So what exactly is Religion?

[LostOne4Ever]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]We have had countless discussions/wars over the nature of religion in this forum, but I can't help but wonder have we ever discussed what actually makes a religion a religion?

Looking up the word in 5 different sources I seem to get 5 different definitions...sometimes within a single source![/font]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/religion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]What is it that makes a religion different from a cult? Is there a difference? Or are they the same thing?

Does a religion have to have gods? Or, conversely does believing in gods make a religion? Does it have to have stories/myths about how the universe came into being? What about religions that can exist without gods like Buddhism and Taoism? Are they real religions? Or something else?

Does religion have to have a set of rules or guidelines for how to live one's life or at the very least how one should experience life? Does it have to have rituals?

Personally, I think of religion as a way of living or experiencing life based upon some perceived revelation or "revealed truth" about the nature of the universe.

Maybe the revelation is that there is a supreme deity who created the world and if you please him by living life according to his/her/its wishes you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Or maybe, the truth is that said god is a gigantic jerk and knowing that allows you to experience life the way it really is. Or maybe there is no gods, but a rhythm to existence and if you follow it, you can reborn to a better life, or end the cycle of rebirth, or maybe by following the rhythm you will have a more fulfilling and enjoyable life.

I think that all organized religions are cults and vice versa, and that simply believing that gods exist or don't exist, or believing in one or two myths about how things came about, or having a ritual or two on their own is not sufficient to be called a religion. Otherwise things like football could be called religion.

What about all of you? What is religion to you? [/font]

*Note1: I try not to post too much to my own threads as I don't want to be seen as "bumping" my own threads. Just because I don't reply much does not mean I am not keeping track of the thread.

**Note2: Yes this is in response to some replies in the Scientology thread.

[upaloopa]

1. To me Buddhism is not a religion.

The Buddha was a human who taught what he learned. So to me Buddhism is a way to live your life.
The only religion I ever had was Catholicism. I was baptized but I never really believed what I was taught. I was taught rules to live by and what punishments came from breaking the rules. I was taught what to believe because the church says you need to believe it or you are doomed to eternal damnation.
It is easy to choose Buddhism's way of living and rejecting religion.
Buddhism says try it and see if it works for you. Religion says to believe it because god says to or else punishment.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. First, I think religion involves a communal experience.

Second, it involves perspectives on the ultimate questions concerning the nature of reality and how to respond to that nature.

Third, it involves ritual and/or retelling and discussion of stories important to the community.
-
Philosophy doesn't have the third one. Sports fanaticism doesn't have the second. Spirituality doesn't have the first one.

Great question!

[bvf]

6. I think your first and third points

could be placed under the term "culture." The second, under "science."

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Sure, they could show up under religion, and under the terms you named.

Heck, I think most people would consider religions to be a part of culture.

[bvf]

10. Shared experience and ritual retelling

of same do not necessarily involve the invocation of precepts involving magic. Unless you want to argue that post-Super Bowl chat around the office cooler on a Monday in February involves belief in the supernatural, that is.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. Covered that under "addressing the nature of reality and our response to it".

Sports fanaticism doesn't include that aspect, so your water cooler chat is out.

By the way, under your proposed definition, someone who believes in ghosts (but not in gods) is religious (and also an atheist). Even someone who believes that science will never solve the hard problem of consciousness would qualify as religious. Whereas someone who believes that science will eventually find God is not religious under your scheme.

Your attempt to create a simple science v. religion dichotomy does not succeed, in my opinion.

[bvf]

15. I'd be hard-pressed to find an atheist who believes in ghosts.

At least among those I know.

As far as consciousness goes, science has a lot to do, certainly, but I'm not aware of any current scientific efforts in the pursuit of any "god."

Please don't bring up the Higgs boson.

[LostOne4Ever]

45. Just wanted to thank for you your answer.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Replies like yours and Promethean's were exactly what I was looking for.

Too bad I derailed my own thread by bringing up cults. I think I am going to let this thread die now, but thanks for staying on topic.[/font]

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. That might, however, include conviction politics

Formed into parties, a 'communal experience' is definitely there. 'Retelling and discussion of stories important to the community' is often there too; people look to history for examples, and say "remember this pioneer", "never forget the sacrifice(!) that group X made for us", "look to our Founding Fathers for wisdom" and so on. They don't look at the nature of physical reality, but they do often make sweeping claims about the social nature of humans - that we are naturally a community who always work best in cooperation, or that communism is inevitable, or that the 'invisible hand' of competition make competition always the best situation.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. 1. must be at least 90% total bullshit.

hmmmmm.....

uh.....


wait, I'll come up with 2. later.

[bvf]

4. Religion is belief in the supernatural.

Whether that involves a ridiculous acceptance of an imaginary being, or the "power" of magic stones, or what have you, it's the belief that there are things that cannot be explained by science, post Galileo.

In short, the opposite of science.

[cbayer]

5. "I think that all organized religions are cults and vice versa"

What definition of cult do you use?

[LostOne4Ever]

11. The first definition here:

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2015, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cult

A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object

[font size=3]More or less.

Edit: Only proviso I would add is that I consider cults to be groups which is why i used the modifier "organized."[/font]

[cbayer]

13. That's a definition that could be applied equally to religion, but

when people use the word cult, they often mean it quite differently than what you are offering.

When you say religion is a cult is a religion, do you mean that they are interchangeable terms, or is there some kind of distinction?

[LostOne4Ever]

22. From the way it is used where I live it's meaning is completely subjective and biased

[font size=3]It is usually used by the people I know to refer to a small cabal with {what they consider} FALSE religious beliefs that they find so strange that they think they are probably dangerous without knowing the first thing about what said cabal actually does or does not believe.

Of course I live in the Bible Belt and am surrounded by fundies. It is not uncommon for me to hear opinions that mirror Pat Robertson (a man who called all mormons and even the UU church...cults).

IE It is used as a way to marginalize and malign small religions they don't like. Of course, their definition also describes Christianity during its formative years to a tee, and probably every other religions as well.

The way I am using the word is meant to be objective. I am trying to not be biased for large established religions over smaller ones.

And, yes, I think cult and "organized" religion can be used interchangeably. [/font]

[cbayer]

34. Well, since you understand that the term can and is used in a negative way,

and you think they are interchangeable, it would seem to me that the civil thing to do would be to avoid the word "cult".

[LostOne4Ever]

37. Generally I do, but the rest of the world does not

Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2015, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size=3] So I think it is important to make it clear that the big religions are just as much of a cult as the smaller ones. [/font]

[cbayer]

42. Like I said, it depends on the definition, but I understand why you want to hold that position.

It's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. To me, religions are all efforts at controlling other people.

Nothing more.

Love the owls, by the way. Awesome.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. Thanks! Going with an Athena theme :) (nt)

[mindwalker_i]

8. It's, like, this stuff, comes in a can

[bvf]

16. Wal-Mart's having a big sale this week. n/t.

[mindwalker_i]

17. Can-o-God, 30% off

Like divine ravioli.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. or damned ravioli:

Baby stingrays look like raviolis stuffed with tiny damned souls



http://imgur.com/LM3AQiR

[mindwalker_i]

50. Wow, that's cool!

They look like they're just begging for some cheese

[Promethean]

18. To me religions and cults are not mutually exclusive.

They are also not automatically mutually inclusive. Cult carries more of a negative connotation though I think of it as a more isolationist form of religion.

Beyond that it is really hard to define religion. The features I associate with religion are not present in every religion. Supernatural belief, authority worship and dogmatic codes are 3 major features that are present most often. Some things that don't fit with traditional religion are so like religions that I consider them so. Like the various forms of leader worship seen around the world.

Things I do not consider religion are social groups that lack all or most of the most recognizable aspects of religion. Political parties/ideologies themselves are not religions for instance though some do try to cross that line. A chess club definitely isn't a religion though it is very possible to devote oneself to chess to an extreme level. Social or activist groups that come together around an idea are also not religions; environmentalist groups fit this category.

[msongs]

19. a scheme concocted by a group to obtain power and $$, using fear as a weapon nt

[cbayer]

21. Sort of like capitalism.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Ooh, ooh, can I play 'deflection bingo' too?

[TM99]

20. If you truly want to understand religion

then you have to go beyond this type of simplistic thinking.

Using a few dictionaries, an online encyclopedia that has been shown to be biased & unreliable, some personal ideas, and then intellectual certainty that religion = cult and vice versus is not going to steer the discussion into anything but personal rantings and diatribes.

Read this article to start to understand the etymology of the word religion --

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087765

With that foundation, sure, let's go a bit further after that.

[forsaken mortal]

25. Interesting article

I guess the term "religion" springs from roots that mean something akin to "bind to god." Personally, I don't think being a cult and religion are mutually exclusive. Cults are usually talked about in the context of being small groups highly devoted to a leader with supernatural insight or claims to be a god, or some such things.

[TM99]

31. Newer scholarship is focused more on

the term relegere - which is about communication - instead of religio which is to bind. Religion in that context describes more the followers who bind together to worship, study, show devotion, practice teachings etc. which come from original communications - some 'supernaturally' inspired and others quite mundane and human.

[LostOne4Ever]

26. The purpose of the links was not to give a definitive definition

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But rather to show:[/font]

Looking up the word in 5 different sources I seem to get 5 different definitions...sometimes within a single source!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That said, I disagree with you strongly about the reliability of Wikipedia. It has been studied numerous times and found to be remarkably accurate, right along the lines of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I am not interested in personal rantings and diatribes one way or the other. If people want to do that they are more than welcome, but I will not be involving myself into those disccussions. That is not my purpose with this thread.

My purpose is to see what others think what makes a religion a religion. Nothing more. Someone might post something I (or someone else) think is insightful and I (or they) might change my (their) definition. It has happened before. Or maybe not. Either way, I see this post as giving insight into what various members here think make a religion a religion.

One person has already said something I disagree with. They stated that they did not feel Buddhism was a religion. But the point of this post was not to argue with posters, but to get their views and I appreciate them posting their thoughts. Again, insight.

I read your article and it is interesting. Especially the part about how the root word might mean being strict in observance. But, it is not definitive about what the word means currently in our society, and does not change my mind in the least about cults be synonymous with "organized" religion.

If there is a difference, it is that cult carries a stigma on it as it has been used to malign small religions. I am sure that if we went back to Rome during the first century AD (and they spoke Modern American English for some reason) we would see the Roman Pagans referring to Christianity as a cult.

I don't see small religions as any less legitimate than mainstream religions. The truth does not play favorites and neither is any more likely than the other to be true...and they are equally as likely to be wrong.

I have seen Mormonism, Scientologists, Jehova Witnesses, etc. are all maligned as cults, but they are just as much real religions as any other religion.

Catholicism, mainstream protestantism, Judaism are all touted as real religions but they all started off as, and remain as much a cult as the previously mentioned beliefs.[/font]

[TM99]

30. Wikipedia or any encyclopedia

is fine for basic data. You want to look up the 4 blood types, sure. You want to look up the synopsis of a movie? You bet. But past middle school, dictionaries and encyclopedia's are not used for research purposes when discussing most topics. You use primary and secondary sources on the discipline itself.

Furthermore, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone whether they are qualified or not to speak authoritatively on a particular subject. This has led and continues to lead to controversies. This article from CNN discusses several -
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/24/tech/web/controversial-wikipedia-pages/

You will note that religion is one of the top subjects with controversial edits and 'edit wars'. So no, I maintain quite rightly that Wikipedia will not lead us down the road towards a serious discussion of religion.

Your understanding of cults is limited from such sources and simply personal experiences. Cult comes from cultus - to care for a god through ritual devotion. In pagan cultures, particularly Greco-Roman, a cult had no negative connotations. Each deity had a cult that surround it. These individuals felt a particular connection with a god or goddess and were devoted to caring for them. So there were cults of Dionysus. There were cults of Pallas Athena. The Romans saw the early Christians as a cult of Judaism - they were devoted to their demi-god or messiah, Jesus. The problem the Romans had with Christianity as it grew was not as a religion but the same with Judaism. Namely that it was a threat to the state. And it proved to be a true threat as it supplanted the previous pagan system when Constantine converted.

Cults are therefore subsets of a religion. There are cults of Tara for Buddhists for instance. There are cults within denominations of Christianity. The cult of the saints within Catholicism is a perfect example. The cult of the Virgin Mary is another.

Jehova Witnesses are not a cult. They are a non-trinitarian denomination of Christianity. Mormonism is also not a cult though in the beginning it was possible to label them as such. Why? Because in the of the new religious movements that began in the 19th century, a singular leader with divine attributes whether as a healer, a seer, a prophet, etc. was the focal point of these and other groups. We began to shift from an understanding of a cult as a subset of a religion that focused on a singular deity or aspect of deity to a separate group with a focus on a singular individual or individuals as leaders. Mormonism had Joseph Smith. Scientology had L. Ron Hubbard.

They have both evolved into religions under the original and scholarly use of that term - relegere - to go over again in reading, speech, or thought which is the basis of all religions. Mormons are now a denomination of Christianity that have distanced themselves from Smith as a divine being and as prophet, say like Mohammed, who communicated further aspects of divine truth. In the beginning was the Word. The Buddha's teachings at the Deer Park. Arjuna's teachings of Krishna during a great battle. The Great Spirit speaking to native people through the behavior of animals. At its root, religion is about communication -- teachings and writings that link philosophy, psychology, and ritual within a culture. The modern New Atheism movement is fast on its way to become a religion because of this very true definition of what a religion actually is.

Catholicism was never a cult. Protestantism was never a cult. Judaism was never a cult. Islam was never a cult. Buddhism was never a cult. Hinduism was never a cult. The Branch Davidians? Yes, a cult. Why? Because the focus was not on the Christian God but rather on David Koresh. Just before the awful events at Waco, few know that religious scholars were attempting to diffuse the situation through discussions of the tenets of their Christian faith and to find a peaceful resolution not focused on a man but on teachings. The government got impatient and the rest they say is history.

'Cults' are now about personalities and their authoritarian and psychologically damaging effect on their followers. They may have the veneer of religion but at their core they are about narcissistic inflated individuals who act as if they have 'god-like' attributes. When we colloquially speak of a 'cult of personality' around a political figure, we are not referring to an actual religion developing around an individual but rather the psychological effects of a person under the influence of personality disturbed individual. But when discussing religions, cults has an already historically defined accurate definition that is not what you want to believe it is.

Please get your head out of these online dictionaries and Wikipedia. Read Huston Smith's the World's Religion. Read Gibson's Rome. Read Tillich's a History of Christian Thought from Hellenistic Philosophy to Existentialism. There are hundreds more. Atheists constantly opined that they are more well-versed in the study of a religion than most of its followers. That just isn't so these days especially with most online ones.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. "narcissistic inflated individuals who act as if they have 'god-like' attributes"

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. You're equivocating.

There are "cults" in the historical sense, as the word has been applied to certain pagan congregations; and there are "cults" in the sociological sense, as the word has been applied to modern new religious movements perceived by the general public to be qualitatively different from religions, denominations, and sects.

These two uses of the word "cult" are not interchangeable. Reading Gibson won't further your understanding of the Branch Dividians one iota (but it may lower your opinion of Christianity somewhat... or Gibson, depending upon your preferences).

If understanding what separates the religious fringe from the mainstream, you'd be better served reading Max Weber, Roy Wallis, or Lorne Dawson.

[LostOne4Ever]

38. However, this is not a research paper

Last edited Mon Apr 6, 2015, 07:05 AM - Edit history (7)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Its a discussion on what makes a religion a religion. Basic information is all that you need for this subject and for 99.9% of DU. With regards to discussions of the existence of god, you don't need much more than that either.

I don't need to know detailed dissertations about the life of Isaiah to point out that an all benevolent cannot exist in world where innocent people die struggling in vain while sociopaths die rich and comfortable. It is like saying the kid that pointed out the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes can't be taken seriously until they have studied tailoring and style in depth. You don't need to know that to point out someone is naked.

Further this is an online discussion board, not a college. Most of the people here are not scholars and the average poster is not going to read all 5000 pages of the six volumes of History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibson. Scholars have the time and ability to read all those books and do endless research before replying to a paper or writing their own.

Here, however, most people (theist and religious) won't read an article over a few pages. If you are looking for scholarly debates this is not the place to find it. And with regards to the atheist comment at the end of your reply there are even less theists here making scholarly studied remarks so I don't see how you can make that claim one way or another. But if you want a study on it there was one linked by Atheist Crusader just below:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

As for Wikipedia, while those articles are often edited, they are also closely monitored and locked by the administration to keep just anyone from editing it. Which makes sense as even in academia there are disagreements and debates. I don't know about your university but at mine and, based on what I have heard from others, many others they do allow sources like dictionaries and wikipedia...they just don't want those as your sole sources. Even the article you yourself linked references this:

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/161944

As for cults, the way I am using it is almost identical to its original meaning:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cult&allowed_in_frame=0

Worship, reverence, devotion to a person or thing. Regardless, the meaning of modern words go far beyond their etymological roots. Automobile comes from the greek word auto- meaning oneself, and mobile comes from the latin movere to move. But you are not moving yourself in an automobile, the mechanism is moving you. In fact, the meaning of words depends on a large interplay of history, etymology and most importantly usage to determine their meaning. And just because you like one definition over others does not mean that is the only definition or that other officially recognized definitions are wrong.

[font color=scarlet size=6 face=papyrus]And for the love of Athena, lets not get into the Atheist v. Agnostic debate.[/font]

As I mentioned above with Cbayer, the modern popular usage of the word is meant as a way to malign and marginalize small religions. The way I am using it, as a group who are religiously devoted and venerate a figure or object, is an older definition and is one of the many official definitions of the word. By this definition ALL "ORGANIZED" RELIGIONS are cults. This is not really up to debate. You can say, not by this definition or that definition or in this context or that context and would be correct. However, you would not be correct by the well established definition I am using. In that, I am absolutely right in my statements.

Catholicism is a cult. The congregation is devoted to their priest then to their bishops then to their cardinal and then to the pope then to the saints then to Mary and then to Jesus/god. In each case it fits the definition of a cult. So are JW, Mormons, Christianity as a whole, Islam, Buddhist and even the comment that inspired me to make this thread, Scientology*. By the definition I am using, by the context in which I am using it, they are all cults.

*Even by your definition Scientology is still a religion.

[font color=scarlet size=6 face=papyrus] But all of this is neither here nor there. As all of this is nothing more than a HUGE aside from the conversation I was trying to get at.[/font]

The purpose of this thread, that was only a few posters actually answered, is:

[font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]What do YOU think makes a religion a RELIGION?[/font]

Does it require belief in gods? Does it require rituals? A way of living or experiencing life? What distinguishes it from something like science, or being a sports fan?


And I wasn't interested in having debates about dictionaries or cults or wikipedia or who is right or who is wrong. I just wanted to know what everyone thoughts on that.

The only reason I even brought up my own definition of religion and what I thought was and was not a religion (thus the comment about cults) was because I feel that if you are gonna ask a question of an entire forum/room/group then you should offer up your own opinion as well. Now I regret giving my own opinion as it completely sidetracked this whole discussion. [/font]

Edit:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] As this has been misinterpreted before the change in font, font color, and size is not yelling but rather a way of emphasizing and making the post look more visually appealing.[/font]

Edit2:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][center][font size=5 color=scarlet face=papyrus] @Okasha [/font][/center]
Since I said I won't continue to post to this thread and will let it die I will put my [font size=5 color=scarlet face=papyrus]Final[/font] ever reply to you here.
1)

• a) I am aware that it meant self as well. Its in the etymology link. That said, Self moving is still wrong. You are not moving yourself, and the vehicle requires a driver. Going by that then cats and dogs and humans are automobiles because they all move themselves. It is an example of the etymological fallacy I am trying to explain.
  
  http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Etymological



• b) The University of Texas and its system accreditation is perfectly fine as [font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]you[/font] of all people should know. Further it is not just UT, but respected colleges all over the country...including harvard as the link TM99 proved. Do they allow wikipedia by itself? No. But they do allow it when its is backed up by or is supporting other sources. Do some professors ban it? Yes, but not all. It all depends on the professor and the nature of the paper being written.
  
  The holt handbook has a section for online encyclopedias for a reason.

2)No. There is NO rules about YELLING in written language in American English. Not one word in the holt handbook or any other media. What you are describing are a set of unwritten etiquette for internet discussion that people assume everyone abides by. One does not have to abide by those rules, especially when one specifically points out what they mean in the very post where they made such comments/changes.

Further, enlarging words and/or coloring them red is also an equally understood way of showing [font size=5 color=scarlet face=papyrus]EMPHASIS[/font]. Which is exactly how I used them and why I pointed out it was meant in that way and not as yelling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_%28typography%29

But you know that. You have seen me use it that way multiple times here and in the LGBT group and when you are reading the A&A group.

3) I simply pointed out the Catholic Hierarchy. There is no error there. Preist<Bishops<Cardinals<Pope<Saints&Mary<Jesus/the Father/the Holy Ghost.

AND 4) The only reason you are not on full ignore after all your comments to me recently is that I hate missing subthreads. Don't expect any further replies to you.

[/font]

[TM99]

39. Here is the problem I repeatedly have with you.

You say 'basic information'. Yet you do not demonstrate that you have it. You throw around links to dictionaries and Wikipedia, and I have yet to see a different source for you.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

A starting point for basic information only, but if you are just going to define things as you want then even it becomes irrelevant.

You are not using the word cult identically to what it originally meant or more colloquially means today from a social psychology perspective. So again you do not have basic information. You are making up your own definitions and calling them 'modern' just like you do with the atheist/agnostic meanings.

No this is not college. No this is not a scholarly symposium. However, to have a discussion means that words are used that have agreed upon meanings. You have your own interpretation of sites like Wikipedia to back up your erroneous definitions and instead of educating yourself, you are doubling down on your own meaning and interpretation as being accurate.

No I don't expect someone who seems to express an interest in educating themselves on religion to have read the entire multivolume Gibon's set, however, I might encourage them to read the abridged two volume set. After all there seems to be an expectation on this discussion forum in the various subject matter sub-threads that a beyond the basics understanding of a subject is required if you are engaging in discussion and debate about a topic.

Here in the Religion forum, we rarely even get that because, atheists (yes it seems to be the A&A group members the most guilty of this shit) want to use their own meanings and terms whether it is Facebook meme Venn diagrams, 'modern' usage of the words atheist/agnostic, all religions are mental illness because of the delusions of its believers, to now this bullshit that someone has the opinion that all religions are cults.

I don't ever apologize for being very well educated or for pushing back against ignorance. As I said in my first post, I am more than open to a discussion yet if terms are not used properly and everyone is just giving their own opinions as facts with nothing to back it up, then, well, it is not a discussion to begin with.

The answer to what makes a religion a religion is already out there if you will read about it. Once that is agreed upon then further questions and debate can occur. You make an assumption for example that science is distinguishable from religion. Using agreed upon definitions of religion and even cults, then alternate points of view such as this one can be discussed:

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

[LostOne4Ever]

40. The problem you have with me

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Okay, lets start at the top.

Note that your link (from Harvard no less) does not say to never use wikipedia, but to be careful in using it. It notes a case that has been correct and wikipedia even has a list of hoaxes found on their site. And again, it is still just as accurate as any other encyclopedia.[/font]

You are not using the word cult identically to what it originally meant or more colloquially means today from a social psychology perspective. So again you do not have basic information. You are making up your own definitions and calling them 'modern' just like you do with the atheist/agnostic meanings.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Yet, the way I am using it is identical to the way several dictionaries and encyclopedias define it.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cult

That is hardly making up my own definition. That said, I did not call my definition modern, in fact I even said it was an older definition.[/font]

You are not using the word cult identically to what it originally meant or more colloquially means today from a social psychology perspective. So again you do not have basic information. You are making up your own definitions and calling them 'modern' just like you do with the atheist/agnostic meanings.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]To being with, as the etyomology link showed, I am using it to how it was originally meant. Worship and devotion. But for sake of argument let say I am not. Further lets say that I am not using the colloquial definition from a social pyschology perspective. So what? There are way more context and usages than just that.

And I am not making up definitions if you can find them in dictionaries/encyclopedias. Especially when I am using the first definition they provide.

And here is my issue with you: You totally ignore anything that disagrees with you. I post link after link after link showing that I am backed up by dictionary after dictionary after group after group after group and you keep on insisting they are all wrong. I use a definition of atheist directly from the Oxford English Dictionary (the most scholarly and well respected dictionary on the english language in the world) and you still insist that I am wrong.

Further you insist this without sources or anything to back you up but your word. I hunt down sources and try to back up everything I say, and you just dismiss it. As if they didn't exist. As if they were just some blogger on the internet. Like here where you are upset with my use of dictionaries and encyclopedia. But I use them for several reasons. 1) They are proof that I am not pulling these things out of thin air, 2) to show that I have several authorities backing up my position 3) and they are easy for others to look up and see if I am being truthful.[/font]

No this is not college. No this is not a scholarly symposium. However, to have a discussion means that words are used that have agreed upon meanings. You have your own interpretation of sites like Wikipedia to back up your erroneous definitions and instead of educating yourself, you are doubling down on your own meaning and interpretation as being accurate.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]If I was making things up why would I link to my sources for everyone to see? Why would I quote them directly? Why are there so many people who have the exact same opinion as me? American Atheists and the FFRF whose combined membership number in the hundreds of thousands if not millions use the word exactly as I do when it comes to the word atheist.

Why is it my definition that has to be the one that is wrong? Why is it that you can't be the one who is wrong? Why is your word more valuable than the OED? Than the AA? Than the FFRF? Than the majority of atheist posters on this site? Why is it that you can never be wrong?

You say I am wrong. I provide source after source to build my case. All the evidence I provide and you ignore it all. I have never had a college professor tell me that something I say backed up by multiple authoritative sources is wrong. They usually compliment me on doing my research well. Are they all wrong too?[/font]

Here in the Religion forum, we rarely even get that because, atheists (yes it seems to be the A&A group members the most guilty of this shit) want to use their own meanings and terms whether it is Facebook meme Venn diagrams, 'modern' usage of the words atheist/agnostic, all religions are mental illness because of the delusions of its believers, to now this bullshit that someone has the opinion that all religions are cults.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]But it is not just me. Its anyone who posts regularly in A&A. No amount of evidence we provide is ever enough. Our opinions and sources are ALWAYS wrong. You claim you are ALWAYS right because...reasons, go read all these books (and ignore all the ones that disagree with them no matter the context or how long ago they were written).

You treat us all like we are idiots and liars. Person doesn't mention they are an atheist right off the get go? He/She is dishonest! Cause he/she doesn't mention he/she is an atheist skeptic from the get go! As if there are not repercussions for such statements? Because skeptics are sooo loved in our society as her story illustrated? Even though the business owner never thought to ask him/her opinion of such things?

Calling supporters of religion on here a "religion***a" is hateful despite having nothing wrong with the word, but calling atheists militant is perfectly fine despite the obvious connection to violence. Despite that our government says they are targeting militants for drone strikes. Despite the history of the term.

Sorry wikipedia again. How about what psychology today says?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/the-myth-militant-atheism

BTW:

1) I never accused any theist of being mentally ill. A great many posters in A&A have never claimed that. But you attribute the opinion of a few to us all.

2) The person who started this stuff about cults was a theist who was insulting an entire religion (saying "it is a cult not a religion&quot and believe it or not, many of us A&A members came out in defense of the smaller religions by pointing out that all religions are cults. Which again is using the DICTIONARY definition.

But again we are all hateful bigots... Cause denying a religion and associating it with a word that is meant to marginalize and malign it is a lesser offense than pointing out that all religions are cults as according to the dictionary. Where is the scolding from the "supporters of religion" on that discussion? [/font]

I don't ever apologize for being very well educated or for pushing back against ignorance. As I said in my first post, I am more than open to a discussion yet if terms are not used properly and everyone is just giving their own opinions as facts with nothing to back it up, then, well, it is not a discussion to begin with.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Funny cause I have and continue to back myself up with sources. But you don't like my sources. Considered by millions to be authoritative and scholarly but you act like the OED was written by Billybob the hobo camping behind the trailer park. Meanwhile, you link to me....listverse? Not only that, but by someone saying most scientists would disagree with him?[/font]

The answer to what makes a religion a religion is already out there if you will read about it. Once that is agreed upon then further questions and debate can occur. You make an assumption for example that science is distinguishable from religion. Using agreed upon definitions of religion and even cults, then alternate points of view such as this one can be discussed:

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]That is just it, Hardly anyone agrees upon the definition. That is why I want to know what everyone's opinion is. Not everyone agrees.

Regardless, lets look at your link. [/font]

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Okay gonna address that:

10. No it doesn't. In fact it quite the opposite. This is why humans went from being considered different from other apes...to just another ape. They got over that bias. Also:[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Criticisms

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]9. No it doesn't. When the Ether was challenged the scientist who disproved it became heroes. What it cast out are those who disagree with consensus with no proof to back up their claims. How Goedel was treated was a reflection upon the people at the university NOT SCIENCE.

8. No. Freud is proof of that. Anyone trying to promote the theories of Ptolemy would be laughed at. Galieo promoted the work of his teacher Coppernicus and used his telescope to prove his teacher right. Back in the 4th century it was just a hypothesis that was quicky dismissed and forgotten. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard to be honest.

7. NOOOOOOOOO! It looks at the evidence, makes a theory based upon the evidence and then tests it. That is the exact opposite of what the author says. Big bang being based upon the expansion of the universe among many other observations.

6. No. People have codes of ethics...science does not.

5.NOOO. Einstein was not only questioned he was proven wrong on several occasions. This entire point is nothing but opinion stated as fact.

4. Sooooo blood letting is still a thing? -.-

3. OH NOW WE ARE REACHING FOR THE VAST HOMOSEXUAL CONSPIRACIES? FFS! Since you are a psychologist I am gonna post this wiki link is for those who don't know. It is not for you.[/font]

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

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder. "

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation, although some professionals maintain that it is a disorder.[2] In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. "

"Consequently, while a minority today believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, the body of current research and clinical literature supports a consensus that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are healthy variations of human sexuality, and is reflected in the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]2. Noooooooooooooo. Just stating it is unfounded does not make it so. Again for those not as knowledgeable on such things:[/font]

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

Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Basing hypothesis upon actual observations is unfounded. This IDIOT pretending to be a scientist who made this list doesn't even know the difference between unproven and unfounded. It is founded on the above.

1. NOOOOOOO. Scientist who do that are SCOLDED. I have been told time and time again NOT TO DO THAT in every science class I have been in. Further, using the common person off the street as to what science believes is NOT indicative of science being a religion. Its indicitive of the average person off the street being scientifically illiterate.

That link by a person who CLAIMS to be a scientist shows an astounding amount of scientific illiteracy. Maybe we can look him up and see the work he's done. Or we could if he wasn't using a pseudonym....[/font]

Cortical Rider

Lamellar Cataract

The cortex of the lens (see above) is laid down one layer at a time like an onion. If just one layer of the lens is cloudy, it is called a lamellar cataract. This may be associated with “cortical riders” which are tiny linear opacities in the lens that wrap around the edge of the lamellar cataract. The term “zonular cataract” is sometimes used to describe a lamellar cataract. It would be more accurate to eliminate this term as the word “zonular” could be applied to any cataract that only affects one region (i.e. one “zone”) of the lens.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Okay, okay.

[font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]With that, I am done arguing this shit with you and derailing my own thread.[/font]

I am also done with airing of grievances. You don't like my sources and I don't like how you dismiss my sources as nothing. If you want to do that do it with someone else I won't reply any further.

However, if you want to continue having a discussion can you simply tell me what YOU think makes a religion a RELIGION? Not some aside about people not being scholarly enough or making some snarky comment about internet atheists (which technically describes you as well). Or simply bitching about me.

Does it require gods?

Does it require rituals?

Does it require a way of living life?

Some combination of the above or elements not yet mentioned?

What makes X a religion while football is not. Or do you think football is a religion? I mean that seriously?

I am not going to ask any follow up questions to your opinion in an effort to change your opinion if that is what you are worried about. I don't do that. I didn't do that to the poster who said he didn't think Buddhism was not a religion. I won't do it now.

If you don't want to have a discussion then I guess we are done.

[center][font size=6 color=scarlet face=papyrus]其れじゃ[/font]
Soreja
Well then! (casual japanese parting word)[/font][/center]

[stone space]

41. Both MLK and Gandhi were assassinated.

but calling atheists militant is perfectly fine despite the obvious connection to violence. Despite that our government says they are targeting militants for drone strikes.

Not by drones, but they were assassinated.

But the mere fact that they were assassinated doesn't make these two militants violent.

I'm a militant atheist, myself.

Should I be assassinated by drone?

Please stop trying to make us out to be violent.

And please stop acting like we should be killed simply because we are militants.

We have as much of a right to live as you do.

[TM99]

43. So now I get the gish gallop.

Read that link again from Harvard. I mean seriously, fucking read it this time.

Let me highlight the parts you obviously refuse to read clearly:

In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Got that? A way to begin to familiarize yourself with concepts but then it stops there. Why? Let's read on shall we?

Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

And finally, they re-iterate that it is ok to use such a source to get you started but not as a source for your further academic research.

Now back to your damned dictionary, read the first damned entry again. They are subsets of religion, but they do not define a religion in and of itself. And if you had any fucking education on this topic beyond a very basic one that can only be gleaned from a dictionary or encyclopedia, you would get this.

Here is your stated reason for using the words interchangeably --

The way I am using the word is meant to be objective. I am trying to not be biased for large established religions over smaller ones.

That is an opinion based on a feeling about what is fair or not. It is not an opinion that is based on facts or a body of knowledge for a given subject. Would you seriously like all of my references for you on this topic?

This is exactly the same criticism I have made about the A&A members and the examples I gave. No religious believers are not delusional. That is an opinion based on a feeling because of that person's own past experiences. It is not based on facts or the study of psychology. That is one great example. There are plenty more.

I am not going to waste any more time in any discussions with you. I have tried to be patient. You may be entitled to an opinion, however, if it is patently wrong, there will be push back against its inaccuracies.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. Welcome to ignore then

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I don't need to have conversations about scholarship with someone as unscholarly as you anyways.

Someone who never backs up what they say, constantly misrepresents what others say (for instance I have said "organized" with the word religion repeatedly) and gripes about others sources and then uses a LISTVERSE link written anonymously by someone admitting that most other scientist would disagree with him.

No wonder you hate my sources, they prove you wrong and you have nothing to prove yourself right. Best you could do is mention ancient books long out of date from a time when bigotry was common or misrepresent an article by Havard in which they say it is perfectly okay to use Wikipedia (contradicting your 7th grade claim) just make sure to back it up with other sources to prove its reliability.

BTW this is the definition of Gish Gallop:[/font]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Linking to authoritative sources is not a gish gallop....but linking to strawmans and lists like you did is kind of the definition.

You and your outright lies about me and intellectual dishonesty won't be missed.

*As for patience? HA! You have been rude and using vieled unprovoked insults against all internet atheists this whole discussion. I have completely ignore them and talked with you politely. If anyone deserves an award for patience its me for putting up with it.[/font]

[okasha]

67. Three things.

1. Please do not attempt to present yourself as knowledgeable in etymology on the basis of a dictionary. Your "analysis" of automobile shows precisely why reliance on such a limited reference is unwise. The "auto" in "automobile" means simply "self," not "oneself.". An automobile thus is something that is self-moved, and it hasn't moved a millimeter away from its roots.

If your school allows this sort of thing, its accreditation should come into question.

2. Yes, large red letters in internet texts read as screaming. Yours do, too. Sorry, but you don't get a private grammar unless you only want to talk to yourself.

3. You wildly misrepresent the way Catholicism works. Yes, I know you've said you were raised Catholic. If this post conveys your understanding of it, something went very wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Thanks, but we all know religion entirely too well.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

Thanks for the condescension though. Us poor misguided atheists, not grasping the deep heartfelt and awe-inspiring meaning of the word 'religion'.

Excuse my while I yark up my dinner.

[stone space]

23. Religion or Dangerous Cult?

nuclearism

noun nuclear·ism

Definition of NUCLEARISM

: dependence on or faith in nuclear weapons as the means for maintaining national security

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclearism

[stone space]

24. I'm going with Dangerous Cult on this one.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Ah, another deflection Bingo contestant.

What fun! What's the prize?

[skepticscott]

32. You might even be justified

in accusing this poster of cheating.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. There is some contention between sociologists

But one popular theory, first put out by Max Weber, describes religion as a continuum with protest on one end and equilibrium on the other. Mainstream religions tend to fall on the equilibrium side of the spectrum; as they have already attained prominence and authority, their goal becomes preserving their position in society. "Sects" and "cults" lay on the protest end of the spectrum.

Sects are those groups who feel the mainstream religions are essentially correct, but doing something fundamentally contrary to the perceived tenets of the religion. Par example: the LDS Church is a "religion", while the Fundamentalist LDS organizations, who feel the LDS movement lost its authority when it banned plural marriage, are "sects".

Cults are like sects but differ in important ways. The biggest distinguishing factor, according to this theory, is that cults can emerge on their own while sects must necessarily break away from an existing religious movement. Cults also tend to be either: 1) mystically-oriented, 2) individually-oriented, 3) service-oriented, or 4) some combination of the above.

This has been developed and expounded upon over the past century or so, with many people trying their hands at differentiating sects from cults. None are universally applicable, of course, so the issue is far from settled.

[greendog]

46. Statues made of matchsticks, crumbling into one another.

[Gore1FL]

49. The difference between a cult and a religion:

In a cult, there is someone at the top taking in the cash that knows that it is all bullshit.

In a religion, that person died.

[Binkie The Clown]

51. Religion: The use of fear and superstition to maintain power and extract money

and services from the victims, while pretending to have their best interests at heart. It's the world's oldest con, and remains the most effective con of all time.

[cbayer]

53. Bless your heart!

Doesn't it feel really special to be in that small minority of people on earth that are able to see through the con.

I'm sure your position goes a long way towards making others happy, because people love to be told that they are victims being conned by fear and superstition in order to extract money and services.

Ingersoll would never have sneered at those who held a different POV.

Congrats.

[Binkie The Clown]

58. Most "actual" cons never get reported to the police.

People just can't bring themselves to admit they have been taken for fools.

And the best con of all is the one where you convince the mark that he/she isn't being conned at all. You sound convinced. (Pass the collection plate.)

[cbayer]

59. There are cons everywhere and religion is one area that is ripe for cons.

But your absolutist statements go far behind that are have no basis in fact.

OTOH, I think it's wonderful that you have risen so far above most of the people on earth and that you are a person who knows when they are being conned…. or do you?

Who do you imagine I am conned by? Certainly not you.

[Binkie The Clown]

60. Who are you being conned by?

To whom do you give money in the name of supporting your religion and its institutions? To whom do you give time to help indoctrinate others, especially the young, to "bring them into the fold" of sheep.

[okasha]

61. ....

[cbayer]

63. I'm a dupe and sheeple! I've never been so humiliated….

and conned!!!

[cbayer]

62. I have no religion and give no money to any religion or its institutions.

I don't give my time to anyone to help indoctrinate others and have no fold of sheep to bring anyone into.

Unless that fold is the one that thinks that we should recognize that when it comes to religion, everyone has reached their personal place. And if that place doesn't interfere with anyone else's life, it's really none of your business, let alone open to your judgement.

Next completely incorrect assumption just because I see the world differently than you do?

[Binkie The Clown]

64. Granted. It's none of my business.

So why DO you parade your business here in front of us all if you don't want us to discuss it? If it's so private to you, why do you make it so public here?

[cbayer]

65. What do you imagine my business to be, binkie?

If I say anything here, I completely relinquish my right to privacy in regards to what I have said.

I said that it's none of your business what anyone believes, as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's life. But you sit in judgement of them, as if you held the truth and they were morons being conned and completely oblivious.

[Binkie The Clown]

66. "Sit in judgement"?

Who did I judge. When? Where?

I proposed an hypothesis and invited refutations. That is not judgement. That is an invitation to discuss.

I don't really care what anyone else believes until they start shoving it down my throat.

So, to recap what I actually did say: My hypothesis is that the Jesus as described by the New Testament Bible never existed. End of hypothesis. Discuss. But so far, nobody seems willing to discuss that hypothesis.

I even invite you to explain why you do believe what you believe. I am willing to listen and consider your evidence. I invite you to present your evidence rather than accusing me of sitting in judgement, which as far as I can tell, I have not done. That was the point of my OP. Here's my hypothesis. Can anyone falsify it? Apparently the answer is "no". Nobody can falsify it. Nobody has even tried.

[cbayer]

68. Just to be clear, it is this post that I objected to:

Religion: The use of fear and superstition to maintain power and extract money

and services from the victims, while pretending to have their best interests at heart. It's the world's oldest con, and remains the most effective con of all time.

Like I said, whether Jesus existed or not is of no interest to me at ll.

What is of interest is people who make blanket negative statements about religion and people who have religious beliefs, those that feel they have the answer and state it without qualification.

[ZombieHorde]

52. A religion is supernatural answers to life's big, philosophical questions.

Is there a god? What happens when we die? What is the meaning of life?

Sociologically, the difference between a religion and a cult is size. In colloquial speech, a cult is a religion we don't like.

[cbayer]

54. I think the cult/religion division can also be about how long something has been around.

Agree that it's used in a pejorative way to describe religions someone doesn't like, including saying that all religions are cults.

It's way to subjective to be a meaningful distinction, imo.

[tblue37]

55. The main difference, I think, is money and power. It's a cult until it has enough of both

to defend itself against attacks from established religions and to influence politics enough to shape legislation.

Christianity was considered a bizarre and insurrectionary cult at one time. The LDS church was also attacked as a cult. In China Falun Gong is considered an insurrectionary cult.

To the rank and file members, a religion is always a religion. To TPTB in a given society, they are always "bizarre" and perhaps dangerous cults--until they become sufficiently wealthy and powerful to be movers and shakers among TPTB.

Even Scientology, which at one level functions like organized crime, is for most of its lower level members a religion.

OTOH, the Catholic Church, which undoubtedly provides the blessings of hope and faith to many, also operates in many ways like organized crime (especially in the sense that so many big banks operate like organized crime).

I am an atheist, but many people I love are or have been deeply religious. My Sicilian grandmother and her daughters especially come to mind when I think of deep faith. It is obvious to me that their lives would be less rich without what they get from their faith. I am not built that way, but I think that puts me in the minority among humans. Human beings, most of them, seem to need that dimension of faith in their lives.

But from the outside, belief in most of the tenets of most religions strikes nonbelievers as incomprehensible and cultlike. We just don't get it--except intellectually, of course. I mean, I understand what people get from religion, and that what they get is truly important in their lives. I just cannot imagine believing most of the things most religions require followers to believe.

So my interpretation is that wealth and power determines which faiths get callled religion and which get labeled cults.

[bravenak]

56. I see it as a communal belief in the supernatural.

Just my take. Rituals, rules, magic, gods. And each believer has a different version of their god in their head. Nice folks have nice gods, who love and forgive, petty folks have petty gods that love burning people up.
I wrote a poem about gods once. Called petty gods.

[pinto]

57. Religion is a community who share a point of view that includes the existence of god or gods.