CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Regardless of whether or not atheists admit that atheism is a religion, dictionaries do define it as such. Denying this also makes one wonder what else they refuse to accept, like the truth and evidence contrary to their own beliefs.
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
If religion wasn't important to an atheist; Why must they express their opinion? There sure isn't "a lack of" argument from atheists. A "lack of" is what they claim and they continue to do anything but lack to express their opinion.
If religion wasn't important to an atheist; Why must they express their opinion? There sure isn't "a lack of" argument from atheists. A "lack of" is what they claim and they continue to do anything but lack to express their opinion.
Religion is only important to an atheist insofar as it represents obstacles to personal freedom and to scientific advancement. For the religious, the religion is both the goal (specifically, promoting/defending the religion) and the tool used to accomplish the goal. An atheist argument/perspective, on the other hand, does not represent a goal- only a tool used to accomplish the goal, which is generally either personal freedom or scientific advancement as previously noted.
A religious individual who promotes his religion does so with the intent of gaining converts to said religion.
An atheist individual who promotes atheism does so, not specifically to gain 'converts' to atheism, but to limit the fetters impose on his actual goals by religious-centered legislation and social stigmas.
Religion is only important to an atheist insofar as it represents obstacles to personal freedom and to scientific advancement. For the religious, the religion is both the goal (specifically, promoting/defending the religion) and the tool used to accomplish the goal. An atheist argument/perspective, on the other hand, does not represent a goal- only a tool used to accomplish the goal, which is generally either personal freedom or scientific advancement as previously noted.
What personal freedom does an atheist get withheld from them based on them being an atheist? No person has complete and absolute freedom. Pardon me if I'm not sympathetic to somebody that wants something that no human has.
An atheist individual who promotes atheism does so, not specifically to gain 'converts' to atheism, but to limit the fetters impose on his actual goals by religious-centered legislation and social stigmas.
Show me one law in the USA that discriminates and is enforced that violates the rights of an atheist because they are an atheist.
Don't point out some martyr that has screamed I'm an atheist in some heavily theist area. When somebody tries to create troubles and then cries, I haven't an ear to spare. They get what they deserve.
What personal freedom does an atheist get withheld from them based on them being an atheist? No person has complete and absolute freedom. Pardon me if I'm not sympathetic to somebody that wants something that no human has.
What about marriage rights, for a relationship that is either polyamorous or non-heterosexual? These are denied certain basic freedoms based on a religious-inspired connotation to the term. That's only one example, and it really doesn't matter- these are motivations for the opposition; belittle them all you want, refuse to sympathize, refuse to acknowledge it as an issue. Even deny that marriage is a right at all. To those affected, they see it as one, and it's sufficient motivation to act. Marriage is hardly the only issue that religion has influenced or continues to influence to this day.
Show me one law in the USA that discriminates and is enforced that violates the rights of an atheist because they are an atheist.
It doesn't have to discriminate or violate the rights of an atheist because he or she is an atheist. All it takes is a perception of a wrong that is being perpetuated due to religious influences to justify feeling opposition towards it.
Religious factoring in on such areas as marriage laws, abortion, and stem cell research are just a few of many areas that can certainly inspire some opposition from atheists in general- none of these represent cases of violating the rights of an atheist because they're an atheist, and that doesn't matter.
Let me put it in terms you understand: How much legitimacy you prescribe to the motivations of your opposition means precisely dick. The motivations are still there, driving that opposition, and you still have to deal with it. You don't seriously believe you're going to shame all those atheists into reaching for a Bible, now, do you?
What about marriage rights, for a relationship that is either polyamorous or non-heterosexual? These are denied certain basic freedoms based on a religious-inspired connotation to the term. That's only one example, and it really doesn't matter- these are motivations for the opposition; belittle them all you want, refuse to sympathize, refuse to acknowledge it as an issue. Even deny that marriage is a right at all. To those affected, they see it as one, and it's sufficient motivation to act. Marriage is hardly the only issue that religion has influenced or continues to influence to this day.
I'm not so sure that theism is as much a problem with marriage rights as society in general is. People have been homophobic for generations, both atheists and theist. Now that if your implying that all atheists are gay and that their rights are being violated, this is a different story. This would be a constitutional violation in which a certain group is exclusively discriminated against. But as it turns out their exists both atheists and theist gays. Religion influences things a lot less than society does.
It doesn't have to discriminate or violate the rights of an atheist because he or she is an atheist.
If there is no problem with discrimination then there is no problem. The only problem is that which one has in their own mind. What your stating is like a woman claiming sex discrimination in hiring when the person doing the hiring is a woman. No real problem exists and so nothing needs fixed.
You don't seriously believe you're going to shame all those atheists into reaching for a Bible, now, do you?
If it is shame you feel, I'm sure I didn't invoke it; It is no doubt something you did.
I'm not so sure that theism is as much a problem with marriage rights as society in general is. People have been homophobic for generations, both atheists and theist.
I actually rather agree with you here; it is not specifically an atheist vs theist issue so much as a pro-gay vs anti-gay issue. There are a pretty significant number of Christians who are totally accepting of gay people, even a couple gay church leaders to be found out there. You're very right that the issue is a social one. Unfortunately, within American society, there is no reasonable or rational grounds to support the anti-gay position; there is, however, a significant population that follows one religion, that does have an antigay message. I believe this is more a case of an anti-gay agenda making use of religion to perpetuate itself than an actual unified effort made by the religious. Unfortunately, that still makes the question predominately one of theism vs. atheism- because the argument against gay rights that gets the most large-scale support is 'god doesn't like it.' Theists and atheists alike lose out here because we've been drawn into a side issue.
Now that if your implying that all atheists are gay and that their rights are being violated, this is a different story. This would be a constitutional violation in which a certain group is exclusively discriminated against. But as it turns out their exists both atheists and theist gays. Religion influences things a lot less than society does.
No, I'm not implying that- but an individual need not be gay to support their rights and be willing to stand with them. Our society has been heavily shaped by religion, and numerous things remain codified in law as they are, originally inspired by christian views on things; the exact point some on your side try to make when claiming the USA is a christian nation. In cases where such things are in opposition to our own interests, it is reasonable to object to them and work against them.
If there is no problem with discrimination then there is no problem. The only problem is that which one has in their own mind. What your stating is like a woman claiming sex discrimination in hiring when the person doing the hiring is a woman. No real problem exists and so nothing needs fixed.
You're wrong. Discrimination is not the only form that a problem can take, and not all forms of discrimination are innately problematic. It is ridiculous that you would suggest that problems only exist in the minds of others; I'm not talking about social stigma and the like- I'm talking about actual cases where people are impeded in one way or another, as I've touched on. And a woman CAN claim sex discrimination when the person doing the hiring is a woman- women are quite capable of discriminating based on sex, either in favor of other women or at their expense. Feminism paints a picture of men who seek to enforce traditional gender roles, but a surprisingly high proportion of women favor traditional gender roles as well. And this doesn't even touch on the possibility of lesbian sexual harassment.
As long as we're talking about cases where no real problem exists, meaning nothing needs to be fixed- how about those gays? I assert that your problems with them are all in your head.
If it is shame you feel, I'm sure I didn't invoke it; It is no doubt something you did.
You really interpret statements in a creative way; I don't think there's anything you could say or do that would actually make me ashamed ;P my question was speculation as to your end game when blatantly discarding your oppositions motivations as being trivial non-issues; stating that is only likely to inflame them against you, and would only seem to offer any possible benefit to you if you believed you would cause them to feel shame.
A dictionary is a tool designed to give people who are unfamiliar with a word to readily get some understanding about it's meaning. It falls short of a nuanced account of how particular words are used. Why do you think a short sentence in the dictionary can describe all the complexities of a concept as deep as religion?
A dictionary is a tool designed to give people who are unfamiliar with a word to readily get some understanding about it's meaning. It falls short of a nuanced account of how particular words are used. Why do you think a short sentence in the dictionary can describe all the complexities of a concept as deep as religion?
It is these complexities of religion that I wish to address by using the dictionary, and not by making religion a simple one line sentence as defined by atheists.
You are doing it completely wrong then. You referring to the dictionary has completely eliminated all nuances of what a religion is and reduced it to anything that someone thinks is highly interesting.
You are doing it completely wrong then. You referring to the dictionary has completely eliminated all nuances of what a religion is and reduced it to anything that someone thinks is highly interesting.
The differences in religion is what they believe to be highly interesting. So how have I changed this?
The differences in religion is what they believe to be highly interesting.
A one sentence explanation of what religion is? Hmm, I could have sworn I have heard someone say that religion shouldn't be summed up in one sentence. You could start by following that advice.
Everything can be a religion, but there are only so many religions a person can have. The gambler has his, the alcoholic has his, the Christian has his, for the atheist here it is being an ultracrepidarian. Often people have several religions and some of them even conflicting.
It is very interesting that you would ask a question like that. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you ask a completely meaningless question. Weird. Your question implies that regardless of the definition of religion you think everything is a religion.
Everything can be a religion
Something being a religion to some people does not make the overall thing a religion in this kind of discussion.
Well, unfortunately it is used frequently enough as hyperbole to cause the definition to be amended causes some people to improperly use the hyperbole when discussing other situations.
Religious = someone that lives their life in line with religious practices and beliefs.
"deeply concerned with theological issues" is a flawed definition no least of all because the definition would include people that don't follow a religion.
Religious = someone that lives their life in line with religious practices and beliefs.
That sir is a tautology akin to: "wet things are objects that have become wet.
"deeply concerned with theological issues" is a flawed definition no least of all because the definition would include people that don't follow a religion.
People who ostensibly "don't follow a religion" merely adhere to their own more personalized variant. As I see it.
That sir is a tautology akin to: "wet things are objects that have become wet.
Okay. Then without using the word religious again:
Someone that lives their life in line with practices and beliefs based by doctrines founded on the supernatural. One of the practices is the worship of a God. Worship is showing devotion to a God. A God is a being with superhuman powers.
I think this definition encapsulates all religion but maybe you can prove me wrong (There is no worship of a God in buddism and for this reason it is arguably not a religion by rather a philosophy.).
People who ostensibly "don't follow a religion" merely adhere to their own more personalized variant. As I see it.
If they adhere to something that is not a religion then it is merely a personal philosophy. I see no reason to call it a religious belief.
There is no worship of a God in Buddhism and for this reason it is arguably not a religion by rather a philosophy
You are right that certain kinds of Buddhism have a pronounced disinterest in God(s). Still, this does not mean that these forms of Buddhism aren't religions.
The kinds of Buddhism you mention should be considered religions because they are similar to Christianity, Islam, etc. which are incontrovertible religions. A theory should be rejected if it doesn't fit the facts, not the opposite. If facts are to be reinterpreted a good reason should be given.
The kinds of Buddhism you mention should be considered religions because they are similar to Christianity, Islam, etc
In what way are they similar Christianity and Islam but so dissimilar from philosophies?
A theory should be rejected if it doesn't fit the facts, not the opposite. If facts are to be reinterpreted a good reason should be given.
Well we are talking about labels rather than a theory to which we are looking for example. The word religion is a label given to thousands of different ways of thinking. They all have what I say in common except Buddhism. I think this is a reason not define Buddhism as a religion. It doesn't have the same qualities as the rest.
In fact, googling "is Buddhism a religion" brings up a lot of results writing my Buddhists that say it is not a religion. Another reason not to identify it as a religion is if its followers don't label themselves such.
In what way are they similar Christianity and Islam but so dissimilar from philosophies?
I never said Buddhism is dissimilar from philosophies neither am I going to. Something can be a religion and still have many of the qualities of a philosophy.
I think this guy gives a great answer to the question. I think his argument as to why Buddhism is a religion is much stronger than his argument as to why it isn't, and even though I think he is missing something when describing Buddhism as a religion. I think the important piece he is missing is how Buddhism is practiced traditionally.
Buddhists have rituals, they put great emphasis on meditation which is similar to prayer, a strict morality meant to easen the way to nirvana which is similar to Christians ethics which are meant to be observed in order to go to heaven (similarly for Islam, etc). The mere fact that Buddhism is practiced should make it evident that it's different from philosophies which tend not to be so applicative.
Someone that lives their life in line with practices and beliefs based by doctrines founded on the supernatural.
If I don't know what is meant by supernatural, I cannot accept that definition.
One of the practices is the worship of a God.
I would need to know what you mean by worship a god, Because depending on if "worshiping a god" means "regarding a certain principle as being worthy of utter devotion", or "trusting supposed experts like they are infallible" in one sense I worship a god and in another I don't.
A God is a being with superhuman powers.
I have heard god described differently. Is there an authority we can ask to settle whose description/definition is most valid, or should we just pick the one that seems most truthful. I have waxed poetic "If God is Love, I am not atheist"
I think this definition encapsulates all religion but maybe you can prove me wrong (There is no worship of a God in buddism and for this reason it is arguably not a religion by rather a philosophy.).
At least you admit that it is arguable whether or not Buddhism is a religion. If you will allow me to, through questioning, draw you out, I believe I can show a contradiction in your thinking about religion. You are basically insisting that only theist and/or supernaturalist organizations can rightly be classified as religions. Non-theistic Religions are almost unheard of compared to main stream religious sects, but they do exist.
If they adhere to something that is not a religion then it is merely a personal philosophy. I see no reason to call it a religious belief.
Consider this scenario (as if you were Usaian): A "non-religious" philosophical organization rises to prominence and becomes increasingly popular. Eventually this organization becomes popular enough that it is proposed as a "national philosophy". Would passing the proposal be a violation of "separation of church and state" or not ?
If I don't know what is meant by supernatural, I cannot accept that definition.
Something that is unexplainable by science.
I would need to know what you mean by worship a god, Because depending on if "worshiping a god" means "regarding a certain principle as being worthy of utter devotion", or "trusting supposed experts like they are infallible" in one sense I worship a god and in another I don't.
No. I meant the physical act of worship. Demonstrating devotion through a ritual act.
I have heard god described differently. Is there an authority we can ask to settle whose description/definition is most valid, or should we just pick the one that seems most truthful. I have waxed poetic "If God is Love, I am not atheist"
I know of no God that does not have supernatural power. It would seem a contradiction in terms. Maybe you can proof me wrong.
At least you admit that it is arguable whether or not Buddhism is a religion. If you will allow me to, through questioning, draw you out, I believe I can show a contradiction in your thinking about religion. You are basically insisting that only theist and/or supernaturalist organizations can rightly be classified as religions. Non-theistic Religions are almost unheard of compared to main stream religious sects, but they do exist.
Ok I accept that a religion doesn't require God but it is often one way to identify a religion. There are also other traits that are common to many religions:
Scripture.
Holy place.
Prayer.
Rituals of marriage/death/birth.
Mythology.
Gods.
This is how we can spot a religion. As for an overarching definition, maybe we can use the definition of wikipedia:
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence"
Atheism is not a "collection of beliefs" it is only one belief: God does not exist.
So.. atheism is not a religion because 1) it has none or almost none of the features we usually use to identify something as a religion. 2) it does not fit with the global definition.
Ultimately though, if you selectively define enough words the way that suits you, you can argue atheism is a religion in the same way. However it really isn't pragmatic if you want to distinguish the words a belief and a religion.
Don't you agree that it's unreasonable to describe "things currently unexplainable by science" as "supernatural"? If so, you will understand why I cannot accept that definition of supernatural.
No. I meant the physical act of worship. Demonstrating devotion through a ritual act.
The ritualistic behaviors we adopt (taken as a whole) are indeed indicative of "what we are most devoted to". I think it's entirely reasonable to view god as a metaphor for that.
I know of no God that does not have supernatural power. It would seem a contradiction in terms. Maybe you can proof me wrong.
We often make logically untenable statements about god. Of these two statements about god I will present, do you regard one as having more logically sound basis than the other?
1. God is a supernatural being
2. God is a psycho-social phenomenon
Ok I accept that a religion doesn't require God but it is often one way to identify a religion.
Wow!
There are also other traits that are common to many religions:
Scripture.
Holy place.
Prayer.
Rituals of marriage/death/birth.
Mythology.
Gods.
This is how we can spot a religion.
That seems true. However I am trying to think as clearly as I can about the nature of religion so I need to identify what is universal to religion. I was thinking that "a shared, serious and sustained concern for a possible afterlife" Might be THE most universal aspect of religion. What do you think?
As for an overarching definition, maybe we can use the definition of wikipedia: "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence"
That's a pretty well thought out definition IMO.
Atheism is not a "collection of beliefs" it is only one belief: God does not exist.
So.. atheism is not a religion because 1) it has none or almost none of the features we usually use to identify something as a religion. 2) it does not fit with the global definition.
I agree that for this reason atheism should not be considered a religion. However since I believe that each individual has a (more or less) organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate them to an order of existence, I think everyone (including atheists) is more or less religious.
That sir is a tautology akin to: "wet things are objects that have become wet.
Not really, what he said is more akin to "wet things are objects that has water on it's surface". He said that religious is associated with religious practices and beliefs, which surely does explain and define what religious means. Actually, his definition is really useful because it is simple and gives a good idea of what religious means while still being in tune with the common usage of the word.
You might propose that being religious implies being deeply concerned with theological issues, and you would probably be right given some qualifiers. But I don't think it's appropiate to define 'religious' as 'deeply concerned with theological issues'. It seems more useful to define at in relation to something more concrete like Atrag does.
Not really, what he said is more akin to "wet things are objects that has water on it's surface".
what he said precisely was: "Religious = someone that lives their life in line with religious practices and beliefs.
He said that religious is associated with religious practices and beliefs, which surely does explain and define what religious means.
I agree with the first part of that and disagree with the last part.
Actually, his definition is really useful because it is simple and gives a good idea of what religious means while still being in tune with the common usage of the word.
??? It's textbook circular logic.
You might propose that being religious implies being deeply concerned with theological issues, and you would probably be right given some qualifiers.
If I had said "Being religious implies deep concern for theological issues, and most vocal atheists are deeply concerned with theological issues" I wonder if anyone would have posted :)
It seems more useful to define at in relation to something more concrete like Atrag does.
what is the "more concrete thing" that atrag defined religion in relation to?
Superficially it does look like a tautology, but it really is not. He didn't say something like "being religious is defined as being religious". That would have been uninteresting and completely without descriptive value.
I agree with the first part of that and disagree with the last part
If you agree with the first part then you shouldn't disagree with the second part. I will concede that the definition given isn't complete. It doesn't describe what a religious belief is. What it does, however is to relate the term religious with having certain beliefs and doing certain things. In this way this definition does describe what being religious is about. For instance this definition shows that being religious doesn't have anything to do with how long your hair is. It does have some descriptive value and therefore it can't be a tautology.
I'm pretty sure that, technically, it's still a tautology. That being said, I realize that Atrag made a mistake by taking it for granted that the definition of "religion" should be obvious.
We can already infer from "-ous" that it pertains to a quality. He's making an explicit analytical proposition, which are always tautological. His definition is only useful if we already know what "religion" means. Would you say that to a someone who has never heard of being "religious"? Rather, would you rely on it if we're in Atypican land, where the definitions of anything remotely philosophical are so bizarre that at least half of the discussion is bogged down in semantics?
Rather, would you rely on it if we're in Atypican land, where the definitions of anything remotely philosophical are so bizarre that at least half of the discussion is bogged down in semantics?
I didn't pick my nickname because my viewpoint is ordinary. My not shying away from addressing semantic issues, makes those (like you?) who do uncomfortable. They usually like to speak negatively about my tendency to focus on semantics, but since it is just about the only criticism of my thinking that people have to offer, it doesn't bother me so much anymore. That my ideas that run contrary to popular opinion, was something I knew very well before I ever started debating. Were this not the case, I probably wouldn't debate. Let me just say straight out, If you have a problem getting "bogged down in semantics" you almost certainly won't be interested in having conversations with me. It's my opinion that a fair amount of the most stubborn disagreements we (as a species) have, boil down to issues of semantics.
Even if I were to agree with Religious = Deeply concerned with theological issues, I don't necessarily agree with deeply concerned with theological issues = most vocal atheists.
I believe the main reason that atheists become vocal is due to the interference imposed on both day-to-day living and (more importantly) scientific research and advancement by legislation that is heavily influenced by religion. The 'deep concern' is actually regarding scientific advancement for some, freedom for the others. Religious efforts are an obstacle to this, hence some making a stand against it. This is distinctly different from religious individuals primarily concerned with promoting/defending their religion; the religion is both the goal and the tool in those cases, as opposed to promoting atheism being a tool alone, and not the goal.
This is just obviously wrong. Religious people do not have to be deeply concerned with theological issues, and those who are deeply concerned with theological issues do not have to be religious, let alone vocal atheists, let alone simply atheists. Not only is there obviously an incorrect notion of equality here, but there isn't even a logical relation here.
That may be true, but I ask you. (and if you don't answer, this conversation is over) Is a grouping of people whose only commonality is sharing a common understanding about god a religious group?
There is nothing here for atypican to debate, you haven't provided any evidence that atheism is not a religion. You only stated your opinion. Show that atheism is not a religion and he'll be glad to respond.
According to Merriam Webster dictionary, a religion is a system of beliefs related to a god or gods. Atheists do not belief in a god or gods, therefore, atheism is not a religion. Atheists do not have a central religious book or method of worship.
A thing of supreme value, could this be what one believes? Like a position has to whether or not God exists. If one expresses their opinion over and over again, one can rationally conclude that this opinion must be something that holds some value. This value keeps increasing the more one argues and finally becomes a position in which one holds dear to them. Which can be argued that it is a thing of supreme value.
su·preme
/so͞oˈprēm/
adjective: supreme
1. (of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.
Fact: Atheists do not believe in any god. Fact: Religious people believe in a god. Fact: Atheism is not a religion.
None of these are fact. It has been said there are no atheists in a foxhole. If people believed in gods, why do they often ignore them? Atheism is a religion, because it is defined as such. This last one is fact.
I'm with SitaraMusica on this. Religion is not evidence-based. It's true that religious people and atheists make claims about the same category of knowledge, but that doesn't mean atheists are religious.
I'm with SitaraMusica on this. Religion is not evidence-based. It's true that religious people and atheists make claims about the same category of knowledge, but that doesn't mean atheists are religious.
One can hold the same opinions, beliefs, etc., but it still does not change the definition of religion. I didn't define religion.
Sure, people may find reason to believe religion, but religious doctrine itself is not evidence based. Sometimes religions do appeal to evidence, but evidence cannot be given for all the tenants of any religion.
The non-existence of god is not a religious belief. It's just a belief about religion.
No. It is difference in religious beliefs that separates religions. If you were right, than all of the different sects of Christianity wouldn't exist because they are all the same theological belief.
No, I am saying that believing you should eat a wafer to represent the body of Christ is not a theological difference. It isn't a difference based on the God you believe in, but a difference in the rituals you believe in that makes it a different religious sect.
It contradicts what you are saying though. I just said that 2 different sects have the same theology and you agreed. How does that fit into what you have been saying?
When I asked if your position was that: "people with different theological positions can rightly be considered to be the same religion", you answered..."No"
Then you asserted that believing you should eat a wafer to represent the body of Christ is not a theological difference Which I tend to agree with because I don't think that the particular behavior you described is a very good indicator of the nature of one's primary value system.
I just said that 2 different sects have the same theology and you agreed.
That is not what I was in agreement with.
How does that fit into what you have been saying?
I agree that to meaningfully distinguishing one sect from another, a better focus is on overall behavior as opposed to simply declared belief, or declared lack of belief, or even a single ritual like eating communion wafers. I think without a significant difference in theology (ruling logic), there is no significant difference of behavior, and therefore no significant religious difference.
I think that for you to say in one breath that: "believing you should eat a wafer to represent the body of Christ is not a theological difference" and in the next that a theological difference is: "a difference in the rituals you believe in that makes it a different religious sect." is a sign that you don't mind contradicting yourself.
I didn't mean to dispute the last time. Oops. I just wanted an explanation.
When I asked if your position was that: "people with different theological positions can rightly be considered to be the same religion", you answered..."No"
I am saying that a religion is based on the theological position, and the different sects are not based on a theological difference.
I agree that to meaningfully distinguishing one sect from another, a better focus is on overall behavior as opposed to simply declared belief, or declared lack of belief, or even a single ritual like eating communion wafers. I think without a significant difference in theology (ruling logic), there is no significant difference of behavior, and therefore no significant religious difference.
Well, I am not sure how to discuss this part. I don't really believe that the different sects have a significant difference to separate themselves. I think that the different sects of Christianity are only because of a declared belief system.
I think that for you to say in one breath that: "believing you should eat a wafer to represent the body of Christ is not a theological difference" and in the next that a theological difference is: "a difference in the rituals you believe in that makes it a different religious sect." is a sign that you don't mind contradicting yourself.
What are you talking about? I never said anything about the theological differences making it different sects. That's what you said. I said that there are different sects without theological differences. I think that is the third time I have told you.
I am saying that a religion is based on the theological position, and the different sects are not based on a theological difference.
And I am saying that insomuch as people can be rightly considered to practice the same religion, they share a common theology (ruling logic). A significant difference in basic assumptions results in serious differences of behavior. It is both the behaviors, and the logic that supports them that define the sect, or make it distinct from other religions.
Well, I am not sure how to discuss this part. I don't really believe that the different sects have a significant difference to separate themselves.
How about Unitarian Universalism -VS- Satanism?....Not a single significant difference between them? Jainism -VS- Islam?
I think that the different sects of Christianity are only because of a declared belief system.
Quakers -VS- Evangelical Christians. Difference only in what they declare, or significant difference in actually held beliefs/values?
What are you talking about? I never said anything about the theological differences making it different sects.
Oops! My bad. Tell me what you mean by "I am saying that a religion is based on the theological position" then?
I said that there are different sects without theological differences.
They are erroneously regarded as different sects if there is no theological difference.
All theists and most atheists adopt narratives of some form, but to call them both religious is a stretch of the semantic imagination. I have never seen "religious" defined as it is in this debate; "deep concern"... really? Try belief.
