s/o Do people attend religious services for the religious aspects, or for community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

The definiton of religion is a heavily contested and complicated thing that often depends on the person using and what they are doing with the word. This is a quick introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA

You get your information from youtube, I love that for you.

However, there are long established and reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias that provide humanity with definitions for words that are not heavily contested. They are considered the gold standard and accepted by educational institutions, etc.

If you don’t like the established language that’s a you problem and youtube is not going to help that problem.

If you attended college or university you would have learned how to gather information from reputable sources and make sure your professors had that information so they could verify your papers and work.

The video is from a religious studies scholar synthesizing work from anthropologists and religious studies scholars. I used a YouTube video because it's easily accessible, but you can't dismiss it simply because it's "YouTube," you have to look at what its saying and who its source are.

I happen to know the sources he cites precisely because I did go to college. The definition used by Emile Durkheim is incredibly influential in the definition and study of religion. I know this because I read him when I was in college. You can read Elementary Forms of Religious Life, if you're interested there. J. Z. Smith's thoughts on defining religion are also cited there and they hugely important over the more recent decades. His "Religion, Religions, Religious" is here: https://womrel.sitehost.iu.edu/Rel433%20Readings/SearchableTextFiles/Smith_ReligionReligionsReligious.pdf. I know his work, because I studied under him in college.

My point is primarily that "long established and reputable dictionaries" are a starting point for a definition, but in a lot of cases they mislead you when you get into details. Ask any scholar of virtually any subject and they'll tell you that there's a long running dispute about how to define a basic term in their field. What's a language? What's a species? Linguists and biologists fight about this all the time. Scholars of religion have different definitions of religion, even though they all know about dictionaries.

That’s all well and good, but because academics and scholars have time to quibble about definitions, doesn’t mean people can’t access actual definitions from reputable and established sources.

Durkheim is irrelevant. To the vast majority of scholars and historians and definitely students.

I'd strongly disagree with the bolded, if you're engaged in anything like the academic study of religion.

With regard to Buddhism in particular, which started this thread, I believe, there's a belief among certain scholars that religion is a Western concept that got applied in other cultures and thus that Buddhism "became" a religion under the influence of Western powers. I haven't studied this intensely myself, so I won't comment on the merits of that, but it's in the background if you're going to talk about Buddhism as a religion.

You seem to be aiming kind of low in terms of what kind of conversation you'd like to have. Simple definition (from sources you choose, naturally) rather than acknowledgment that words have different meanings in different contexts and that there's disagreement. I'd hope undergrad religious studies course is the level we aim at here, because we're mostly a college educated bunch who claim to value education. In that context, you'd at least read about Durkheim and discuss what he thought, you'd discuss the belief of certain people that Buddhism isn't naturally a religious system as that term is usually defined in the West, and you'd have a discussion. You wouldn't grab the dictionary and say "job done."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

The definiton of religion is a heavily contested and complicated thing that often depends on the person using and what they are doing with the word. This is a quick introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA

You get your information from youtube, I love that for you.

However, there are long established and reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias that provide humanity with definitions for words that are not heavily contested. They are considered the gold standard and accepted by educational institutions, etc.

If you don’t like the established language that’s a you problem and youtube is not going to help that problem.

If you attended college or university you would have learned how to gather information from reputable sources and make sure your professors had that information so they could verify your papers and work.

The video is from a religious studies scholar synthesizing work from anthropologists and religious studies scholars. I used a YouTube video because it's easily accessible, but you can't dismiss it simply because it's "YouTube," you have to look at what its saying and who its source are.

I happen to know the sources he cites precisely because I did go to college. The definition used by Emile Durkheim is incredibly influential in the definition and study of religion. I know this because I read him when I was in college. You can read Elementary Forms of Religious Life, if you're interested there. J. Z. Smith's thoughts on defining religion are also cited there and they hugely important over the more recent decades. His "Religion, Religions, Religious" is here: https://womrel.sitehost.iu.edu/Rel433%20Readings/SearchableTextFiles/Smith_ReligionReligionsReligious.pdf. I know his work, because I studied under him in college.

My point is primarily that "long established and reputable dictionaries" are a starting point for a definition, but in a lot of cases they mislead you when you get into details. Ask any scholar of virtually any subject and they'll tell you that there's a long running dispute about how to define a basic term in their field. What's a language? What's a species? Linguists and biologists fight about this all the time. Scholars of religion have different definitions of religion, even though they all know about dictionaries.

That’s all well and good, but because academics and scholars have time to quibble about definitions, doesn’t mean people can’t access actual definitions from reputable and established sources.

Durkheim is irrelevant. To the vast majority of scholars and historians and definitely students.

I'd strongly disagree with the bolded, if you're engaged in anything like the academic study of religion.

With regard to Buddhism in particular, which started this thread, I believe, there's a belief among certain scholars that religion is a Western concept that got applied in other cultures and thus that Buddhism "became" a religion under the influence of Western powers. I haven't studied this intensely myself, so I won't comment on the merits of that, but it's in the background if you're going to talk about Buddhism as a religion.

You seem to be aiming kind of low in terms of what kind of conversation you'd like to have. Simple definition (from sources you choose, naturally) rather than acknowledgment that words have different meanings in different contexts and that there's disagreement. I'd hope undergrad religious studies course is the level we aim at here, because we're mostly a college educated bunch who claim to value education. In that context, you'd at least read about Durkheim and discuss what he thought, you'd discuss the belief of certain people that Buddhism isn't naturally a religious system as that term is usually defined in the West, and you'd have a discussion. You wouldn't grab the dictionary and say "job done."

^ I agree with this. But I think Buddhism came into the discussion previously when someone said some religions don't have gods, and I said which ones?, and they said Buddhism, and then added "some people here are so ignorant ' . Anyway, a good argument can be made that Buddhism is a philosophical system and it's commentators from the West who've called it a "religion."

[Anonymous]

Indoctrination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communionity

Pew says you’re massively wrong.

Maybe this poster is answering for themselves. When I attended church, it was for the community.

You're part of a minority of about 4% of those who attend religious services but are atheist: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

(Pew has a question about community, but it's actually about attending to be part of a "faith community," which I don't believe is you, but feel free to correct.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

"Anybody I disagree with is intellectually dishonest" poster has entered the room. What an aggressively jerkish weirdo. Making this personal by attacking individual posters and calling them names, over and over, is also pretty weird, aggressively jerkish, and psychologically concerning.

But anyway, you just proved pp's point when you referred us all to the dictionary. Namely, we DO have different definitions in our heads and we DON'T all check Merriam-Webster's before logging onto DCUM.

Did YOU check the dictionary before engaging in this discussion? Didn't think so. Do you expect that everybody else checks Merriam-Websters before commenting on anything subject whatsoever on DCUM? Maybe that's a tad unrealistic?

So yeah, the pp (not me) who suggested arriving at a common definition was actually onto something helpful before you attacked them. We did need to get on common ground. Thanks to whoever gave is Merriam-Webster, even if that was you, because it achieved that purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communionity

Pew says you’re massively wrong.

Maybe this poster is answering for themselves. When I attended church, it was for the community.

You're part of a minority of about 4% of those who attend religious services but are atheist: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

(Pew has a question about community, but it's actually about attending to be part of a "faith community," which I don't believe is you, but feel free to correct.)

I actually don't attend at all anymore. I haven't for close to 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communionity

Pew says you’re massively wrong.

Maybe this poster is answering for themselves. When I attended church, it was for the community.

You're part of a minority of about 4% of those who attend religious services but are atheist: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

(Pew has a question about community, but it's actually about attending to be part of a "faith community," which I don't believe is you, but feel free to correct.)

I actually don't attend at all anymore. I haven't for close to 20 years.

Mentally put the statement in the past tense then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communionity

Pew says you’re massively wrong.

Maybe this poster is answering for themselves. When I attended church, it was for the community.

You're part of a minority of about 4% of those who attend religious services but are atheist: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

(Pew has a question about community, but it's actually about attending to be part of a "faith community," which I don't believe is you, but feel free to correct.)

DP, but I go to services for the community and I'm NOT an atheist. I very much believe in God, just find services kind of boring, so when I go, it's to socialize. I pray on my own. I'm not sure how typical I am (probably not very typical), but wanted to point out that I wouldn't fit into the Pew stat you referenced, so the stat is probably not super useful here either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Communionity

Pew says you’re massively wrong.

Maybe this poster is answering for themselves. When I attended church, it was for the community.

You're part of a minority of about 4% of those who attend religious services but are atheist: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

(Pew has a question about community, but it's actually about attending to be part of a "faith community," which I don't believe is you, but feel free to correct.)

DP, but I go to services for the community and I'm NOT an atheist. I very much believe in God, just find services kind of boring, so when I go, it's to socialize. I pray on my own. I'm not sure how typical I am (probably not very typical), but wanted to point out that I wouldn't fit into the Pew stat you referenced, so the stat is probably not super useful here either.

Not to worry, Pew has a stat for you! In the same poll, 6% say they go to religious services "to be part of a community of faith." https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/08/01/why-americans-go-to-religious-services/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

"Anybody I disagree with is intellectually dishonest" poster has entered the room. What an aggressively jerkish weirdo. Making this personal by attacking individual posters and calling them names, over and over, is also pretty weird, aggressively jerkish, and psychologically concerning.

But anyway, you just proved pp's point when you referred us all to the dictionary. Namely, we DO have different definitions in our heads and we DON'T all check Merriam-Webster's before logging onto DCUM.

Did YOU check the dictionary before engaging in this discussion? Didn't think so. Do you expect that everybody else checks Merriam-Websters before commenting on anything subject whatsoever on DCUM? Maybe that's a tad unrealistic?

So yeah, the pp (not me) who suggested arriving at a common definition was actually onto something helpful before you attacked them. We did need to get on common ground. Thanks to whoever gave is Merriam-Webster, even if that was you, because it achieved that purpose.

There are definitions for words, easily accessible and understandable. It’s not complicated or controversial.

The aggressively jerkish weirdo is the poster who wants everyone to make a new dcum forum definition of religion to fit their narrative and agenda.

If you are posting here and have to make a big stink about a word meaning, a simple word, you are doing too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

"Anybody I disagree with is intellectually dishonest" poster has entered the room. What an aggressively jerkish weirdo. Making this personal by attacking individual posters and calling them names, over and over, is also pretty weird, aggressively jerkish, and psychologically concerning.

But anyway, you just proved pp's point when you referred us all to the dictionary. Namely, we DO have different definitions in our heads and we DON'T all check Merriam-Webster's before logging onto DCUM.

Did YOU check the dictionary before engaging in this discussion? Didn't think so. Do you expect that everybody else checks Merriam-Websters before commenting on anything subject whatsoever on DCUM? Maybe that's a tad unrealistic?

So yeah, the pp (not me) who suggested arriving at a common definition was actually onto something helpful before you attacked them. We did need to get on common ground. Thanks to whoever gave is Merriam-Webster, even if that was you, because it achieved that purpose.

There are definitions for words, easily accessible and understandable. It’s not complicated or controversial.

The aggressively jerkish weirdo is the poster who wants everyone to make a new dcum forum definition of religion to fit their narrative and agenda.

If you are posting here and have to make a big stink about a word meaning, a simple word, you are doing too much.

DP. The original discussion (which I wasn't involved with) was about whether there are religions without gods and the supernatural, namely Buddhism. This requires you to accept that Buddhism doesn't have gods, which is true in some forms of Buddhism and not true in others, but let's assume for a second that Buddhism is a religion without gods and the supernatural.

Merriam Webster has several possible definitions for religion:

1
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2
a(1)
: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b
: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Buddhism with fall under 1 and 3 (you need to look up the definition of "religious" here, but I'd grant that Buddhist beliefs fall under that that definition's reference to "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality." Buddhism (without gods/the supernatural) would not fall under 2(a)(1). Definition 3, would also probably encompass communism and loving Taylor Swift, which fall outside most people's definition of religion, I think.

We also see that your claim that another poster was trying to invent a "new dcum forum definition of religion to fit their narrative and agenda" is totally wrong; the definition they're proposing, that religion requires god(s) or the supernatural, is right there in the dictionary you're claiming has the single, inarguable, definition of a word alongside the different definition you want to use. Reference to the "easily accessible and understandable" dictionary definition, then, did absolutely nothing to answer the actual question posed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already did earlier this morning.

You insulted Pew and displayed your ignorance about polling. That's not an answer. Pew has good numbers.

Address the content: most people, whether they go to church or not, actually believe. Only 4% of the US population are actually atheists. So it follows that the vast majority of your "cultural Christians," the ones raised Christian but who who don't go to church, actually still believe.

Any response to that? Or we'll just have to conclude that, poor you, you got beaten down on that other thread with your weird, highly personal vendetta against that OP, so now you're carrying on a different weird, highly personal vendetta against this OP. Maybe seek help?

Polling numbers vary significantly. They depend on who actually responded. How the questions are phrased. What data is included/excluded.

Here’s another poll:


We’ve all seen how religious people twist the truth. I wouldn’t expect them to answer a poll sincerely.

You understand that some religions don't involve a supernatural god or gods, right? And polls do vary, although it's weird 99% of DCUM's atheists love Pew and you're the sole exception.

Anyway, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominems, they add a lot to your argument. /s

No. I don't understand that at all. Which ones?

Buddhism. Honestly you really know so little about religion, it's a shame you're here so constantly, wasting everybody's time including your own.

Buddhism originated from Hinduism. All the central ideas of Buddhism is that of Hinduism. Gautam Buddha was a Hindu prince. Buddhism core beliefs of doing the right Karma, trying to attain Nirvana and Moksha and reincarnation is Hindu. And there are many Gods and Goddesses and supernatural beings in Buddhism - majority from Hinduism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

The enlightened religion of Hinduism is at its core a religion of individual enquiry and personal growth. That is the reason that off-shoot religions and philosophies like that of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism do not present a contradiction because different interpretations and POV can co-exist. All these religions are religions of peace.

The western world and the Abhramic religions are basically dealing with perverted thinking that is self-propagating. As a result, you have a completely barbaric, immoral and perverted religion like that of Islam. Also, these were not literate and educated people to begin with and so the quality of inquiry within these religions was devoid of enlightened morality, ethics and common sense.

All fine and good. But it's more of a philosophical system, as you say, for self improvement. There's no heaven. No God to be worshipped. Maybe we need a definition of "religion"

“We” already have a “definition of religion.” The definition is easily accessible to all of us.

“We” as anonymous forum users don’t define words and concepts like religion, or soul.

I notice someone keeps proposing that people posting here make up definitions for words. It’s really intellectually dishonest to pretend words aren’t already clearly defined.

DP. We may each have a definition in our own heads, but that may be different from another poster’s definition. I do research (I’m not the atheist “I’m a research scientist” poster) and it’s not only very common, it’s actually expected, that you will establish a working definition at the very start of your report.

The dictionary and encyclopedia records the definition and meaning of words.

I don’t care who you are or what your job is: you don’t define words. You use the definition of words from dictionaries and encyclopedias in your “research.”

You are intellectually dishonest.

"Anybody I disagree with is intellectually dishonest" poster has entered the room. What an aggressively jerkish weirdo. Making this personal by attacking individual posters and calling them names, over and over, is also pretty weird, aggressively jerkish, and psychologically concerning.

But anyway, you just proved pp's point when you referred us all to the dictionary. Namely, we DO have different definitions in our heads and we DON'T all check Merriam-Webster's before logging onto DCUM.

Did YOU check the dictionary before engaging in this discussion? Didn't think so. Do you expect that everybody else checks Merriam-Websters before commenting on anything subject whatsoever on DCUM? Maybe that's a tad unrealistic?

So yeah, the pp (not me) who suggested arriving at a common definition was actually onto something helpful before you attacked them. We did need to get on common ground. Thanks to whoever gave is Merriam-Webster, even if that was you, because it achieved that purpose.

There are definitions for words, easily accessible and understandable. It’s not complicated or controversial.

The aggressively jerkish weirdo is the poster who wants everyone to make a new dcum forum definition of religion to fit their narrative and agenda.

If you are posting here and have to make a big stink about a word meaning, a simple word, you are doing too much.

DP. The original discussion (which I wasn't involved with) was about whether there are religions without gods and the supernatural, namely Buddhism. This requires you to accept that Buddhism doesn't have gods, which is true in some forms of Buddhism and not true in others, but let's assume for a second that Buddhism is a religion without gods and the supernatural.

Merriam Webster has several possible definitions for religion:

1
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2
a(1)
: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b
: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Buddhism with fall under 1 and 3 (you need to look up the definition of "religious" here, but I'd grant that Buddhist beliefs fall under that that definition's reference to "faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality." Buddhism (without gods/the supernatural) would not fall under 2(a)(1). Definition 3, would also probably encompass communism and loving Taylor Swift, which fall outside most people's definition of religion, I think.

We also see that your claim that another poster was trying to invent a "new dcum forum definition of religion to fit their narrative and agenda" is totally wrong; the definition they're proposing, that religion requires god(s) or the supernatural, is right there in the dictionary you're claiming has the single, inarguable, definition of a word alongside the different definition you want to use. Reference to the "easily accessible and understandable" dictionary definition, then, did absolutely nothing to answer the actual question posed.

^ fair enough as you say, but paras. 1 and 3 are so broad, my worship of the Chicago Cubs would be deemed a religion. That can't be what folks really mean when they use the term "religion."