The True Meaning of Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2014, 06:01 PM
The True Meaning of Religion
This is not a discussion about the validity of Faith or beliefs, this is a clarification of definition, something I'm sure the dictionary doesn't tell you, but the dictionary also tells you that Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods, that isn't true either; Atheism is the absence of belief in God/gods, not a disbelief, because disbelief means something is true but one doesn't accept it, this is a gross misconception of the definition of Atheism, and this is an attempt to also point out the dictionary misconception of definition for the term religion.

Now; when you use the term religion you are not referring to the spiritual content of an organised religion, you are referring to its Code of Law that the organisation is based on. Religion is related to the Hammurabi constitution, technically the constitution of a nation is religious in nature, technically the rules and regulations that govern the Boy Scouts makes it a religion. The word religion is actually quite broad, but cultural evolution has made it take on a new meaning, and that is related to the spiritual content that often accompanies the Code of Law.

The danger of an organised religion is that it unites people under a common flag, although "religions" are mostly divided into denominations that distance themselves from each other, but when you have people united they can pool resources and can pose a threat if the leaders of that organisation decide to use those resources for such ends. But leadership tends to use fear and desire tactics to drive action, and I am not talking just about organised religions, I am talking about ANY group of united peoples.

An example is, the leader can say to people "These barbarians are going to kill you and take all you have" or "These people want to force you to convert" so the threat an enemy that the leader describes is a way to drive people to fight a war, it doesn't relate to the actual Code of Law much, if at all. So leaders by way of security or the need for resources will want to wage war, and their trusted position means convincing people to do this is an advantage, if they are actually good leaders or if they are deranged or greedy is a different story all together.

But we see certain difference between people, like race, religion, sex, sexuality, political leanings, culture and traditions, Codes of Law, class, many things make people different, and those differences are an opportunity for leaders to drive a wedge and inspire people to turn against another category of people, like I said; more about security or resources that the leaders are concerned or ambitious for, not the Code of Law, but the Code of Law can be one of these mechanisms to drive the action.

So over all, real dangers are from those who have control over the resources to drive action, and I can tell you that a rich person is more of a threat than a poor organised religion, because the rich person has great resources but doesn't need to unite with anyone, that is their advantage. And I will say that being rich isn't inherently bad, just that the power can be used badly in the wrong hands, and there aren't always effective ways to stop deranged people from acquiring great resources, but therein lay the real problems that we have seen associated with organised religion, but we have to remember that racial and national incarnations of the same problem were used by Nazis, and that was worse, but also we have seen Communism and Capitalism which is related to class structure but has its share of the same problem in history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ray Butler's post
21-08-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(21-08-2014 06:01 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  This is not a discussion about the validity of Faith or beliefs, this is a clarification of definition, something I'm sure the dictionary doesn't tell you, but the dictionary also tells you that Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods, that isn't true either; Atheism is the absence of belief in God/gods, not a disbelief, because disbelief means something is true but one doesn't accept it, this is a gross misconception of the definition of Atheism, and this is an attempt to also point out the dictionary misconception of definition for the term religion.

What dictionary are you using?

The Oxford English Dictionary says:
atheism
Syllabification: a·the·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (Emphasis added)

Quote:Now; when you use the term religion you are not referring to the spiritual content of an organised religion, you are referring to its Code of Law that the organisation is based on. Religion is related to the Hammurabi constitution, technically the constitution of a nation is religious in nature, technically the rules and regulations that govern the Boy Scouts makes it a religion. The word religion is actually quite broad, but cultural evolution has made it take on a new meaning, and that is related to the spiritual content that often accompanies the Code of Law.

Maybe you aren't. When I refer to religion it is all of that - beliefs, dogma, organization, and people.

Quote:The danger of an organised religion is that it unites people under a common flag, although "religions" are mostly divided into denominations that distance themselves from each other, but when you have people united they can pool resources and can pose a threat if the leaders of that organisation decide to use those resources for such ends. But leadership tends to use fear and desire tactics to drive action, and I am not talking just about organised religions, I am talking about ANY group of united peoples.

There is also the danger of magical irrational thinking that will drive behavior.

Quote:An example is, the leader can say to people "These barbarians are going to kill you and take all you have" or "These people want to force you to convert" so the threat an enemy that the leader describes is a way to drive people to fight a war, it doesn't relate to the actual Code of Law much, if at all. So leaders by way of security or the need for resources will want to wage war, and their trusted position means convincing people to do this is an advantage, if they are actually good leaders or if they are deranged or greedy is a different story all together.

Nationalism has precisely the same dangers.

Quote:But we see certain difference between people, like race, religion, sex, sexuality, political leanings, culture and traditions, Codes of Law, class, many things make people different, and those differences are an opportunity for leaders to drive a wedge and inspire people to turn against another category of people, like I said; more about security or resources that the leaders are concerned or ambitious for, not the Code of Law, but the Code of Law can be one of these mechanisms to drive the action.

And education is the cure.

Quote:So over all, real dangers are from those who have control over the resources to drive action, and I can tell you that a rich person is more of a threat than a poor organised religion, because the rich person has great resources but doesn't need to unite with anyone, that is their advantage. And I will say that being rich isn't inherently bad, just that the power can be used badly in the wrong hands, and there aren't always effective ways to stop deranged people from acquiring great resources, but therein lay the real problems that we have seen associated with organised religion, but we have to remember that racial and national incarnations of the same problem were used by Nazis, and that was worse, but also we have seen Communism and Capitalism which is related to class structure but has its share of the same problem in history.

And every other power group ever.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-08-2014, 07:35 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 07:40 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(21-08-2014 06:01 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  This is not a discussion about the validity of Faith or beliefs, this is a clarification of definition, something I'm sure the dictionary doesn't tell you, but the dictionary also tells you that Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods, that isn't true either; Atheism is the absence of belief in God/gods, not a disbelief, because disbelief means something is true but one doesn't accept it, this is a gross misconception of the definition of Atheism, and this is an attempt to also point out the dictionary misconception of definition for the term religion.

Now; when you use the term religion you are not referring to the spiritual content of an organised religion, you are referring to its Code of Law that the organisation is based on. Religion is related to the Hammurabi constitution, technically the constitution of a nation is religious in nature, technically the rules and regulations that govern the Boy Scouts makes it a religion. The word religion is actually quite broad, but cultural evolution has made it take on a new meaning, and that is related to the spiritual content that often accompanies the Code of Law.

The danger of an organised religion is that it unites people under a common flag, although "religions" are mostly divided into denominations that distance themselves from each other, but when you have people united they can pool resources and can pose a threat if the leaders of that organisation decide to use those resources for such ends. But leadership tends to use fear and desire tactics to drive action, and I am not talking just about organised religions, I am talking about ANY group of united peoples.

An example is, the leader can say to people "These barbarians are going to kill you and take all you have" or "These people want to force you to convert" so the threat an enemy that the leader describes is a way to drive people to fight a war, it doesn't relate to the actual Code of Law much, if at all. So leaders by way of security or the need for resources will want to wage war, and their trusted position means convincing people to do this is an advantage, if they are actually good leaders or if they are deranged or greedy is a different story all together.

But we see certain difference between people, like race, religion, sex, sexuality, political leanings, culture and traditions, Codes of Law, class, many things make people different, and those differences are an opportunity for leaders to drive a wedge and inspire people to turn against another category of people, like I said; more about security or resources that the leaders are concerned or ambitious for, not the Code of Law, but the Code of Law can be one of these mechanisms to drive the action.

So over all, real dangers are from those who have control over the resources to drive action, and I can tell you that a rich person is more of a threat than a poor organised religion, because the rich person has great resources but doesn't need to unite with anyone, that is their advantage. And I will say that being rich isn't inherently bad, just that the power can be used badly in the wrong hands, and there aren't always effective ways to stop deranged people from acquiring great resources, but therein lay the real problems that we have seen associated with organised religion, but we have to remember that racial and national incarnations of the same problem were used by Nazis, and that was worse, but also we have seen Communism and Capitalism which is related to class structure but has its share of the same problem in history.

......

Clarify for me, please, what distinction (if any) you draw between the concept of a thing's meaning to you, and the concept of its true meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
Consider There is a point here in the OP's post somewhere, damned if I can find it, but there must be....

[Image: 2iql3y1.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2014, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 08:18 PM by Ray Butler.)
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(21-08-2014 06:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:01 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  This is not a discussion about the validity of Faith or beliefs, this is a clarification of definition, something I'm sure the dictionary doesn't tell you, but the dictionary also tells you that Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods, that isn't true either; Atheism is the absence of belief in God/gods, not a disbelief, because disbelief means something is true but one doesn't accept it, this is a gross misconception of the definition of Atheism, and this is an attempt to also point out the dictionary misconception of definition for the term religion.

What dictionary are you using?

The Oxford English Dictionary says:
atheism
Syllabification: a·the·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈāTHēˌizəm
noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (Emphasis added)

Quote:Now; when you use the term religion you are not referring to the spiritual content of an organised religion, you are referring to its Code of Law that the organisation is based on. Religion is related to the Hammurabi constitution, technically the constitution of a nation is religious in nature, technically the rules and regulations that govern the Boy Scouts makes it a religion. The word religion is actually quite broad, but cultural evolution has made it take on a new meaning, and that is related to the spiritual content that often accompanies the Code of Law.

Maybe you aren't. When I refer to religion it is all of that - beliefs, dogma, organization, and people.

Quote:The danger of an organised religion is that it unites people under a common flag, although "religions" are mostly divided into denominations that distance themselves from each other, but when you have people united they can pool resources and can pose a threat if the leaders of that organisation decide to use those resources for such ends. But leadership tends to use fear and desire tactics to drive action, and I am not talking just about organised religions, I am talking about ANY group of united peoples.

There is also the danger of magical irrational thinking that will drive behavior.

Quote:An example is, the leader can say to people "These barbarians are going to kill you and take all you have" or "These people want to force you to convert" so the threat an enemy that the leader describes is a way to drive people to fight a war, it doesn't relate to the actual Code of Law much, if at all. So leaders by way of security or the need for resources will want to wage war, and their trusted position means convincing people to do this is an advantage, if they are actually good leaders or if they are deranged or greedy is a different story all together.

Nationalism has precisely the same dangers.

Quote:But we see certain difference between people, like race, religion, sex, sexuality, political leanings, culture and traditions, Codes of Law, class, many things make people different, and those differences are an opportunity for leaders to drive a wedge and inspire people to turn against another category of people, like I said; more about security or resources that the leaders are concerned or ambitious for, not the Code of Law, but the Code of Law can be one of these mechanisms to drive the action.

And education is the cure.

Quote:So over all, real dangers are from those who have control over the resources to drive action, and I can tell you that a rich person is more of a threat than a poor organised religion, because the rich person has great resources but doesn't need to unite with anyone, that is their advantage. And I will say that being rich isn't inherently bad, just that the power can be used badly in the wrong hands, and there aren't always effective ways to stop deranged people from acquiring great resources, but therein lay the real problems that we have seen associated with organised religion, but we have to remember that racial and national incarnations of the same problem were used by Nazis, and that was worse, but also we have seen Communism and Capitalism which is related to class structure but has its share of the same problem in history.

And every other power group ever.

Yes, I don't know how to reply in an organised manner like that but I think you see what I'm driving at. "Lack of belief" certainly covers it, some dictionaries are more specific than others, I just don't like them implying "disbelief" because when you stare at something in disbelief it means it is happening but you find it hard to accept. I think the term "disbelief" panders to believers, a loophole that serves their interests, not the interests of pragmatism.

This second comment is exactly my point; the Code of Law defines religion in essence, but people use religion to broadly cover spiritual attributes, albeit a lot of religions have service to (g)God(s) in their Code of Law, religion is a broad definition but it isn't broad in that specific way. An example is how Moses parting the Red Sea is a spiritual belief, but it isn't part of the Code of Law, so by technical terms parting the Red Sea isn't referred to when you call Judaism a religion, although culture now has altered definition to imply it.

Yes; the inability to accept facts discovered because of a dogmatic teaching is a danger, but I'd argue that knowledge is power, people who refuse to accept verifiable knowledge are not creating a position of authority for themselves.

Yes, I was referring to leaders in general.

Absolutely education is the key, and part of education is seeing things for what they are...well that may be all of what education is.

Yes, that is what I am implying; any group with competitive and even ruthless aggression for the sake of growth and strength, rather than passively innovating by exploration and discovery
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:52 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(21-08-2014 07:35 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:01 PM)Ray Butler Wrote:  This is not a discussion about the validity of Faith or beliefs, this is a clarification of definition, something I'm sure the dictionary doesn't tell you, but the dictionary also tells you that Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods, that isn't true either; Atheism is the absence of belief in God/gods, not a disbelief, because disbelief means something is true but one doesn't accept it, this is a gross misconception of the definition of Atheism, and this is an attempt to also point out the dictionary misconception of definition for the term religion.

Now; when you use the term religion you are not referring to the spiritual content of an organised religion, you are referring to its Code of Law that the organisation is based on. Religion is related to the Hammurabi constitution, technically the constitution of a nation is religious in nature, technically the rules and regulations that govern the Boy Scouts makes it a religion. The word religion is actually quite broad, but cultural evolution has made it take on a new meaning, and that is related to the spiritual content that often accompanies the Code of Law.

The danger of an organised religion is that it unites people under a common flag, although "religions" are mostly divided into denominations that distance themselves from each other, but when you have people united they can pool resources and can pose a threat if the leaders of that organisation decide to use those resources for such ends. But leadership tends to use fear and desire tactics to drive action, and I am not talking just about organised religions, I am talking about ANY group of united peoples.

An example is, the leader can say to people "These barbarians are going to kill you and take all you have" or "These people want to force you to convert" so the threat an enemy that the leader describes is a way to drive people to fight a war, it doesn't relate to the actual Code of Law much, if at all. So leaders by way of security or the need for resources will want to wage war, and their trusted position means convincing people to do this is an advantage, if they are actually good leaders or if they are deranged or greedy is a different story all together.

But we see certain difference between people, like race, religion, sex, sexuality, political leanings, culture and traditions, Codes of Law, class, many things make people different, and those differences are an opportunity for leaders to drive a wedge and inspire people to turn against another category of people, like I said; more about security or resources that the leaders are concerned or ambitious for, not the Code of Law, but the Code of Law can be one of these mechanisms to drive the action.

So over all, real dangers are from those who have control over the resources to drive action, and I can tell you that a rich person is more of a threat than a poor organised religion, because the rich person has great resources but doesn't need to unite with anyone, that is their advantage. And I will say that being rich isn't inherently bad, just that the power can be used badly in the wrong hands, and there aren't always effective ways to stop deranged people from acquiring great resources, but therein lay the real problems that we have seen associated with organised religion, but we have to remember that racial and national incarnations of the same problem were used by Nazis, and that was worse, but also we have seen Communism and Capitalism which is related to class structure but has its share of the same problem in history.

......

Clarify for me, please, what distinction (if any) you draw between the concept of a thing's meaning to you, and the concept of its true meaning.

Meaning that gives us more insight into the nature of the substantial object in question, not the concept of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 08:13 PM by Ray Butler.)
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(21-08-2014 07:45 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Consider There is a point here in the OP's post somewhere, damned if I can find it, but there must be....

[Image: 2iql3y1.jpg]

The point is I'm discussing the nature of power, and organisations that support leadership authority and why, not just using a word as a vague umbrella for problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
The reason religion exists is more important to focus on. When you understand evolution it becomes clear as to why humans invent them and center their lives around them.

Many species of life, including primates, which humans are related to, evolved to form groups. That group survival provides opportunity for more offspring. Humans also evolved to seek patterns. The flaw in our evolution is that more often than not in seeking those patterns we are flawed in our perception.

Religion is our species childish ignorance of our own natural behavior due to our false perceptions.

The ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years centering their group survival around the polytheistic gods they thought brought them their fortune and survival. But none of those polytheistic gods were real.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
(23-08-2014 12:50 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  The reason religion exists is more important to focus on. When you understand evolution it becomes clear as to why humans invent them and center their lives around them.

Many species of life, including primates, which humans are related to, evolved to form groups. That group survival provides opportunity for more offspring. Humans also evolved to seek patterns. The flaw in our evolution is that more often than not in seeking those patterns we are flawed in our perception.

Religion is our species childish ignorance of our own natural behavior due to our false perceptions.

The ancient Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years centering their group survival around the polytheistic gods they thought brought them their fortune and survival. But none of those polytheistic gods were real.

We are primates. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: The True Meaning of Religion
My 2c worth...

The "true meaning" of religion is the control of the little people and their money by those in charge and priests.

This is the underlying dominant theme in all religions from Judaism right through to Scientology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: