itself can not be trusted to bring wisdom - and boy, does that show in our everyday lives!

But since you apparently disagree, please allow me to ask: do you have any indication at all that at some level KKK and the like are not true believers? Incidentally, I stand reminded of the claims that ISIS/Daesh and so many other groups are not true Muslims. I wonder if the claim involves some form of challenge to their god-beliefs. I would bet that they are very much believers, although clearly not of any form of admirable god.

BTW, I just saw BlacKKKLansman on DVD. Great movie. The juxtaposition of KKK members talking about Christianity and White Supremacy versus listening to the horrors of racial prejudice from Harry Belafonte’s character was very moving. Great job Spike Lee!

Indeed, we all should sober up about the dangers of unchecked, unbalanced, unquestioned god-belief.

 

[Road Warrior]

.....But since you apparently disagree, please allow me to ask: do you have any indication at all that at some level KKK and the like are not true believers? Incidentally, I stand reminded of the claims that ISIS/Daesh and so many other groups are not true Muslims. I wonder if the claim involves some form of challenge to their god-beliefs. I would bet that they are very much believers, although clearly not of any form of admirable god.



Indeed, we all should sober up about the dangers of unchecked, unbalanced, unquestioned god-belief.

Yes; the mere fact that they are not following the precepts of their espoused religion. Lip-service is not being a true believer. Neither is spreading hate when the message of Jesus was spreading love.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes; the mere fact that they are not following the precepts of their espoused religion. Lip-service is not being a true believer. Neither is spreading hate when the message of Jesus was spreading love.

Looks like you are telling me that you do not believe that there is any amount whatsoever of challenge nor of responsibility in interpreting and keeping a religious doctrine.

Meanwhile, I think that it is a very serious and permanent challenge, which can and will make or break any religion.

 

[Road Warrior]

Looks like you are telling me that you do not believe that there is any amount whatsoever of challenge nor of responsibility in interpreting and keeping a religious doctrine.

Meanwhile, I think that it is a very serious and permanent challenge, which can and will make or break any religion.

I'm against dogma that supersedes the original intentions of the faith. Christ had a message and now we have televangelists. Do you really think they are doing their best to spread Christ's message or do you think they are just profiting off of it like the merchants in the Temple?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm against dogma that supersedes the original intentions of the faith. Christ had a message and now we have televangelists. Do you really think they are doing their best to spread Christ's message or do you think they are just profiting off of it like the merchants in the Temple?

That is a nice question to make. Thanks.

The way I see it, there are a couple of interesting phenomena manifesting there.

First, of course there is little to recommend the moneygrabbing model of evangelization. Yet one can't help but notice that they thrive. It sure seems to me that Christianity owers it to itself to have proper defenses and correction mechanisms against this sort of occurrence, yet they seem to have been falling short. We may discuss the exact reasons. For a starter, I offer that over-reliance of dogmatic stances (both constructive and otherwise) makes people vulnerable.

That said, I also think that there is neither need nor much safety in assuming that any given doctrine's original form and intentions are necessarily their best, most valid form. Many Christians may well disagree with me, but I sincerely think that even in strongly theocentric doctrines there is such a thing as a true, constructive contribution from people who have little more than sincere effort and sincere questioning to offer. People should not fear learning better and building better when they receive the valuable gift of sincere contribution. And doctrines do need to learn better, even if they were entirely valid and lucid at their origins, because the world which they deal with does change and therefore so do the applicability of the original ideas and means.

Doctrines may lose validity. But they also may, and IMO definitely do, regain and improve their own validity from the input of their wise, well meaning adherents. That should be accepted with gratitude and wisdom, and often is.

For those reasons, I do not particularly know or care what the original message from Christianity is. For good or worse, people have to adapt the message to the best of their abilities - not too many pharisees and saducees around, for instance. Ultimately, how prepared the doctrine is to adapt itself and to course correct is probably a lot more significant than what it might have originally wanted.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Belief is something that happens, but does not deserve to be nurtured. Religion at its best is not about belief, but rather about values, goals, and the means of nurturing and expressing them.

Why does belief not deserve to be nurtured exactly?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

"why some people insist on attempting to declare atheism a "religion" "

Cause of "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ".
With the enthusiasm they defend "Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism", therefore they fall into the term "Religions". Right, please?

Regards

What is your definition of a religion?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

You know, @paarsurrey , it is answers like this that convince me that Islaam not only is not a religion, but also that it has a huge responsibility in spreading serious misguidance about the very nature and role of religion and of theism.

I do not want to be rude, but there is no helping it. You are displaying a complete lack of understanding of both religion and theism by answering that way.

Unfortunately, there is nothing constructive that I can do when faced with such an answer beyond accepting that you have trouble with the basic concepts and reminding myself that it is not reasonable to expect Muslims to have a working understanding of those.

You have been given so little notion of what a religion would be that even atheism looks like it could serve as one. That is quite misguided indeed.

So one Muslim's response means that all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush?

 

[Road Warrior]

Why does belief not deserve to be nurtured exactly?

Belief in what? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Magic? Or that people should realize it's a big Universe and they can never know everything but they can believe there is a greater good to be found?

 

[Road Warrior]

So one Muslim's response means that all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush?

Agreed. Similarly:

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Belief in what? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Magic? Or that people should realize it's a big Universe and they can never know everything but they can believe there is a greater good to be found?

People can believe in what they want.

 

[Road Warrior]

People can believe in what they want.

Agreed. My only request is that they don't push their beliefs onto me. This includes the "New Atheists" who ridicule, mock and attack believers just like Richard Dawkins and the other members of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism" advised.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Agreed. My only request is that they don't push their beliefs onto me. This includes the "New Atheists" who ridicule, mock and attack believers just like Richard Dawkins and the other members of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism" advised.

Define 'push their beliefs onto me'.

 

[Fool]

I have recently written an answer elsewhere for a question about why some people insist on attempting to declare atheism a "religion".

Sometimes writing such a reply enables me to put things together. This time, I realized that far as I am concerned it is just weird to expect someone to "believe" in a deity, let alone in a presumed religion.

Christianity and, above all, Islaam do. Which is why they actually have words ("Infidel" and "Kafir") that hold the twin meanings of "liar" and "unbeliever".

Those are very disparate meanings, but within the scope of their doctrines they end up meeting and perhaps fusing.

Christianity and Islaam expect people to believe in the validity and "truth" (in the sense of correspondence to the reality of facts) of their respective doctrines, barring impediments of lack of awareness or mental or moral failure to grasp those doctrines.

Frankly, that expectation does not speak well of either doctrine. Not in the slightest. Their continued reliance on such an unreasonable expectation may well have doomed both, even. At the very least, it strongly compromises their very ability to function as (presumed) religions.

If nothing else, they are certainly unique in their relationships with their god-concepts. Generally speaking, deities tend to be abstractions or idealizations. Not so with YHWH and/or Allah, who is presumably fit for an entirely different treatment, perhaps even as the backer of a supremely exalted bet that is nonetheless presented as being somehow religious in nature.

That is a very exotic proposal for the relationship between a religious doctrine and its own deities. And I fear that as time went by, the efforts of many to attain dialog with those doctrines with a penchant for raising armies with a desire to take arms "for God" may have taught the wrong lessons elsewhere. In seeking common ground for a mutual understanding, some measure of cultural contamination may have occurred, spreading some of the self-inflicted confusion about the nature and role of deities from the Abrahamics to other groups.

That is very unfortunate.

The way I see it, it makes literally no sense to purport to believe in a deity. One either has use for a deity, or one does not. And when we use a deity, there is no question of whether we believe in it. Any concept that we use is real for the purposes of that use, even if it is self-contradictory or insane. Deities are no exception, nor do we have any reason to want them to be an exception.

Yet it would appear that, for many Christians and most Muslims, religion should be mostly about proclaiming the belief in the truth of their God. That is a wasteful and often harmful goal, which at best keeps them occupied when they could better use their energies for religious pursuits proper.

Because religion is not really about belief, except perhaps by a very cynical and heavily politized view. Belief is something that happens, but does not deserve to be nurtured. Religion at its best is not about belief, but rather about values, goals, and the means of nurturing and expressing them.

to believe, or not, to believe is the question. similar to be, or not to be, but in being you are still the contrast of otherness. doesn't require a religion. but a belief system is necessary to navigate this labyrinth we call life. it's okay to be afraid but don't let it control your life. live and don't simply try to survive. we should help where and when we can; otherwise mind our own business when we can't



this is your life!!! spend it like you stole it and love with all your might. eff the rest.


best wishes in "your" journey and come see me when you can.

giggles

 

[LuisDantas]

@Fool , it seems to me that there is a significant difference, often enough an actual opposition even, between belief in its most usual sense (which is usually not worth pursuing) and values (which are very much worthwhile, particularly when rationally pursued).

 

[Road Warrior]

Define 'push their beliefs onto me'.

Mostly it falls into two categories: harassment such as Hare Krishnas at the airport and pushing laws with a religious intent. Abortion laws would be an example of the latter.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Mostly it falls into two categories: harassment such as Hare Krishnas at the airport and pushing laws with a religious intent. Abortion laws would be an example of the latter.

I have not been harassed by Hare Krishnas at the airport before myself - could you expand a little on the kind of behaviour exhibited?

As for pushing laws with a religious intent, again, what do you mean by 'pushing' here?

 

[Road Warrior]

I have not been harassed by Hare Krishnas at the airport before myself - could you expand a little on the kind of behaviour exhibited?

As for pushing laws with a religious intent, again, what do you mean by 'pushing' here?

It's been awhile since they were around. I remember them well in the 1980s. It was an example. Yes, someone getting in your face and refusing to let you by such as an anti-abortion protesters outside of a medical clinic. ..or worse, blowing it up and shooting anyone who goes inside.

Barring gay marriage, barring or severely limiting abortion, drug laws. All have a basis in religion. In the case of the gay marriage ban, it was in conflict with the 14th Amendment.